Straight Pride Parade Fail

Rights, dignity, and pride all go hand in hand. Gays were denied rights on the grounds that their marriages were somehow "wrong" because being gay was somehow wrong. The idea that it's okay to be gay (which is what gay pride is partially about) has everything to do with gay marriage.

I'm not arguing against or in favor of oppressing homosexuals; let's set that aside lest it contaminate the argument.

It isn't privilege because I am supposed to have it since there's absolutely no ground for oppressing a heterosexual. Moreover, I'm supposed to have it by virtue of who I am because I'm the immemorial status quo and the entrenched statistical prevalence. A possession becomes a privilege only when it's possible to rightfully lose it. But a heterosexual can't lose the absence of oppression.

You seem to suggest that homosexuals are oppressed in the west, at least to a minor extent. If that's what you're alluding to then allow me a chuckle.

@GreySeal9: I don't think so. You can have rights and dignity along with humility.

Seems like the balloon colors would be more appropriate for an interracial couples pride parade.

I think it's about the fact that heterosexuality entails opposite sex relations, opposite being key here. Black and white would represent the antithesis felicitously.

To quote principle vagina: everyone wants to take this to a racial place but I won't let them,

Ahh, makes sense.

That's your school principal's name?

I see the Rick and Morty reference flew over your head.

Not everybody watches Rick and Morty.

I figured you were referencing some show or movie. But I don't know who Rick and Perry are.

You're being too literal about the word pride. it means that it's okay to gay just as it's okay to be straight; it's not saying that gay people are hot shit.

I know, only the cool kids do

That's clever

no

1) I'm not saying you're in favor of oppressing homosexuals, but when you say "there's no ground for oppressing a heterosexual" you imply that there are grounds for oppressing homosexuals. There anen't, unless you count bigotry and intolerance as "grounds".

2) The belief that you are supposed to intrinsically have something is what privilege and a sense of entitlement are. The fact that you are a part of the group that happens to be the majority doesn't make you more or less entitled to not being oppressed as any other group, it just makes it less likely to occur for you.

3) A heterosexual "can't" be oppressed for being hetero? Sure they can. Again, it's just less likely because in most places they represent the majority but there's nothing inherent to being white or hetero that you can't be on the receiving end of oppression, so be thankful you're not. Or don't. It doesn't really matter in the end how you feel about it and I'm not going to tell you how to feel but I'll argue if you try to tell me that being thankful is pointless.

What you describe is the definition of taking something for granted. People are "supposed" to have two arms and two legs, to be able to see and hear, to be able to smell and taste, to be able to remember the events in their lives. So why be thankful for these things that everyone is supposed to have? One of many reasons would be because by virtue of birth or faith not everyone does. While it's not likely that getting hit by a car will turn you into a homosexual, any number of things can happen in our daily lives that could deprive us of the very things that most of us take for granted. Were you to lose a limb or your sight, I doubt you would take the attitude of "why be thankful for what you're supposed to have" now that you're without something -you- were supposed to have.

-Byshop

@GazaAli: Yeah, Rick Perry, my man.

lmao check out this white cis male privilege

You provide me so many laughs whipassmt

It does seem to me that a good deal of "straight pride" rhetoric and events are meant to be some sort of dig at homosexual and transsexual persons and or the "gay rights crowd", but I don't think it has to be that way. I think there can be legitimate straight pride events that are meant not as a dig but as a way to be affirmative of heterosexual people and couples. Or maybe there could be events to highlight certain out-of the mainstream groups within the straight community, such as men who like "big women" or polygamists or folks who like older people or people with foot fetishes.

It wasn't too long ago where the Brits chemically castrated Alan Turing for being gay. It also wasn't that long ago where police in the US would raid gay bars, and also entrap gay men into being arrested. Hell, it was only 12 years ago where sodomy laws were struck down throughout the US. Historically, gay people were oppressed in the west (sounds like a good movie/book title, but that's another story). THAT is the culture from where the Pride parades grew from. There is a REASON Pride happens when it does (Usually, late June, but June in general). Just because the attitudes towards homosexuality has improved in the West to the point where we are celebrating the rights of marriage rather than fighting for our right to exists, and be treated with some amount of dignity does not mean Pride is outdated and no longer needed.

They are,

but to what scale depends on the country you live in. In some western countries, same sex couples are not treated the equally as the rest. In my country, homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals legally, and are accepted by the majority of people. But some countries yet prohibit homosexuals of human rights.

There is also some smaller scale discrimination going on by people. Bullying for being gay is still a thing.

This post makes me embarrassed to have even read it >___>

@Maroxad: @Ring_of_fire: I touched neither on the history of homosexuality in western countries nor on the legitimacy of pride parades. I only considered the current reality of gays in western countries in the post you both replied to. The reason I chuckled was because I anticipated maroxad's rationale, that gays are still oppressed in western countries because they may not be fully accepted yet. I find the premise worthy of a chuckle. Once a minority has been offered genuine legal protection by the state it ceases to be oppressed or persecuted. The fact that some people still view it negatively or are inimical to it doesn't qualify as oppression; it's called life. If some people still don't appreciate the beauty of rainbow thongs and the sensuality of buggery then gays have lucked out as far as the LGBT rights are concerned.

Gays in America still don't have full legal protection...

Is your insane standards for gay people the same for others? Is racism no longer a problem? Would it be ok for Israeli citizens to kick the shit out of people from Gaza as long as the military stops doing it?

Sure gays are better treated now than they used to be, but they still aren't on equal footing as straight. The fact that you use the word buggery suggests that you don't want them to have equal rights which makes what your saying even more hypocritical.

I constructed the term "genuine legal protection" carefully to account for instances like racism in the U.S. Your other analogy is nonsensical since full legal protection would require the Israeli authorities to stop acts of aggression against Palestinians. What it wouldn't require is for them to uproot plain enmity and aversion from the citizenry, and that's the point I was making.

Again, if gays aren't on equal footing with straights after having acquired genuine legal protection then they lucked out. This, of course, is based on objectivity and reasonabilty without any emotional involvement. That is to say, those emotionally involved in the matter won't see it for what it is, and will continue contriving stratagems to remedy an irremediable situation.

They haven't got genuine legal protection. You can still fire a person for being gay, or deny them service. You also haven't explained why social issues don't matter. It seems you're just shifting the goal post to what ever suits you best.

Besides why doesn't history matter? Have you ever heard the saying "we remember history so we don't repeat it"? It's very true, just look at gay rights in Russia and how they made a massive u-turn. Part of the purpose of gay pride is to prevent stuff like that.

Only in the U.S don't gays have full legal protection, but they do have much of it. In other western democracies, gays have enjoyed full protection for a while now. Also, where did I say that "social issues don't matter"? It seems that you're the one pulling stuff out of his ass to prevaricate.

History does matter, just not in this discussion and the argument I made.

Perhaps you should reread what I said. Gays are not given full rights that I would expect a human being to have in every western country. And even in the ones they live in, there is still bullying, harrassment and other forms of maltreatment going on.

Bullying and violence is considered a form of oppression. Its not the matter of not appreciating (you dont have to appriciate it), its the matter of using physical violence or other forms of abuse.

Edit: So you are moving the goalpost (like you did with toast_burner) and you misinterpreted my post. If you have no intention of being intellectually honest, I have no intention of continuing this debate.

We've only recently started exchanging arguments and so far I like arguing with you. Don't ruin it by following in the steps of toast; his reading comprehension skills are on par of those of a demented old hag.

In what way did I misinterpret your post? More importantly, how am I being intellectually dishonest? You claimed that gays are oppressed in western countries and I disagreed with that. Oppression is the systematic discrimination, maltreatment and possible persecution of a minority or a demographic that's endorsed by the state either through laws or an unwillingness to put a stop to it. In western counties that's not the case at all. Both the state and the many are dedicated to the enforcement of laws that ensure protection and equality for gays. The fact that gay individuals still encounter sparse bullying and animosity doesn't qualify as oppression. It sucks for them but it's not oppression. Actually, many different demographics and classes find themselves in the same position and it'd be equally unfounded if they claimed oppression.

I'm fully aware of the fact that I may be discriminated against in a western country for my skin color, but unless the state and the many endorse such discrimination, I'm not going to scream oppression, nor would I go after every fuckwit that thinks ill of me as there will always be people whom you rub the wrong way.

So again, where is the intellectual dishonesty in any of this? The fact that we disagree?

Fair enough, but I go by this definition for Oppression: "prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control."

Which prolonged bullying and discrimination fall under. Not all forms of oppression have to be from the government.

Bull....shit. You made the argument that gays in the west are not persecuted. (I'm going to shift this to the US, because that is where I am from and cannot speak for Europe.) That is flat out wrong. There are still laws that allow gay people to be fired just for being gay in almost half the states in the United States. Currently, there are laws being passed allowing businesses to legally deny gay people service for just being gay in many states under the guise of "religious freedom".

While, yes, physical persecution may be down, you cannot claim that gay people are not being oppressed in the slightest. We are lucky that this is the level of persecution, and not the death penalties or long prison sentences you may find in Muslim countries. (Also prison sentences in places in the Caribbean). But your "argument" falls flat.

*applauds*

You don't get to shift the argument in whatever direction you please. The discussion you injected yourself into is concerned with gays in western countries, and the argument I made fully applies to all those country with the exception of the U.S, something that I already mentioned.

But regarding gay rights in the U.S, to my understanding gays may be discriminated against because they're not protected under the civil rights act. If that's the case, the claims you made about laws allowing gays to fired or denied service are inaccurate. Besides, not all discrimination qualifies as oppression; it'd be a stretch to say that gays are oppressed in the U.S. Oppression of gays would be something like castrating Alan Turing in Britain few decades ago after having confined him to house arrest. Disagreeing to make a dick cake isn't really oppression.

When I am talking about oppression, I am talking about stuff like this,

http://www.bullyingstatistics.org/content/gay-bullying-statistics.html

If this doesnt fit the definition of oppression, then I honestly have no idea what the word oppression means. Here are 2 definitions from the Oxford dictionary

"Keep (someone) in subservience and hardship, especially by the unjust exercise of authority:"

"Cause (someone) to feel distressed, anxious, or uncomfortable:"

I can say with people in the west exercise that behaviour to homosexuals. To a small extent is still to some extent.

As the first definition states, oppression is closely related to authority, which is what I've been saying so far.

Also, bullying is bullying; it becomes oppression when it's endorsed by the state and the multitude of society.

It said "especially by the unjust exercise of authority", not "exclusively by the unjust exercise of authority".

Also, authority is not always exclusive to legal authority. A man can express authority or superiority over others simply by overpowering them through any means.

I'm not shifting the argument in any direction I please. I was responding to something *you* said that gay people were not persecuted/oppressed. History provides the context why gay pride parades exist. There have not been any "straight pride Parades" because there hasn't been any (at least recent) history of heterosexual people being discriminated against/oppressed solely because of their sexuality. Being heterosexual inherently makes your life easier. Which is a very basic definition of what privilege is.

There are several different levels of what "oppression" is. Obviously, the case of Alan Turing in England is way worse than denying service (Oh, btw, I love how you include dick cake in your "argument", trivializing the issue) to gay people. While yes, discrimination does not always equal oppression, I would argue having laws that dictate that you can be fired for your sexuality is a form of oppression, even if it is not the government that actually does said firing. The government creates the ability for this to happen.

I didn't say anything about exclusiveness so I guess you're reiterating what I already said.

That's correct, but that would be an isolated case that wouldn't qualify as oppression; it'd be an instant of bullying or discrimination, or simple injustice. Oppression entails prevalence and institutionalization.

What *I* said was that gays aren't oppressed in western countries with the exception of the U.S where they still experience certain levels of discrimination. So unless you felt the need to reiterate that, you're not responding to anything I said.

If you trace every post I made in this topic so far, I never touched on whether gay pride parades are justifiable or not; the same goes for straight pride parades. When I said that history doesn't matter as far as the argument is concerned, I was referring to the argument of whether gays are oppressed in western countries in the present day or not. Finally, being heterosexual doesn't make my life easier, it makes it normal and that's not a privilege.

Those different levels go by different names, not by oppression. Oppression has certain negative connotations that simply don't apply to gays in western countries, not even in the U.S. In addition, there are no such laws in the U.S; there's an absence of a law that prohibits such practices.

You said that its related to authority. Which I argued for that it isnt necessarily the case.

And like I said, oppression can happen in differeing scales. Bullying over the entire course of middle to high school isnt oppression to you?