Homosexuality & Politics in the 21st Century

[Peter Quill]

First I'd like to say that the statement repeated endlessly on the internet that "every day is Straight Pride Day" is flatly inaccurate. Maybe Parents' Day is (but I suspect many pro-gay people would object to that). Children's Day isn't Straight Pride Day. Independence Day isn't Straight Pride Day. Christmas can't be called Straight Pride Day (the Virgin Birth doesn't count). and given that the defense of "every day is Straight Pride Day" involved straight privilege, perhaps "every day is Straight Privilege Day" would be a more accurate statement. Every day might be full of straight privilege without every day celebrating straight pride, and the arguments I've heard fail to make that distinction.

That's fair enough and I'll concede the point. I don't see a huge difference between straight pride and straight privilege myself, but I suppose ymmv there.

Also, even on the assumption that every day is Straight Pride Day, this cannot mean that every parade is a straight pride parade.

No, although I'm sure that normal parades continue to show (for a lack of a better term) heterosexual-friendly content vs. things that would be more inclusive to those which fall outside of the binary. Which isn't wrong at all, but also shows that there's no necessity for a "straight pride" parade.

Additionally, people indicated a gay pride parade is a matter of life or death seriousness. Some people even indicated that the whole point of a gay pride parade (and hence, what is wrong with a straight pride parade) is the fact that gays have a history of facing discrimination. If this is why nobody addressed my question of "don't homosexuals say everyone should be proud of their sexuality?" then the parade needs a new name. Call it "gay equality parade." For that matter, why don't they just march? Even leaving aside the issue of how a gay pride parade looks, this would be an appropriate step toward treating it as a serious civil rights issue (as the civil rights marches black people did in the Civil Rights Movement). As it stands, the need to have a gay pride parade suggests some have an excessive interest in celebrating, are not taking it that seriously until someone else wants one, and actually do oppose straight people being proud; all of which makes the debate about the Brazilian straight pride parade an unquestionable example of gay privilege.

Regarding this I think valoo put it pretty well, but I'd warn you that the term "gay privilege" isn't doing your argument any good. Having a parade that is meant to celebrate their diversity isn't really privileged when you look at how they're still facing persecutions in major areas of their life. I also think that the parade itself is already inclusive (I've never been to one myself) when it comes to straight people, so there isn't a necessity for their own.

and as far as TV portrayal of gay people goes, it's not always absolute.
Because according to TV trope analysis, most TV shows just cookie cut characters. Straight, gay, bi, nerd, jock, emo... one type or the other

That would be an entire issue with the media itself, as characters should be round and dynamic rather than being stock characters. Just because the media sticks to its tropes doesn't mean what they're doing isn't wrong in some fashion.

We still have those ethnic days/months because if we removed them, we would be faced down by immense criticism by blacks, Asians, Chinese, Irish, or just general supporters of equality for racism.

Rightful criticism I would add. As you said, it makes people feel fulfilled and validated for what they've been facing.

Also, I agree that this argument is an "lol", lets just say that due to freedom of speech, we can have whatever ****ing parades we want.

Freedom of speech isn't even the point of the debate. The question is about the entire idea behind a straight pride parade and how they can be seen as problematic/offensive. We can use our freedom of speech to debate the issue and we shouldn't have to expect people to walk in and add nothing to the debate while they're trying to look smart.

 

[CSolarstorm]

First I'd like to say that the statement repeated endlessly on the internet that "every day is Straight Pride Day" is flatly inaccurate. Maybe Parents' Day is (but I suspect many pro-gay people would object to that). Children's Day isn't Straight Pride Day. Independence Day isn't Straight Pride Day. Christmas can't be called Straight Pride Day (the Virgin Birth doesn't count). and given that the defense of "every day is Straight Pride Day" involved straight privilege, perhaps "every day is Straight Privilege Day" would be a more accurate statement. Every day might be full of straight privilege without every day celebrating straight pride, and the arguments I've heard fail to make that distinction.

First, I think the meaning of 'every day is Straight Pride day' sort of flew over your head. It wasn't meant literally, as in 'every day is an official holiday known as Straight Pride day'. A lot of the consequent reasoning of what holidays are not Straight Pride day doesn't logically follow. Stretching the argument to the exact semantic difference between pride and privilage doesn't do anything. If every day reminds straight people of their privilages, then that gives is that incredibly reinforced, self-confident pride in ourselves - "Straight Pride". Every day reveals all these achievements in confidence and strength in the straight majority. The arguments for Prop 8 even asserted how traditional and pervasive being straight is. There are what - two gay couples in the entire federal government? Name a gay couple in a Disney movie. Or a same-sex love interest in a kids show on Nick or Cartoon Network. And so on. What holiday myth includes gay couples? Did Jesus have gay followers? All of these things are exclusively straight! The 'life and death' service that gay pride parades provide - or if not 'life and death' than certain something of grave seriousness - is to reassure gay people that they have a place in this world by providing them an example, so they can make this psychological niche rather than feeling lost in a straight reality.

Also, even on the assumption that every day is Straight Pride Day, this cannot mean that every parade is a straight pride parade.

Again, the logic doesn't really follow. There is not just one holiday per day, and agains 'Straight Pride Day' wasn't actually meant as a literal holiday, but a figure of speech to indicate that straight people aren't suffering for lack of a straight pride parade as was the neccessity of gay pride parades when they started, simply because straight people have that privilage that gay people lack.

Additionally, people indicated a gay pride parade is a matter of life or death seriousness. Some people even indicated that the whole point of a gay pride parade (and hence, what is wrong with a straight pride parade) is the fact that gays have a history of facing discrimination. If this is why nobody addressed my question of "don't homosexuals say everyone should be proud of their sexuality?" then the parade needs a new name. Call it "gay equality parade." For that matter, why don't they just march? Even leaving aside the issue of how a gay pride parade looks, this would be an appropriate step toward treating it as a serious civil rights issue (as the civil rights marches black people did in the Civil Rights Movement). As it stands, the need to have a gay pride parade suggests some have an excessive interest in celebrating, are not taking it that seriously until someone else wants one, and actually do oppose straight people being proud; all of which makes the debate about the Brazilian straight pride parade an unquestionable example of gay privilege.

I think you're going a little crazy with the false equivalancies. You didn't explain how you came to the conclusion that there is 'gay privilege'. It is flat-out innaccurate. My parents don't experience this 'gay privilage'. They actually discouraged me from having friends over when I was a child because the neighborhood thought gay people are pedophiles. You just made up the term 'gay privilage'. That's like saying I have handicapped privilage because I get my own parking space. Things like that aren't privilages, those are just attempts to make a better life after experiencing a rotten history.

Compensation is not the same as privilage. Places allow gay pride parades because we are so surrounded with hetersexual influences and experiences. It is a sort of boon to actively make things equal. What is the need to have a Straight Pride Parade? So things will be aesthetically symmetrical? If you put an equal pair of parades on top of a 90% - 10% existing circumstance, how is that equality? The point is actually to give something to gay people that straight people don't get. And after knowing, stating repeatedly, using this fact in conservative campaigns that straight people have such a vast and iron-clad tradition of straight marriage, straight people want to make a big deal about the one instance where gay people get something that they don't?

I personally don't disagree with the idea of having a 'straight pride parade', as long as they actually concentrate on their own pride rather than use it as an anti-gay platform. Like I said, you can't have pride for yourself if you're stuck on the idea of taking something away from someone else. But yeah, you've got to understand that the LGBT pride parade will feel mocked, copied, like straight people are just doing parades because they saw the gay people doing it. Especially if you can't come up with another reason besides 'well it won't be equal unless we have one too', because with both sides having parades, it just cancels out the compensation gay people get for having a parade and enforces the massive amount of straight privilage we experience every day, and the same people upset they don't get their straight parade aren't exactly speaking out about the inequality of that!

 

[Malanu]

I, uh, think you're taking the phrase a little too literally, and it's really just dodging the point that there is no need for a straight pride parade. Straight people are accepted by society and are the much larger population, they don't need a special day to themselves. Heterosexuality is the norm in almost all forms of media - that is what is meant by "every day is straight pride".

Funny, I don't feel so accepted being a straight white adult male. Many kids were "preassuring" my daughter to give Lesbianism a try when she really doesn't have much interest in sex at all. But your premise would negate most Holidays the way I'm reading your statement. Why do we need to celebrate anything?

To keep things fair and Balanced there should be a majority holiday for every minority holiday. Gay Pride/straight pride... After all Why shouldn't I be just as proud as my gay friends? BET/CET Fair and balanced.

 

[Eterna]

First, I want to say that it really seems you are arguing against them getting treatment, and using quotation marks around the word only serves to further that impression of your position. I want to add that I really do agree with the sentiment that not all treatment methods are created equal (exorcisms seem to stand out in my mind as a bad method).

The treatment is in quotation marks is because often times the people who offer to change your sexual orientation aren't operating with a method that actually changes a persons sexual orientation. See Aversion Therapy for example. They use methods that turn the brain off their sexual orientation, but don't actually change it.

Along different lines, you ignored what I said about the brain structure issue (although related to the previous issue, your suggestion that change of orientation requires a change in brain structure indicated that you think treatment will never work, and will always cause harm and no good). I want to make a few points I missed from before regarding the brain study on the rats:

I didn't ignore it, I actually did read it. I just really didn't feel like responding.

Thus from these two observations, we could conclude that the causes of sexual orientation, even with accompanying brain structure differences, could not be solely genetic. This even suggests that genetics may play little to no role if artificial hormone alteration was all that it took to produce it. Additionally, the fact that these changes can occur on neonatal rats shows that the hormones in the mother are not the only ones to consider; even hormones may not be able to show that homosexuality is technically inborn.

I've never said homosexuality is solely genetic. I'm a firm believer that environmental factors are also a key aspect. What I disagree with is the assertion that it's a choice that can be changed, that wanting to change your orientation doesn't mean it can be done.

 

[Sadib]

Many kids were "preassuring" my daughter to give Lesbianism a try when she really doesn't have much interest in sex at all.

How old is your daughter? It sounds like some lesbians want her to themselves.

 

[Grey Wind]

Funny, I don't feel so accepted being a straight white adult male.

I know you probably don't mean it to sound rude but I doubt I'm the only one to find this offensive. You cannot talk about not feeling accepted for your sexuality. Did you have to come out to your parents? Did you worry about what your friends would think of you if you told them they were straight? Did you get funny looks going on a date with any partners? Did anybody ever change their opinion of you based on your sexuality? Did you have to spend the first ~eighteen years of your life lying to everybody around you?

Please explain in detail how you are not accepted when being a straight, white male has always been socially acceptable. Maybe you're stereotyped but you have no reason whatsoever to claim that you're not feeling accepted, especially in the presence of those of us who actually do face orientation based discrimination.

Many kids were "preassuring" my daughter to give Lesbianism a try when she really doesn't have much interest in sex at all.

That's... not even remotely similar. Like, at all. I honestly cannot fathom how you can even think that the discrimination gay people face is comparable to your daughter facing some peer pressure (which, by the way, is much worse for closeted gay kids).

But your premise would negate most Holidays the way I'm reading your statement. Why do we need to celebrate anything?

All holidays have a background in celebration, and while they may have evolved to become a cultural norm, that background is still there. Christmas is celebrating Jesus' birth, Veteran's Day is celebrating, well, veterans. There is actual cause for celebration with these holidays, just like there is a cause for gay pride parades. Straight pride parades serve no purpose, like I already said.

To keep things fair and Balanced there should be a majority holiday for every minority holiday. Gay Pride/straight pride... After all Why shouldn't I be just as proud as my gay friends? BET/CET Fair and balanced.

Refer back to my other post, cba typing all of that out again. tl;dr yes you can be proud, no there is not a reason for you to get a parade. Like I said, what do you want a parade/super happy fun fun day for? Majority parades are pointless because they're a majority. It would almost be like having a white pride day or something.

 

[mattj]

I've never said homosexuality is solely genetic. I'm a firm believer that environmental factors are also a key aspect. What I disagree with is the assertion that it's a choice that can be changed, that wanting to change your orientation doesn't mean it can be done.

If environmental factors are a key aspect, and environmental factors change all the time, and can easily be changed to suit a person's desires, why couldn't a person change their environmental factors and therefore change, or at least affect in some positive way, their sexual orientation?

 

[Sadib]

If environmental factors are a key aspect, and environmental factors change all the time, and can easily be changed to suit a person's desires, why couldn't a person change their environmental factors and therefore change, or at least affect in some positive way, their sexual orientation?

If people could change the environment, there would be no more hurricanes.

 

[Eterna]

If environmental factors are a key aspect, and environmental factors change all the time, and can easily be changed to suit a person's desires, why couldn't a person change their environmental factors and therefore change, or at least affect in some positive way, their sexual orientation?

If sexual orientation was completely environmental then sure why not. It's not though. And by "Key" aspect I don't mean major aspect. I don't think ones environment can actively change ones sexual orientation, I think ones environment can simply nurture it.

Even then though, being Gay myself, I really couldn't pin point how my environment could have affected my sexual orientation. I didn't have Daddy issues, I'm not into feminine things I was never a mommies boy. It's anecdotal evidence, but I feel as thought my environment played no part in my sexual orientation.

 

[mattj]

If its partly environmental, and you change the environment then...

?

Why would it have to be entirely environmental?

 

[CSolarstorm]

Funny, I don't feel so accepted being a straight white adult male. Many kids were "preassuring" my daughter to give Lesbianism a try when she really doesn't have much interest in sex at all. But your premise would negate most Holidays the way I'm reading your statement. Why do we need to celebrate anything?

To keep things fair and Balanced there should be a majority holiday for every minority holiday. Gay Pride/straight pride... After all Why shouldn't I be just as proud as my gay friends? BET/CET Fair and balanced.

Malanu, there's a difference between being pressured and disrespected, and being downright hated and on the recieving end of explicit prejudice, or in the case of sexual orientation, disgust. I definately believe that majority groups who have had more rights historically get a lot of flak and villainization for their identity. Adult white males are the only demographic right now you can openly insult and call it humor (unless you insult your own group, or a every group at once). But are you really so confident that the way you and your family treated is bad enough to call what you experience persecution, or hate, in the same vein as gay people suffer?

The reason all these holidays and parades exist is to bolster something that is already lacking. If you have a scale where one side is not balanced with the other, putting equal weights on both sides will only enforce the same inbalance!

 

[Eterna]

If its partly environmental, and you change the environment then...

?

Why would it have to be entirely environmental?

It doesn't work that way. If it did nobody would be gay. I can't explain to you why it doesn't work that way because nobody knows.

It's not as simple as switching environments.

The way I see it, is that you're born gay, the environment you are in can nurture that sexuality or surpress it.

 

[mattj]

I can't explain to you why it doesn't work that way because nobody knows.

This looks a whole lot like "It can't be true. It just can't!"

If environment affects your sexuality, and as far as I've read pretty much everyone agrees it does, then if you change your environment you could very well change your sexuality. "It just can't be true!" doesn't cut it.

 

[Kaiserin]

This looks a whole lot like "It can't be true. It just can't!"

If environment affects your sexuality, and as far as I've read pretty much everyone agrees it does, then if you change your environment you could very well change your sexuality. "It just can't be true!" doesn't cut it.

The problem is that, while it's a lot easier to establish something in the human mind -- in this case, someone's idea of their own sexuality -- changing it is a whole different ballpark. You could change the environment, certainly, but once someone who has been certain they're gay all their life is removed from that environment, odds are that's not going to change once they're out. Same applies for straight people. Perhaps it would work in other fields of science, but in psychology, removing the cause does not often or even usually remove the effect in turn. Things you learn about yourself and adjust to in your environment stick.

 

[Eterna]

This looks a whole lot like "It can't be true. It just can't!"

If environment affects your sexuality, and as far as I've read pretty much everyone agrees it does, then if you change your environment you could very well change your sexuality. "It just can't be true!" doesn't cut it.

Except you can't because your sexuality isn't determined completely by your environment. Your ignoring the genetic part of it. The Environment simply enforces the sexuality.

If it was a simple as moving out of your parents house and into a new environment MattJ, then don't you think scientists would have discovered a connection by now? Do you seriously think they would overlook something so obvious? It's not that simple.

Not only that, but couldn't it theoretically work both ways? If Sexual orientation was that easy to change it would happen all the time, to straight people too.

 

[mattj]

@Kaiserin: I really mean this with all due respect, but that doesn't make any sense. If a person's environment has any affect whatsoever on a person's sexuality, then changing their environment absolutely can change their sexuality. What reason could you give as to why environment would influence a person at one point but cannot at another? I realize that what people learn about themselves do tend to stick, but why can't people learn new things? I see people do this all the time.

@Eterna: I'll repeat myself, why must a person's environmental factors solely determine their sexuality in order to influence it? You have freely admitted that their environmental factors play a part in forming their sexuality at one point in their life. If those factors change, why shouldn't their sexuality change along with it? Why should they have to be the sole determining factor?

Sexuality is not an A/B, on/off, left/right, right/wrong, two-choice-only issue. Its a broad field with all kinds of degrees. Genetics pushes you one way. Environment pushes you another. Your upbringing pushes you another. Your life choices push you another. And you end up somewhere on the wide map. If your genes push you toward homosexuality, and your environment, religion, upbringing, goals, etc push you toward heterosexuality strong enough, it doesn't matter how hard your genes push. The overwhelming effect will be that you'll lean toward, or will be heterosexual.

Have you really never heard of completely, solely straight people suddenly finding themselves attracted to the same sex at some late point in their lives? There have been posts here in this very thread, as well as the old one, and reports all over the news. It does happen all the time.

 

[Eterna]

@Eterna: I'll repeat myself, why must a person's environmental factors solely determine their sexuality in order to influence it? You have freely admitted that their environmental factors play a part in forming their sexuality at one point in their life. If those factors change, why shouldn't their sexuality change along with it? Why should they have to be the sole determining factor?

And I'll repeat myself, The environment is only half of the equation. You can't just undo how your sexuality has developed, changing your environment won't undo who you are. And besides, we have no idea the degree an environment can affect a person, I'd wager my environment had little to no affect on me at all.

No environment will turn you gay, that's silly. At the most it can reinforce what is already there.

 

[mattj]

Either they affect your sexuality or they don't. Which is it?

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

I really do plan to respond regarding the issue of straight privilege and parades and stuff, but there is one thing I need to ask that may clear up some confusion: Eterna, are you saying that sexuality, once formed, is unchangeable by any influence? In other words, genes, hormones, upbringing, society, and some stuff I don't remember at the moment contribute until a certain point and then one's sexuality is set. Is that what you mean?

 

[Eterna]

I really do plan to respond regarding the issue of straight privilege and parades and stuff, but there is one thing I need to ask that may clear up some confusion: Eterna, are you saying that sexuality, once formed, is unchangeable by any influence? In other words, genes, hormones, upbringing, society, and some stuff I don't remember at the moment contribute until a certain point and then one's sexuality is set. Is that what you mean?

I believe that if you're gay, you're gay. If you're bisexual then you're bisexual. I won't say your sexuality is ever set, but I will say it's impossible to make a conscious choice to change it. And it's certainly not as simple as changing ones environment like MattJ seems to be implying.

Either they affect your sexuality or they don't. Which is it?

They do, but not nearly to the degree that you're trying to imply.