Councillor says Gays have 'Achieved Equality' in Toronto

[Gabriel]

Unfortunately I can't provide a link, as this comment was made by Kyle Rae this morning on CBC's Metro Morning with Andy Barrie.

My question is - do you agree with him ? I think it may be true in Toronto, but certainly not everywhere in Ontario.

I do appreciate the fact that Mr. Rae is celebrating the success of a social movement - saying how far we have come rather than how much farther we have to go. It seems to me that we actually don't have very much farther to go at all.

Hi there Michael,

I agree with the statement. Of course things will never be perfect, but the vast majority of people I know seem to accept gays as deserving equal rights like the rest of us. I've seen and met quite a few gays who didn't seem too subtle about their sexual orientation, which suggests to me that many feel comfortable enough to be open about these things. That's obviously a good thing. Of course gays can still be discriminated against, like any other group (including WASPs, believe it or not), and they've got protections under the CCRF to correct wrongs they may experience. We've got pretty gay TV shows, movies featuring gay protagonists, etc. We've definitely come a long way.

One thing I'd like to see disappear from our vernacular is the whole "that's gay" comment - with "gay" being synonymous with "lame". I never say it. I'm always surprised when I hear educated people use that phrase. Reminds me of people saying "that's Jewish" with respect to something they find as a poor value or a rip-off. It's just so ignorant. Once people stop saying "that's gay" I'll agree that equality's been reached :-)

With respect to overly out-there gays, yes that is definitely lame. Just like an overly macho dude or skanky chick. It reeks of insecurity and a desire for attention, it's just plain obnoxious. I'm certain some gays also play the whole "I'm being abused 'cuz I'm gay" card when they are inept or incompetent, but that's life. I bet the people who are most annoyed at that phenomenon are reasonable gays who don't want people exploiting any of their plight for equality. Anyways I'll stop rambling I think I've made my position clear.

[Gabriel]

So are you implying groups supported by AA, such as African-Americans, are inferior to others?

What the hell? Where the hell did that come from? Turn down your sensitivity meter and don't be a drama queen.

[Michael Hardner]

With respect to overly out-there gays, yes that is definitely lame. Just like an overly macho dude or skanky chick. It reeks of insecurity and a desire for attention, it's just plain obnoxious. I'm certain some gays also play the whole "I'm being abused 'cuz I'm gay" card when they are inept or incompetent, but that's life. I bet the people who are most annoyed at that phenomenon are reasonable gays who don't want people exploiting any of their plight for equality. Anyways I'll stop rambling I think I've made my position clear.

But... 'the gay way'... that... style of speaking - it is real. I know straight men who have that intonation as well. It just happens to be used by gay men more often.

[Gabriel]

But... 'the gay way'... that... style of speaking - it is real. I know straight men who have that intonation as well. It just happens to be used by gay men more often.

You mean trying to be effeminate and talking with a forced lisp? Why are you bringing that up?

[g_bambino]

As for my hypocracy..I just might be pro life in a big way..afer all we are in a heavenly state and there are those that do not realize that we are eternal and reborn - or incarnated..constantly..Living inside the miracle of human existance is astounding!

Ah, see, there's the sex equals only breeding stance you seem to hold. It, I think, is what forces you into hypocricy, constraining your beliefs so they accept only that men and women may engage in sex for the purpose of child-making. Of course, the primary purpose of sex is to procreate and the pleasure derived from the act is a biological incentive to perform it. However, sex need not always result in a baby; is self-satisfaction, non-penetrative sex, sex with an infertile individual, sex with one of your own gender, hell, even a wet dream, really such a sin? As we, and other animals, like dolphins and bonobo monkeys, are perfectly capable of doing all that, it hardly seems against the laws of nature. Only when one starts to layer pseudo-religious mysticism over sex do the limits start to form, and then, to remain intact, require one to say that some displays of sexuality are okay while others are not.

It's not just you who does this, Oleg; I see hypocrisy in bisexual women (hot as that is!) being draped with a Holy Grail-like sensuousness by a society driven by men who feign disgust at the idea of touching another man (yet, are okay with the sweaty, muscular embrace of UFC fighters!). There is hypocrisy in the devout followers of Gay exterminating by derision and ridicule any heterosexuality amongst the ranks while concurrently demanding the Straight clan treat them with equality and tolerance. Some displays of sexuality are acceptable, others are not.

The result seems to be extremism. So desperate do people become to show they belong to the "right" side that they compensate for their insecurities by becoming caricatures of themselves, acting the way they think they're expected to act, rather than the way one would in a more moderate, comfortable existence. That applies to both "sides" of this sexual divide we've constructed. Really, I think the vast majority would be much happier having a tacit, commonly accepted permission to explore whatever feelings or desires they have without fear of being pushed into or out of some odd club with strict rules of admission. It would seem such a liberation would result in more homosexual behaviour (certainly more visibility of the homosexual behaviour that presently goes on behind Straight facades), but also smaller Gay and Straight cliques, and, for you, Oleg, more procreative sex.

[Michael Hardner]

You mean trying to be effeminate and talking with a forced lisp? Why are you bringing that up?

I was referring to your post above, and your apparent distaste for those affectations.

[Gabriel]

I was referring to your post above, and your apparent distaste for those affectations.

Let me elaborate, as I didn't mean to express a distaste for stereotypically gay ways of speaking. When I said "overly out-there gays", I meant those gays that are much more overt about their sexuality than simply speaking with a lisp. It's basically me just being unimpressed with obnoxious people. Let me make it clear that this impression of mine isn't specific to gays, but people of all sexual orientations - and it is dependent on context. If I'm going to club, of course I'll expect (and HOPE!) to see come provocatively dressed ladies, y'knaw mean?! Outside of these types of environments, however, I have to wonder how insecure someone must be and/or how desperate for attention they must be when being so loud, in both behaviour and dress (again, this goes for folks of all sexualities).

[Michael Hardner]

Let me elaborate, as I didn't mean to express a distaste for stereotypically gay ways of speaking. When I said "overly out-there gays", I meant those gays that are much more overt about their sexuality than simply speaking with a lisp. It's basically me just being unimpressed with obnoxious people. Let me make it clear that this impression of mine isn't specific to gays, but people of all sexual orientations - and it is dependent on context. If I'm going to club, of course I'll expect (and HOPE!) to see come provocatively dressed ladies, y'knaw mean?! Outside of these types of environments, however, I have to wonder how insecure someone must be and/or how desperate for attention they must be when being so loud, in both behaviour and dress (again, this goes for folks of all sexualities).

If you're talking about obnoxious people then that's not germane to the topic at hand ? Or are you saying that gays are obnoxious ? Or that obnoxious gays are more obnoxious than "normal people" ? In short, what is your problem ?

[Gabriel]

If you're talking about obnoxious people then that's not germane to the topic at hand ? Or are you saying that gays are obnoxious ? Or that obnoxious gays are more obnoxious than "normal people" ? In short, what is your problem ?

I didn't say any of those things. I think you need to tone down your sensitivity radar, here. Since we're on the topic of gay equality, I assumed that the comfort levels of gay people with respect to their being open about their sexual orientation is something we can analyze in order to get a bearing of what degree of equality has been achieved by gay people in Toronto, and more broadly, in Canada. I think a natural extension of this is to discuss how gay people can wear their sexuality on their sleeves. I didn't think it was out-of-line to make the observations that some gay persons, just as some straight persons, are quite 'out there' with respect to their sexuality. Depending on the context, it's easily definable as being obnoxious. Does it bother me? Not really. Do I have more or less of an issue with it when compares to straight girls being too trampy or straight guys being too macho? Not at all. Did I suggest that gay folks are more likely to be sexually obnoxious that then straight counterparts? Nope, that was your own unfounded inference of my earlier posts.

When did I ever describe non-gays as "normal people", suggesting that gays are abnormal? Seems to me like you're on some homophobic witch hunt. Sorry to disappoint you, but I won't fulfill your desire to be the homophobic pinata that you wanna smash open - because I'm not homophobic.

Chill, brah! Anyways cheers.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Gabriel

[M.Dancer]

I prefer manly gays like Rock Hudson and k d lang...

[msdogfood]

Unfortunately I can't provide a link, as this comment was made by Kyle Rae this morning on CBC's Metro Morning with Andy Barrie.

My question is - do you agree with him ? I think it may be true in Toronto, but certainly not everywhere in Ontario.

I do appreciate the fact that Mr. Rae is celebrating the success of a social movement - saying how far we have come rather than how much farther we have to go. It seems to me that we actually don't have very much farther to go at all.

hmm i dont know about this!!

[Rue]

So are you implying groups supported by AA, such as African-Americans, are inferior to others?

????? You lost me with that. Wild Bill was simply saying if you followed his analogy he hates everyone equally so to speak, i.e., he has no problem with anyone and his objection is if someone wants their

interest group to get a special treatment no other interest group gets. It wasn't directed at gay interest groups but ANY interest group trying to have an unfair advantage.

How you came up with the above question is beyond me. If you are trying to pin the racist tag on the donkey its inappropriate.

[Rue]

Michael H to respond to your comments, I would have to defer to the gay

community and its people in Toronto to comment on where they are at. It

would be presumptious of me to know how they feel about community access

and services, etc.

As a non gay person I see gays having become a very open and important

political interest group on the municipal level having worked very hard

in their community to upgrade all kinds of programs and services but I have

no idea of knowing if it is as good or better then what would be available

in other communities.

I am not even sure whether an openly gay Mayoral candidate is a positive or negative

asset. Could it be if say Smitherman is elected Mayor, he will not want to be

seen as favouring gays any more then anyone else and maybe unintentionally over-

compensate by being less receptive then a straight Mayor? Who knows.

I am not even sure either whether token displays such as having a parade

are significant or not anymore in terms of measuring real power and influence?

I would like to think being able to get married is a credible indicator of equality.

The fact though is equality deals with human rights which is really federal or at times

provincial legislation not municipal. For example, a city can assure there is a

hospital receptive to the gay communities special needs, but if a gay partner is

not recognized as next of kin, which is a federal matter and provincial matter, I am

not sure how it can be said having access to a gay sensitive hospital means anything

as long as such an issue restricting access exists?

I think it is safe to say the gay community was at the forefront of speer heading

improved community services for health education and domestic assault and violence that

has promoted equality for aids patients whether they were straight or gay or people

being abused whether they are straight or gay.

Much of the so called achievement of equality for gays in Toronto has directly and positively

impacted on non gays as well.

I myself because of what I have witnessed from the gay community in municipal level politics

have come to see them as a vital community just like I would the Chinese or Irish or Italian

communities. I see them as a collective identity the way I do my "people", Jewish people.

I have always considered the gay community a major community that helped rebuild and shape

inner Toronto and cause a huge increase in property values and lowering of crime rates in their

neighbourhoods.

[GostHacked]

You mean trying to be effeminate and talking with a forced lisp? Why are you bringing that up?

I think Hardner was implying that gays say 'that's gay' or 'you are gay' more often than non gays. Just like black people calling each other nigger more often than whites calling black people nigger.

[Oleg Bach]

Oleg Hefner !

In other words, if you are smart - GET HORNY NOW ! It doesn't matter that your Star Trek references will be as alluring to the female gender as your tube sock stench...

As for the other part of your advice - the high-mindedness of older gents mating with younger nubile women - this is one argument you have articulated far better than any other of yours, and I suspect you have convinced many middle-aged men here that this is a good idea. Thank you.

I LOVE OLDER WOMAN- if they were beautiful when they were young they will still be class when they are old. BUT - when the uterus has turned to stone the heart has taken on the same density and texture..no offense old girls who were plain in youth and now ugly and bitter in old age..a man needs to be like a vampire - and he needs youth...once the dear old wife has lost her exuberance..time to cheat..but in a nice way ---- getting going ....use it or lose it...woman expect the man to give up sex because their breeding and loving years are over..

Not untill the devised the public school system where peers of the same age and opposite sex..meet and marry those of the same age..this is a new phenomena - a woman has to be at least 15 years younger - my mother was 15 and my father was 33 when they met. Under old orthodox Christian belief - a woman should at least be 7 year younger - NOW if you find yourself becoming sexually docile as a male it is because of the mind - not the body...funny how we imagine we are losing our sexuality when suddenly we perk up because interacting with some one younger and attractive - You don't need a pill boys - you need to sleep with mother nature.

[Oleg Bach]

THERE IS NO FOOL LIKE AN OLD FOOL - AND DAMN IT! I AM THAT FOOL.