Liberal Gay agenda once again pushed on the mayor!

huh · April 17, 2012

It's ok for obscene heterosexuality to grace the covers of magazines, be all over television, be shown on the silver screen, and adorn advertisements in stores. The public display of obscene heterosexual behaviour is on display constantly. Yet, people are up in arms when there's any show of homosexual behaviours whether obscene or not. Even progressively-minded people will say things like, "I don't like any public displays of affection," without even considering that public display of hetero-eroticism are everywhere constantly. We don't even notice them anymore, but are repulsed by homo-eroticism.

You know i dont care about this issue, some people are gay, whatever, i dont see why it matters, but tell me, how many times do you see hetero sexual couples walking the streets naked, performing mock sex acts, sometimes real ones, or riding on a parade float wearing assless chaps or some other outfit? You see that is the real problem here, not that people are gay, but that the rest of us are told we have to look upon this behavior as acceptable because it comes from the gay community, and they cannot be criticized, not without behind labeled a bigot anyway. You can't tell me that on the one hand an aspect of our being such as reproduction, something so ingrained, can be corrupted such that you go the opposite direction and in the same breathe tell me that aside from that the people on those parade floats are completely normal in every other way. I bet there are many, many, homosexuals who wouldn't take part or behave like that in public, they have more sense than that.

bleeding heart · April 17, 2012

How many sexually infused images in the media are genuine? And how important is the sincerity of the image? I think the point is that there are depictions of homosexuality that are now commonly accepted by the "straight" majority, which just further reveals the irrationality and hypocricy of many in the "gays are gross" crowd.

Yes, that's a fair point. I agree. I will add (though I reiterate that I agree with you) that female-female sexuality has never received the lion's share of primal disgust.

I wonder if, at bottom, the felt repulsion so many feel (even many inclined to be politically sympathetic) has something to do with the Great Taboo of the "feminized" male. Something about this drives people genuinely and absolutely batty.

Topaz · April 17, 2012

You know what I think, and I could be wrong, but MEN have more problems with the Gay issue than women. If the mayor was a woman, she would be there, after all when you are a mayor, premier or PM, you are for All.

g_bambino · April 17, 2012

You know what I think, and I could be wrong, but MEN have more problems with the Gay issue than women.

In contemporary Western society, that may well be true.

after all when you are a mayor, premier or PM, you are for All.

No, you're there for the voters who supported/support you.

g_bambino · April 17, 2012

I wonder if, at bottom, the felt repulsion so many feel (even many inclined to be politically sympathetic) has something to do with the Great Taboo of the "feminized" male. Something about this drives people genuinely and absolutely batty.

I think it's a little more complex than that (identity politics is a big factor, also), but what you mention does seem like a big part of the overall matter.

jacee · April 17, 2012

... but tell me, how many times do you see hetero sexual couples walking the streets naked, performing mock sex acts, sometimes real ones, or riding on a parade float wearing assless chaps or some other outfit?

Such claims have been refuted repeatedly on here.

Please back such claims up with evidence.

I've been to Pride and I've never seen full nudity or sex in public.

Assless chaps? Sure.

Ever been to Caribana?

Nobody complains when women wear "assless" thong costumes.

Mock sex? Dry humping is called dancing these days. Check any bar/dancefloor.

It's a parade, fercrissakes!

Don't like it? Don't go!

But if you're the Mayor, be prepared to be skewered if you don't make an appearance.

That's just politics, and that's his choice.

Edited April 17, 2012 by jacee

Boges · April 17, 2012

Yes, that's a fair point. I agree. I will add (though I reiterate that I agree with you) that female-female sexuality has never received the lion's share of primal disgust.

I wonder if, at bottom, the felt repulsion so many feel (even many inclined to be politically sympathetic) has something to do with the Great Taboo of the "feminized" male. Something about this drives people genuinely and absolutely batty.

I think the fact that hetrosexual males find no problem with female-female sexual imagery but have a problem viewing make on male-male only reveals that someone's reluctance to participate in the Pride Parade has nothing to do with homophobia (hatred for homosexuals) and has everything to do with the tastes of that individual male.

It's not political at all. And to accuse anyone that would prefer not to see male-male imagery as homophobic is totally counter-productive to the cause and puts people's backs up more than anything.

BTW Game of Thrones this week had a male-male scene in it. Not my favourite scene of the episode, I could have done without that, am I homophobic now because of it?

Edited April 17, 2012 by Boges

msj · April 17, 2012

Nobody complains when women wear "assless" thong costumes.

Those are called "bikinis" and I'm certainly not going to complain.

Black Dog · April 17, 2012

I think the fact that hetrosexual males find no problem with female-female sexual imagery but have a problem viewing make on male-male only reveals that someone's reluctance to participate in the Pride Parade has nothing to do with homophobia (hatred for homosexuals) and has everything to do with the tastes of that individual male.

It's not political at all. And to accuse anyone that would prefer not to see male-male imagery as homophobic is totally counter-productive to the cause and puts people's backs up more than anything.

BTW Game of Thrones this week had a male-male scene in it. Not my favourite scene of the episode, I could have done without that, am I homophobic now because of it?

Of course it's homophobic. Now it's not "God Hates Fags" homophobic, but there's definitely some of the same motivations at work there.

Boges · April 17, 2012

Of course it's homophobic. Now it's not "God Hates Fags" homophobic, but there's definitely some of the same motivations at work there.

So there isn't an agreed upon definition of homophobia. :blink:

So would you call someone who doesn't want to see hardcore hetrosexual pornography hetrophobic?

Black Dog · April 17, 2012

So there isn't an agreed upon definition of homophobia.

It's a continuum you know.

cybercoma · April 17, 2012

Oh. I think I see now; he was using the word ironically?

Yeah, sorry. Forgot the quotes around it. We don't consider hypersexualized heterosexual images to be obscene, while even the remotest form of homosexuality is considered obscenity by some.

I posted this article awhile ago and it's about the hypersexualization of women on the cover of Rolling Stone. Forget that actual argument for the purpose of this discussion. I'm merely trying to illustrate the fact that you can see overt heterosexuality on display going through the checkout at the grocery store. You can't really say the same for homosexuality.

Just take a look at the images they present:

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/12/30/gender-sexualization-and-rolling-stone/

I can't wrap my head around a flamboyantly homosexual celebrity adorning the cover of a magazine in a sexually provocative way without it resulting in some huge uproar.

cybercoma · April 17, 2012

You know i dont care about this issue, some people are gay, whatever, i dont see why it matters, but tell me, how many times do you see hetero sexual couples walking the streets naked, performing mock sex acts, sometimes real ones, or riding on a parade float wearing assless chaps or some other outfit? You see that is the real problem here, not that people are gay, but that the rest of us are told we have to look upon this behavior as acceptable because it comes from the gay community, and they cannot be criticized, not without behind labeled a bigot anyway. You can't tell me that on the one hand an aspect of our being such as reproduction, something so ingrained, can be corrupted such that you go the opposite direction and in the same breathe tell me that aside from that the people on those parade floats are completely normal in every other way. I bet there are many, many, homosexuals who wouldn't take part or behave like that in public, they have more sense than that.

I have two words for you: Mardi Gras.

If you don't like those two words, then I've got another set: Spring Break.

Edited April 17, 2012 by cybercoma

Michael Hardner · April 17, 2012

Get off it. That's a cop out response. I provided one reference for you personally. There are tons of examples so don't discount fact with dismissal. On another forum there were dozens of examples shown. I certainly have no desire to look them up for nay sayers.

I *gave* you a chance already to provide the examples. The hit piece on that website provided something like 60 images, with a grand total of ONE with questionable taste. Congratulations. Now you say there are tons of examples - why didn't you provide them when given the chance.

Now the issue. There's a parade that's not suitable for kids nor is it in keeping with many adults with morals against open nudity, dry 'humping' and grotesque portrayals of gays. Those I know or knew would not behave so. Some of the behavior is against our laws, OUR laws.

And I pointed out other examples that have a similar amount of debauchery. Are you so PC that you would cancel all parades, celebrations because a few are *offended* ?

The parade is a chance for Ford to make peace with the mainstream downtown Toronto liberal. He'd be stupid to pass that up, IMO. His hardcore right supporters will vote for him anyway, and he has the opportunity to garner a few MOR votes here.

cybercoma · April 17, 2012

I wonder if, at bottom, the felt repulsion so many feel (even many inclined to be politically sympathetic) has something to do with the Great Taboo of the "feminized" male. Something about this drives people genuinely and absolutely batty.

That's exactly what it is. Gay men are a threat to patriarchal dominance.

bleeding heart · April 17, 2012

I think the fact that hetrosexual males find no problem with female-female sexual imagery but have a problem viewing make on male-male only reveals that someone's reluctance to participate in the Pride Parade has nothing to do with homophobia (hatred for homosexuals) and has everything to do with the tastes of that individual male.

The homophobic tastes of that individual male.

As I've intimated, homophobia strikes much more intensely, more viscerally, for male-male sexuality than for female-female sexuality. That people have less of a problem with the latter doesn't mean that their views on the former are reasonable, "a matter of taste."

bleeding heart · April 17, 2012

Yeah, sorry. Forgot the quotes around it. We don't consider hypersexualized heterosexual images to be obscene, while even the remotest form of homosexuality is considered obscenity by some.

I posted this article awhile ago and it's about the hypersexualization of women on the cover of Rolling Stone. Forget that actual argument for the purpose of this discussion. I'm merely trying to illustrate the fact that you can see overt heterosexuality on display going through the checkout at the grocery store. You can't really say the same for homosexuality.

Just take a look at the images they present:

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/12/30/gender-sexualization-and-rolling-stone/

I can't wrap my head around a flamboyantly homosexual celebrity adorning the cover of a magazine in a sexually provocative way without it resulting in some huge uproar.

Absolutely. I think you've made your point here perfectly.

cybercoma · April 17, 2012

I should mention, I really dislike how easily people throw around the term homophobia. I suppose it's appropriate since there are people, in this thread even, that are quite obviously afraid of homosexuality. It worries them so much that they try to use the state apparatus to try to get rid of homosexuality.

Not everyone that's intolerant is afraid of homosexuality. Sometimes it's just overt hatred. It's cold and rational contempt. There's nothing phobic about that whatsoever. It's just pure ignorance.

Jack Weber · April 17, 2012

I should mention, I really dislike how easily people throw around the term homophobia. I suppose it's appropriate since there are people, in this thread even, that are quite obviously afraid of homosexuality. It worries them so much that they try to use the state apparatus to try to get rid of homosexuality.

Not everyone that's intolerant is afraid of homosexuality. Sometimes it's just overt hatred. It's cold and rational contempt. There's nothing phobic about that whatsoever. It's just pure ignorance.

Ah...So if one is not interested in the Gay Pride parade,or anything involved with that event,you may not be full of hate but you are ignorant?

cybercoma · April 17, 2012

Ah...So if one is not interested in the Gay Pride parade,or anything involved with that event,you may not be full of hate but you are ignorant?

A lot of what is being said in this thread goes well beyond simply having no interest in the parade.

Jack Weber · April 17, 2012

A lot of what is being said in this thread goes well beyond simply having no interest in the parade.

But if one isn't interested in this particular parade,presumably one isn't interested in the "subject matter",yes?

Does that make one a "homophobe" or simply "ignorant"?

Edited April 17, 2012 by Jack Weber

cybercoma · April 17, 2012

Jack, I clearly wasn't talking about people that are "disinterested." I clearly said those that are intolerant. Disinterest and intolerance are very different things.

bleeding heart · April 18, 2012

I should mention, I really dislike how easily people throw around the term homophobia. I suppose it's appropriate since there are people, in this thread even, that are quite obviously afraid of homosexuality. It worries them so much that they try to use the state apparatus to try to get rid of homosexuality.

Not everyone that's intolerant is afraid of homosexuality. Sometimes it's just overt hatred. It's cold and rational contempt. There's nothing phobic about that whatsoever. It's just pure ignorance.

A fair point. I believe, too, that like most ignorance, it's usually a curable neurosis.

Boges · April 18, 2012

A fair point. I believe, too, that like most ignorance, it's usually a curable neurosis.

So if you would prefer not to view male on male sexuality you're either a homophobe or ignorant?

There are many things I may choose not to view. What about certain forms of fetish porn? If I don't like seeing S and M scenes am I ignorant to that community?

I'm sorry man but opinions like that do more to hurt the cause of equality for homosexual than helps it.

Would you really consider someone who has no opposition to any of the equal rights homosexuals want to achieve but would prefer not to attend to the pride parade because the subject matter makes them uncomfortable a homophobe?

As to cybercomas point. The term homophobia is all encompassing term to silence someone's opinion. As proven already the term has a loose definition and can't be defined by simple fear of homosexuals.

Edited April 18, 2012 by Boges

bleeding heart · April 18, 2012

So if you would prefer not to view male on male sexuality you're either a homophobe or ignorant?

No. If you opine that male-on-male sexuality is somehow more obscene than heterosexuality, then you're ignorant.

There are many things I may choose not to view. What about certain forms of fetish porn? If I don't like seeing S and M scenes am I ignorant to that community?

Not at all.

I'm sorry man but opinions like that do more to hurt the cause of equality for homosexual than helps it.

You mean the opinions you asked if I had, and which I'm telling you I do not?

Would you really consider someone who has no opposition to any of the equal rights homosexuals want to achieve but would prefer not to attend to the pride parade because the subject matter makes them uncomfortable a homophobe?

No. Live and let live. As you've said, many people might find various types of sexual subject matter uncomfortable...including subject matter to which they personally enjoy. I'm not talking about general discomfort with sexual subject matter.

I'm talking about people who view homosexuality as abberant and obscene.

As to cybercomas point. The term homophobia is all encompassing term to silence someone's opinion. As proven already the term has a loose definition and can't be defined by simple fear of homosexuals.

And I agreed with cybercoma.