I'll be at the Gay Pride Parade 2010!

[Michael Hardner]

Implied in the same sense as the title Gay Pride Parade implies gays are proud to be prancing down the street bare-assed. You don't think they actually represent all gays, do you? Yet that's the implication.

And yes you have a right to dismiss them, just as people have the right to dismiss Gay Pride. There's really not much difference.

By the same token, one can support equal rights for gays and not support the Gay Pride Parade, or support their tax money going towards it.

And for the record, the city is edging away from having Pride be a homosexual event. It's now being promoted as a festival for everyone, including "allies" which is code for straight people:

Pride Mission Statement

[Wilber]

Public money goes to all kinds of large public events and all kinds of groups - however you want to define that.

It's about the money and the votes. The money comes in the form of tourist money (lots of it) and hotel tax money to the city (lots of it).

If you want to take money and the human element out of the equation, submit an alternative such as "no funding to any groups or events".

We all have our opinions of what should be supported and what shouldn't and I don't think public money should go to groups to celebrate sexual orientation of any kind. Everyone is a sexual being of some sort, what makes one group so special they are entitled to public funds in order to have a party? I don't have a problem with them doing it and am not offended by it, quite the contrary, I just don't think it is a place for public money.

[Guest American Woman]

I question the public nudity. I just don't see the need for it. I don't think nudity has to be a part of "pride," and I don't think the government/tax dollars need to be supporting it.

[Wilber]

Well, if you want to go that way, no money should ever go to a celebration of ay kind. I don't think a celebration of sexual orientation is any different.

Then all sexual orientations should be equally supported. I'm sure you could find people out there who would put on a straight pride celebration if they were given equal access to the public purse. Perish the thought.

Edited March 7, 2010 by Wilber

[Peter F]

I'll probably take out an ad in the papers as well, pointing to where they can view the evidence...we'll see.

yah. "Go to Gaysgonewild.com to view"

[Wild Bill]

Implied in the same sense as the title Gay Pride Parade implies gays are proud to be prancing down the street bare-assed. You don't think they actually represent all gays, do you? Yet that's the implication.

And yes you have a right to dismiss them, just as people have the right to dismiss Gay Pride. There's really not much difference.

By the same token, one can support equal rights for gays and not support the Gay Pride Parade, or support their tax money going towards it.

Exactly right, AW! Mr. Canada might not realize it but the tone of his writing does suggest that the excesses of the Gay Pride parade are supported by ALl gays! This of course is a logical fallacy.

It's one thing to be gay. It's quite another to be publicly lewd and crude. Straight people can be lewd and crude as well but the difference is that usually if they do it in public they are charged or at least made to stop. Somehow gays in a parade receive some sort of immunity. One this one fact Mr. Canada has a valid point.

I can't remember the author but there's a great quote that says "The love that once dared not speak its name is now the love that just won't shut up!"

[M.Dancer]

I'll be there, looking for public sexual acts. I'll then edit the video and put it up online. I'll link it back here for all to see. Who knows maybe some poeple from here will recognize me. I'll be the guy filming the live sex shows that go on at the parade.

I may try to recruit people in my area .

I should be fairly easy to spot, if you do don't be shy.

Come and say hi Mr.Canada!

Just sayin'.....

[DrGreenthumb]

It's one thing to be gay. It's quite another to be publicly lewd and crude. Straight people can be lewd and crude as well but the difference is that usually if they do it in public they are charged or at least made to stop. Somehow gays in a parade receive some sort of immunity. One this one fact Mr. Canada has a valid point.

You mean like Mardis Gras? Yes I'm sure straight lewdness is never acceptable. I have never seen ANY women ever expose themselves at a rock concert. I actually kind of enjoy that kind of lewdness, lol. And BTW women have a constitutional right to go topless according to the courts and I FULLY support them in that. I think they should assert their rights more often to make sure they don't lose them, lol

LMFAO! Mr Canada the gay porn producer, priceless. You gonna get a chubby when reviewing those tapes for evidence there sport?

[Guest American Woman]

You mean like Mardis Gras? Yes I'm sure straight lewdness is never acceptable. I have never seen ANY women ever expose themselves at a rock concert. I actually kind of enjoy that kind of lewdness, lol. And BTW women have a constitutional right to go topless according to the courts and I FULLY support them in that. I think they should assert their rights more often to make sure they don't lose them, lol

There's a difference between "nude" and women exposing their breasts, so while women have a constitutional right to go topless, neither men nor women have the right, constitutional or otherwise, to go completely nude in public.

Edited to add:

What You Can Get Away With

During Mardi Gras you’re bound to get an eye full. Public nudity and public sex is not allowed and the obscenity laws are still on the books. You need to use your better judgement on this stuff. It is possible to get into trouble by showing too much when you "bargain" for beads, and again, people who are arrested, sit in jail until the courts re-open after Mardi Gras, which will cost you much more than $200.

link

Edited March 7, 2010 by American Woman

[DrGreenthumb]

There's a difference between "nude" and women exposing their breasts, so while women have a constitutional right to go topless, neither men nor women have the right, constitutional or otherwise, to go completely nude in public.

There is a public beach here in Manitoba where you can go as nude as you please. I'm sure there are more in every province with water. Why are people so hung up on nudity? What's the big deal, its just a human body.

[DrGreenthumb]

Edited to add:

What You Can Get Away With

During Mardi Gras you’re bound to get an eye full. Public nudity and public sex is not allowed and the obscenity laws are still on the books. You need to use your better judgement on this stuff. It is possible to get into trouble by showing too much when you "bargain" for beads, and again, people who are arrested, sit in jail until the courts re-open after Mardi Gras, which will cost you much more than $200.

link

Rubbish! I've seen plenty of footage of people having sex in the streets during Mardis Gras. You are unlikely to be charged with anything unless you are overly intoxicated and acting violently. The laws are still on the books banning sex acts during pride parades too, it is exactly the same thing as Mardis Gras. Rarely enforced unless someone gets way out of hand and poses a safety risk.

[Guest American Woman]

There is a public beach here in Manitoba where you can go as nude as you please. I'm sure there are more in every province with water. Why are people so hung up on nudity? What's the big deal, its just a human body.

I thought it would be obvious I wasn't talking about nude beaches or nudist colonies. Fact is, you can't go nude on any beach you please; only where it's specified that you can. So when I say "public," that's what I'm referring to. To clarify further, one does not have the right, consitituional or otherwise, to go as nude as they please down the streets of Toronto.

Edited March 7, 2010 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

Rubbish! I've seen plenty of footage of people having sex in the streets during Mardis Gras. You are unlikely to be charged with anything unless you are overly intoxicated and acting violently. The laws are still on the books banning sex acts during pride parades too, it is exactly the same thing as Mardis Gras. Rarely enforced unless someone gets way out of hand and poses a safety risk.

How did the issue of nudity become having sex?

I've talking about what takes place in daylight, on the streets of Toronto, in the parade. I've been referring to "nude," not "having sex."

So I won't even get into what you've seen footage of, as to whether or not it was right out in the open, which I don't believe it was; and you'll have to pardon me if I don't take your word regarding what someone is "likely or unlikely" to get away with. Obviously if there's no cop around, they'll get away with it. In a parade, with the public lining the streets watching, it's a different situation. Obviously they are being allowed to get away with it in the Gay Pride Parade.

To put it another way: Of course underage kids drink, too, and get away with it if they aren't caught. But they wouldn't be able to march down a major public street in a parade, drinking in full view of everyone, and get away with it.

That's the difference between nudity in the Gay Pride Parade and the footage you have seen.

[DrGreenthumb]

How did the issue of nudity become having sex?

I've talking about what takes place in daylight, on the streets of Toronto, in the parade. I've been referring to "nude," not "having sex."

So I won't even get into what you've seen footage of, as to whether or not it was right out in the open, which I don't believe it was; and you'll have to pardon me if I don't take your word regarding what someone is "likely or unlikely" to get away with. Obviously if there's no cop around, they'll get away with it. In a parade, with the public lining the streets watching, it's a different situation. Obviously they are being allowed to get away with it in the Gay Pride Parade.

To put it another way: Of course underage kids drink, too, and get away with it if they aren't caught. But they wouldn't be able to march down a major public street in a parade, drinking in full view of everyone, and get away with it.

That's the difference between nudity in the Gay Pride Parade and the footage you have seen.

I guess I just don't suffer from the hangups some people have about the human body and sexuality. I could care less if they had a float going down the street featuring a live orgy. If people don't like it, stay home and read their bibles and pray for the sinners. They are not hurting anyone with their behavior.

[Guest American Woman]

I guess I just don't suffer from the hangups some people have about the human body and sexuality. I could care less if they had a float going down the street featuring a live orgy. If people don't like it, stay home and read their bibles and pray for the sinners. They are not hurting anyone with their behavior.

They're breaking the law with their behavior. One doesn't have to have a "hang up" about the human body and sexuality to not want it in their face; and in case you're truly unaware of it, there's a helluva lotta gray area between "being ok with a public orgy" and "reading the Bible and praying for sinners."

[Michael Hardner]

We all have our opinions of what should be supported and what shouldn't and I don't think public money should go to groups to celebrate sexual orientation of any kind. Everyone is a sexual being of some sort, what makes one group so special they are entitled to public funds in order to have a party? I don't have a problem with them doing it and am not offended by it, quite the contrary, I just don't think it is a place for public money.

As I said above, the festival is now for 'allies' as well. There is no way that there are that many gay people in Toronto, anyway.

[Michael Hardner]

It's one thing to be gay. It's quite another to be publicly lewd and crude. Straight people can be lewd and crude as well but the difference is that usually if they do it in public they are charged or at least made to stop. Somehow gays in a parade receive some sort of immunity. One this one fact Mr. Canada has a valid point.

He would have a point if there were some basis for his accusations.

As I said, I haven't seen anything like what he's talking about. To top it off, he seems to say that he's seen several if not many acts carried out in public.

[Sir Bandelot]

If people don't like it, stay home and read their bibles and pray for the sinners.

I think you've got that one completely ass-backwards. They should be the ones who stay at home, where they can have all the fun they want as consenting adults, behind closed doors. Anyone should be able to walk down a public street with their family, grandparents and kids, without being offended by acts of public lewdness and promiscuity. The message they are sending with their "anything goes" hedonistic lifestyle is already proven to lead to the spread of some very nasty diseases.

Young children are not mentally developed yet to be exposed to watching acts of sexuality. It is considered harmful to their development. I'm sure most normal people wouldn't advocate child pornography, despite some who might assert it is "not harming anyone".

[Guest American Woman]

I think you've got that one completely ass-backwards. They should be the ones who stay at home, where they can have all the fun they want as consenting adults, behind closed doors. Anyone should be able to walk down a public street with their family, grandparents and kids, without being offended by acts of public lewdness and promiscuity. The message they are sending with their "anything goes" hedonistic lifestyle is already proven to lead to the spread of some very nasty diseases.

The same goes for nudity, and I've seen proof of that. I'm not referring to just bare butts, I'm talking full out nudity. I don't care to sit on a bench where someone had their bare butt and I sure wouldn't want my children to. There's a reason for 'no shirt, no shoes, no service.' I sure don't care to have people's bare bottoms all over public places.

Young children are not mentally developed yet to be exposed to watching acts of sexuality. It is considered harmful to their development. I'm sure most normal people wouldn't advocate child pornography, despite some who might assert it is "not harming anyone".

I don't think kids need to see a bunch of nude adults marching down the street, either; it's against the law, and therefore should not be allowed, much less partially funded by the government.

[DrGreenthumb]

I still think it's hilarious that Mr Canada wants to videotape the "acts" in question so that he can take them home to his closet for repeat viewing, er evidence collection.

[Wilber]

As I said above, the festival is now for 'allies' as well. There is no way that there are that many gay people in Toronto, anyway.

Allies of what? It's still about the same thing. I'm not against it, just paying for it.

Edited March 7, 2010 by Wilber

[Michael Hardner]

Allies of what? It's still about the same thing. I'm not against it, just paying for it.

Then the festival is for you too. You're an ally and one of the people the festival is for.

Do you really think Toronto has one million gay people ?

[eyeball]

He would have a point if there were some basis for his accusations.

As I said, I haven't seen anything like what he's talking about. To top it off, he seems to say that he's seen several if not many acts carried out in public.

Goofy as it seems I guess we have to conclude that holding hands or bumping, grinding and kissing etc constitute grotesque public sexual acts to him. I mean lets cut to the chase here, if Mr Canada was Islamic the women in his family would be circumcised and dressed in Burqas.

[Michael Hardner]

Goofy as it seems I guess we have to conclude that holding hands or bumping, grinding and kissing etc constitute grotesque public sexual acts to him. I mean lets cut to the chase here, if Mr Canada was Islamic the women in his family would be circumcised and dressed in Burqas.

He knows a lot about it so I can't argue, I guess.

[kimmy]

There is something implied in the the acronym though, don't you think?

Sure. "A R.E.A.L Woman's place is in the home." They're a bunch of 18th century tea-grannies who advocate an ultraconservative position on every issue. They once claimed that Marc Lepine may have massacred the women at Ecole Polytechnique because his girlfriend had an abortion... later retracted the claim when they were forced to concede that they didn't actually know whether Lepine even had a girlfriend, let alone one who'd had an abortion. If they claimed the sky was blue, I'd want independent photographic evidence with timestamps and GPS coordinates before I accepted the claim. If they claim that gay pride parades are known for public sex acts, well, I guess we'll have to wait for Mr C's documentary video.

By the same token, one can support equal rights for gays and not support the Gay Pride Parade, or support their tax money going towards it.

And yet there are those who do equate opposition to Pride parades as hatred of homosexuals. It's implicit in arguments like "if Stephen Harper isn't a homophobe, then why won't he go to the Pride Parade?" and it's explicit in a lot of the debates around Pride parades.

Personally I've never been to one, but conduct I've seen on video and photograph strikes me as juvenile and ridiculous. I think that there may be a historical explanation... a desire to shock, offend, and outrage straight-laced folks once upon a time, to draw attention to their cause. But I'm skeptical that it's of any benefit to the gay community at this point in time. It makes the paraders look like a bunch of clowns, more than anything.

-k