I forget the year, when did the British Empire end officially? Once over-seas territories, aside from the Falkland Islands, are now part of the commonwealth and are independent nations. You might be right about Northern Ireland thing, so maybe it is just a British home island thing. Who says it isn't my problem?
Yeah, in the context of this thread, it's probably - anticipatory, rather than currently justified. I apologize, Lemex - maybe you weren't going to go in that direction here.
No bother - I have a thick skin, and that line didn't necessarily bother me. I appreciate this though, don't think I don't.
So your issue is that I treat people the same regardless of their sexuality. For the record. I was born in England, moved to Australia and then Hawaii (which has a large gay and lesbian population, it is as much a cultural thing and is readily accepted) before returning to Australia.
I don't want to tell you your history/civics, but Wikipedia and I agree that there are fourteen overseas territories still "under the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the United Kingdom". ("http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Overseas_Territories") There are varying degrees of independence, as I understand it, but the UK still tends to be in charge of their defense and other international issues, which suggests the UK could apply pressure to see improved civil rights in those areas as a condition of continued association? I thought you were saying it isn't anyone's problem, since "Here, aside from some idiots, homosexuality has been accepted by pretty much everyone ."
No, my issue is that you seem think that everyone treats people the same regardless of their sexuality. It's great that you aren't personally prejudiced. I mean that. But claiming that gay pride parades are unnecessary because you don't feel the need to proclaim your straight pride suggests that you think the world isn't prejudiced, and that's just not true. There are still places in the world where gay sex is a capital offense. There are still places in the so-called civilized world (including your current country of residence) where gay people can't marry the people they love. Gay pride parades are one of the many attempts to counteract that kind of hatred and ignorance. Gay rights is an ongoing struggle. An individual person not being homophobic is a great step toward a resolution of that struggle, but it's not enough. And I don't think it's a good idea to be dismissive of the gay rights movement just because you don't need to hear its lessons.
Go tell the British Home Office about that, I (by myself) am hardly accountable for what my government does, doesn't do, and should do. I don't live in a democracy. That's not really what I was saying, but I can see why you thought that. I'm not tempted to say more.
I have very good friends here in Australia and Hawaii who are gay and lesbian. Not one of them has ever gone on about gay pride to me. Because both they and I are comfortable with it. It is not hidden in any way but it is not thrown out there either. The world is prejudice and sadly always will be to some extent. I am not dismissing the gay rights movement. I am dismissing over the top gay pride marches because the majority of gay and lesbian people prefer to live normal everyday lives. Not to dress up in gaudy costumes as happens in the Sydney gay and lesbian mardi gras.
Have you talked to them about gay marriage? Are you and they both comfortable with the reality that you have more rights than they do? Or would having that conversation count as "thrown out there"? I disagree that the world will always be prejudiced, but even if that were true I don't think it would mean we shouldn't make efforts to minimize prejudice however possible. And I guess if not enough gay people are interested in flamboyant gay pride parades, the parades will probably wither up on their own. The fact that they continue to thrive suggests that lots of gay and lesbian people still want to take part. And, really, there are lots of people who go all out for Pride events that live "normal, everyday lives" all the rest of the year. It's not like being part of Pride and living a "normal" life are mutually exclusive.
Some I have spoken to about gay marriage and they are not fussed about it. Their reasoning is that marriages are declining and they have lived as couples for years anyway so they are comfortable and see no benefit. The Pride participants are more like the vocal minority. It is a big annual event for them, particularly for what is known in Hawaii as the "mahu's" who tend to be a bit more flamboyant.
So does it like threaten SWMs' sexuality or what if their fave character is revealed to do it and like it up to bum? Cos I haven't followed this backlash at all. I wonder if they were bothered by Spoiler Josh Hartnett/Reeve Carney in Penny Dreadful. Maybe it's not a manly show to begin with though, despite Billie Piper's bare boobs. I thought it weird they never developed Steve Jinks in Warehouse 13. Other characters' relationships were explored but he was quite sidelined. Once an ex bf made an appearance but I found even that a bit shallow. Compare that to e.g. Supernatural's Charlie Bradbury who is a much smaller character.
I think a part of the problem is that "lesbians are sexy and gay men are gross." That's pretty self explanatory. On another note, I thought part of Gay Pride was to remind everyone of the Stonewall Riots.
Reading the OP reminded me of the backlash Naughty Dog's The Last of Us got from a few homophobes when it was revealed in the DLC that Ellie was likely bisexual. Some claimed it somehow destroyed her character to be bisexual. I was all, 'Really? How would her wanting to have sex with ladies make her even less of a character?' As for the other stuff, people should feel comfortable with who they are and not feel ashamed because others think them 'unnatural'. Sadly, there are still too many people who want to make sure certain groups feel ashamed for being different.
Interestingly, there was less reaction to the writer of the new Tomb Raider reboot saying that she intended Lara and Samantha as a couple than there was to Ellie being bisexual. The main complaint about Tomb Raider was that it's death scenes were too graphic IIRC.
@Boger, Did you have any purpose in posting this? Am I missing something, or is this as thoroughly offensive and inappropriate as I think it is? Edited to add: "This" being the image that was above my post when I posted this, though perhaps it will be gone soon. I'm not going to quote the image, and there were no words whatsoever associated with it.
Before women had the vote, there were probably plenty of women who were "not fussed" about it, because they were confident that all those nice men who were allowed to vote would take care of things. That doesn't change the fact that depriving a class of rights, is depriving a class of rights, and is unacceptable. If they cannot marry, gays do not have "the same rights."
I'm assuming it was meant to be sarcastic/poking fun at the idiocy of the extreme right. If it was meant to be a genuine statement taken at face value... we've got trouble.
I agree with you. People that say that allowing gay marriages will destroy traditional marriage are talking bollocks. Traditional marriage will still be the same. I never said gays have the same rights but they do have rights that vary from country to country. As for Boger's picture. It should be treated with the contempt it deserves.
And the lack of equal rights is, I assume, part of the motivation behind things like gay pride events. If your society or government is telling you that you should be ashamed of who you are, why is it a surprise that you seek the opportunity to make it very, VERY clear that you're not?
If I did explicitly include a disclaimer and state the (obvious) fact it's blatant satire (even though I have no clue why this picture was created and by whom). It's use here seemed relevant for as far as I could take on the direction of "pushing the gay agenda". So instead I was found guilty of doing something I cannot take responsibility for. @ChickenFreak, no I was the one missing something called sensibility; of course my intentions aren't crystal clear I don't live in a fantasy world. I'm not even going to express what I saw in the picture that could have been especially thought provoking; but let me ask one question; Would it change the picture if I tell a nice story about what my political correct views surrounding it are?
I really don't know what you're saying here. You are responsible for presenting the picture; it wouldn't have appeared in this thread on its own, without you presenting it. And you seem to be offering a tangle of logic to excuse your presenting it without context. When you present deeply offensive material, you need to add context. And the context may or may not make the presentation of the material acceptable. Also, the use of "politically correct" to describe someone who would find that picture offensive makes your opinion on the picture rather ambiguous. (Also, as a separate issue, if you don't know who the picture was created by and by whom, presenting it is a copyright violation.)
Foolish me to think this very thread provided enough context to create the desired contrast to post this picture in. The reception, I mean discarding, is rather disappointing and just plain dense. I'm not responsible for what you think, @ChickenFreak ; That presents a rather fascist concept which I highly doubt you find agreeable. But what do I really know. When pictures have magical qualities that change according to the way it is brought by the messenger. Oh, that brings me right back to a certain striped dress.
It was suggesting, not stating, that if we allow gay marriage, we might as well allow (consensual: the animals were enjoying it) bestiality. I could post it again for education purposes because "context", but meh. Edit: I've actually found it again I can now try to describe what it looks like in detail, or if you want a link ask me for it in a private message. Being civilized enough to protect the pious souls among us here on the diverse internet, it's all in a convenient spoiler right here... Again, I'm not going to say what you should think about it, and if it is not clear to you what I think about it, ask me. Spoiler It has four separate drawings with on it upper edge saying in red capitals "SUPPORT "GAY" MARRIAGE?" Then we see the top left picture am man and a dog french kissing, top right, next to it, a cat and a woman french kissing, bottom left a man with long hair or a woman french kissing with one locust, and bottom right a french kissing couple of one duck and one donkey. Beneath it the red capitals say "LIBERALISM OPENS THE DOOR". Note that all the figures are equal in size, we only see them from the side and only from the neck up. Apart from the locust, all of them have closed eyes and including the locust seem to be sharing an intimate, pleasant moment (which is difficult to imagine for a locust, but it's just really visualized well by the unknown artist(s)).
