Liberal Gay agenda once again pushed on the mayor!

[Guest American Woman]

Oh don't get me wrong: I don't really care if he goes or not. I just wish he'd have the courage of his convictions and not hide behind his "cottage" plans.

Actually, what you wish is that he'd have the courage of the convictions that you've assigned to him. - But of course it's so unusual for people to go with their family to their cottage over the Canada Day weekend, that it obviously is a ruse.

[Black Dog]

Actually, what you wish is that he'd have the courage of the convictions that you've assigned to him. - But of course it's so unusual for people to go with their family to their cottage over the Canada Day weekend, that it obviously is a ruse.

Well yes it is. Last year he had an entire week to turn up at an event. He skipped them all, even when he wasn't off crushing beers with Doug by the lake.

[g_bambino]

Oh don't get me wrong: I don't really care if he goes or not. I just wish he'd have the courage of his convictions and not hide behind his "cottage" plans.

Well, if he does indeed go to his cottage every year, then it's hard to say it's nothing more than a convenient cover story. It's not like he's attending any Canada Day events in the city that weekend, either.

[Black Dog]

Well, if he does indeed go to his cottage every year, then it's hard to say it's nothing more than a convenient cover story. It's not like he's attending any Canada Day events in the city that weekend, either.

Again: last year he was in the city for much of the week of Pride. And he blew it off.

[g_bambino]

Again: last year he was in the city for much of the week of Pride. And he blew it off.

Okay. But, what other events are there that would be appropriate for the mayor to attend? Many (all?) of the events that take place during the week around the parade are third party, as well.

[Guest American Woman]

Again: last year he was in the city for much of the week of Pride. And he blew it off.

So what? It's mainly "entertainment," not "political." It doesn't even represent "the gay community." Why would he be obligated to attend? I'm sure there's lots of entertainment in Toronto that he doesn't take in.

[cybercoma]

So what? It's mainly "entertainment," not "political."

Why? Because you think it is? It's political and it has already been pointed out in this thread why.

[Guest American Woman]

Why? Because you think it is? It's political and it has already been pointed out in this thread why.

This is why: "Over the years as homosexuality has become more accepted, the political aspect has diminished, replaced by the entertainment aspect..."

As I said, this parade does not represent the "gay community." One can totally support gay rights and not find this parade to be their type of entertainment. Furthermore, Canada's government has already recognized gay rights; a "political" statement at this time is not necessary.

Edited April 19, 2012 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

Seeing how homosexuality is not widely accepted and the parade is about gay rights, you're wrong on both accounts. It's a political parade and it's about the entire gay community and their rights.

[Guest American Woman]

Seeing how homosexuality is not widely accepted and the parade is about gay rights, you're wrong on both accounts. It's a political parade and it's about the entire gay community and their rights.

That's merely your opinion. Others don't see it that way. Others see it as more of an entertainment factor. As I said, the Canadian government has already recognized their rights. The government can't force people to "accept" them; that's a social issue, not a political issue. And I repeat: the parade dosen't represent "the gay community." Gays have actually tried hard to educate the public, to inform them that they are just like the rest of society. This parade actually gives just the opposite impression.

[Guest Peeves]

Seeing how homosexuality is not widely accepted and the parade is about gay rights, you're wrong on both accounts. It's a political parade and it's about the entire gay community and their rights.

Nonsense. Stuff and nonsense.It's a festival of fun, frivolity and a with a smidgen of obscenity. There are various forms of participation presented none of which are about either pride or any (deprived) rights.

It is by degree en passant, bawdy, crude, gross,lascivious, lewd, ribald, raunchy and vulgar. Those participating have their rights obviously.

Good for them, but let's be honest, they are not parading for rights, and if it's out of pride, they missed.

[Guest Peeves]

How about the World Naked Bike Ride? A Spencer Tunick photoshoot?

Oh, won't someone think of The Children!!

Overtly sexual displays, including parading in fetish gear, probably isn't the kind of thing one might want their kids to see; too many awkward questions ("Mommy, why is that man with his bare bum pulling that other man on a dog leash?"). But, nudity in itself isn't going to corrupt the minds of children. Sheesh.

I'm all for nudity, in proper context and within the law. In fact I celebrate nudity at every opportunity.

[g_bambino]

It's political...

If it's political, then why are people aghast at the idea the mayor may be making a political statement by not showing up?

[Guest Peeves]

If it's political, then why are people aghast at the idea the mayor may be making a political statement by not showing up?

I don't know, why?

But if it's politics he's on the side of the angels..

I think some are upset because it's ignoring a parade sponsored by gays because he finds it not to his liking for pretty obvious reasons.

Just because someone calls it a political statement won't make it so. It could be a moral statement given the nudity. It could be a legal statement since laws are broken.

I doubt gays, at least to my knowledge, are of one political bent, so he's not plying partisan politics.

I guess one with possible objections to what they see as moral turpitude, or one with personal standards, has the right to hold his course...doesn't he?

Let's start judging the parade, the content of the parade, the acts of some in the parade with as much rigor and then one might have the right to judge those that have a negative impression of what's becoming a cause célèbre.

k'

[Guest Peeves]

So what? It's mainly "entertainment," not "political." It doesn't even represent "the gay community." Why would he be obligated to attend? I'm sure there's lots of entertainment in Toronto that he doesn't take in.

Obviously many- many are entertained. Much no doubt is just that.

That gays are being laughed at for their antics certainly causes a loss of pride in my opinion. Laughing with someone is funny, laughing at some of the lewdest of them might simply be embarrassing.

[Guest Peeves]

Uh... Why is Liberal capitalized?

[Argus]

From all I've seen, heard, and read, I've concluded the opposite. There's no such thing as 100% heterosexual (or homosexual), for men or women.

Well.. I am a lesbian on the inside...

[Argus]

Seeing how homosexuality is not widely accepted and the parade is about gay rights, you're wrong on both accounts. It's a political parade and it's about the entire gay community and their rights.

Not widely accepted?

Let's get real here. He has no votes to gain there. Furthermore, if he was to show up he'd be insulted all day long. He'd be mooned, ridiculed, mocked, likely people would throw things at him. Quite aside from the gay/straight issue, these are people whose politics are pretty much 100% divergent from his.

[Michael Hardner]

Not widely accepted?

Let's get real here. He has no votes to gain there.

Maybe not, but a softer image could help him and this would be a step towards appearing to be more compromising and less like a cackling maniacal idealogue, assuming he's unhappy with that image.

[capricorn]

As I said, this parade does not represent the "gay community."

I'm not at all convinced that all gays are supportive of holding gay pride parades.

One can totally support gay rights and not find this parade to be their type of entertainment. Furthermore, Canada's government has already recognized gay rights; a "political" statement at this time is not necessary.

Yet the gay activists are using politics as a hammer to force the mayor into complying to their wishes that he attend the gay pride parade as a public display of his acceptance of their lifestyle. Would we accept such strong-arm behaviour from any other group in society?

[g_bambino]

Well.. I am a lesbian on the inside...

Everyone is, at least a little (and some a lot!).

[g_bambino]

Just because someone calls it a political statement won't make it so.

Sure. I didn't say it was, if you were implying otherwise. Note I said (with emphasis added) "the idea the mayor may be making a political statement..."

[cybercoma]

That's merely your opinion.

Glad you see that you're just throwing around your opinion now because you were presenting it as fact. Happy to help.

[cybercoma]

If it's political, then why are people aghast at the idea the mayor may be making a political statement by not showing up?

Because the message is about gay rights. So what political statement does his absence make in that light? That's why people are aghast.

[cybercoma]

Not widely accepted?

Let's get real here. He has no votes to gain there. Furthermore, if he was to show up he'd be insulted all day long. He'd be mooned, ridiculed, mocked, likely people would throw things at him. Quite aside from the gay/straight issue, these are people whose politics are pretty much 100% divergent from his.

I get what you're saying, but he's not in campaign mode. He's a figure in public office. He's the leader of the city. He should be making an appearance to show that as leader of the city he welcomes and accepts the gay community there.