NationStates Jolt Archive

A leading editorial in Sweden's leading evening paper: (http://www.aftonbladet.se/ledare/ledarkronika/asapetersen/article2975130.ab)

Europride was inaugurated on the hottest day of the summer. The rainbow flags of [Stockholm's] buses swayed in scorching winds. The Christian Democrat Jan Stefansson , a member of Stockholm county's public transportation board, lamented the decision to flag for Pride as "extremely unfortunate". I could personally think of far more unfortunate things than buses adorned with a world-famous symbol for human rights. Such as for instance the fact that xeno- and homophobic hate crimes have risen by 17% in three years.

The official Europride flag was raised at the Solliden stage at Skansen last night. All of 11 000 people came to the inaugural gala. Schlager guru Christer Björkman and party queen Babsan presented artists such as Anne-Li Rydé and Sarah Dawn Finer. When she used her bombastic voice to belt out "I remember love", even "Cunnigunda's mother", the most bitter drag queens in the realm, stood up to cheer. EU minister Cecilia Malmström reminded us that homosexuality is banned in 70 countries. Amnesty spoke of "curative rapes" to turn lesbians. Women told of being thrown in prison cells filled with men and fainting as they were raped.

The right to celebrate Pride is not self-evident. Pride festivals have been banned and harassed in several European countries, such as Poland and Moldova. I remember Riga Pride 2007. To guarantee safety the police caged the festival. We marched back and forth in a fenced-in park. Outside, rightist extremists shouted and threw fireworks at the participants.

The Indian Prince Manvendra Singh Gohil is visiting Stockholm during Pride. He married a woman, divorced, came out and was shunned. When he was interviewed by Oprah Winfrey, a famous star in India, he was fell back into better graces. Now he works with preventing HIV/AIDS among men who have sex with men in a country where homosexual acts are banned by old colonial laws. He asks the Swedish GLBT movement for help in the struggle for human rights, and sends greetings from India, "the land of the sinful Kama Sutra".

More than 700 volunteers carry Pride upon their shoulders. Tiina Rosenberg, the most renowned queer feminist in Sweden, thanks the GLBT movement for a stubborn struggle and for advances such as discrimination laws and insemination rights: "Many heteros have assisted us. But it is the people of our movement in politics, culture and society that have done the job. That is why we do not say thank you. We say: It's about bloody time!"

Tiina Rosenberg refuses to apologise. She speaks of the GLBT movement's right to be different. Love is important. But GLBT people are not discriminated against because of love - they are because of sex. "We must defend the right to have sex without love whenever one feels like it. As it is now, we are rewarded by the majority when we resemble them. We must not yield from our sexual radicalism and our gender radicalism. Do not shut your legs, that has never been part of our movement!", says Tiina Rosenberg. The cheers knew no bounds. Marit Bergman finished the gala off. With a seductive look in her eyes and neon shoes she sent the Pride revellers into the night with the song "Out on the piers" (http://youtube.com/watch?v=BQZarZE3o4w):

”Go down to the water
through streets worn down and torn
this is our lost kingdom
we’re queens of it all
Tonight we’ll be shameless
Tonight we’ll be shameless”

Europride fills the term "Swedish Sin" with new meaning. People are to be allowed to be what they are. Shamelessness gives birth to human value.

Hurrah! Finally it is said, and finally it is brought to the foreground. We must never apologise for ourselves, we must never settle for acceptance on the majority's terms. We will fight for our rights to our sexualities no matter how shameless it makes us. Shame is for losers, and other wretched Christian Democrats!

I thought Swedish sin was to do with nudity?

Such as for instance the fact that xeno- and homophobic hate crimes have risen by 17% in three years.

surely that is due to increases in the levels of it being reported?

Fass is right people. Never give up the struggle!

...

Well, you know, until you win. Then you can give it up.

A leading editorial in Sweden's leading evening paper: (http://www.aftonbladet.se/ledare/ledarkronika/asapetersen/article2975130.ab)



Hurrah! Finally it is said, and finally it is brought to the foreground. We must never apologise for ourselves, we must never settle for acceptance on the majority's terms. We will fight for our rights to our sexualities no matter how shameless it makes us. Shame is for losers, and other wretched Christian Democrats!

Nice.

The question is, has it set the movement back 40 years, or just maybe 10.

The question is, has it set the movement back 40 years, or just maybe 10.

While something like that might happen in some backwater hell hole where sex is naughty, this strengthens the Swedish GLBT movement.

I thought Swedish sin was to do with nudity?

No, it has to do with the right to a sexuality. While it may have been seen as being about nudity in puritan countries where boobies are "traumatising", in Sweden "Swedish Sin" has always been about core liberal values.

surely that is due to increases in the levels of it being reported?

Your guess is as good as BRÅ's.

No, it has to do with the right to a sexuality.

lets say I had a horse...and we became more than friends :p*begins picking apart your culture*

Your guess is as good as BRÅ's.

lets just hope that it doesn't include an increase in Scotland since 2004:

Homophobic crime has risen by up to 90% in some of Scotland's regions, according to figures obtained by the Sunday Herald.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20041114/ai_n12591517

Fass is right people. Never give up the struggle!
Indeed!

To quote my sig, and Frank Herbert, "Ya Hya Chouhada!" (Long live the fighters!)


Homophobic crime has risen by up to 90% in some of Scotland's regions, according to figures obtained by the Sunday Herald.
:(

Not something I can be proud in the wee place I live. Unfortunately, and not ignoring the big steps gay rights campaigners have made in this country, Scotland (and the UK in general) have a loooong way to go before equality is here to stay.

While something like that might happen in some backwater hell hole where sex is naughty, this strengthens the Swedish GLBT movement.

Sweden must be particularly insular if they think that the LGBT movement stops at their borders.

In deciding to make the argument that homo-sexual relationships are about sex, this brilliant maneuveur has presented the rightwing parties of the world with exactly the sort of target they've wanted - leverage to make this a 'moral' issue.

With their mindless renunciation of romantic notion, one group of dullards has made the LGBT ientity that of commitment-phobic hedonists, focused on carnal satisfaction above all else.

It was stupidity. Issues like 'right to marry' may well have been set back decades, because one group of loudmouths decided to present the whole issue as being about casual fucking.

Not something I can be proud in the wee place I live.

well 2004 was when happy slapping was gaining speed

Unfortunately, and not ignoring the big steps gay rights campaigners have made in this country, Scotland (and the UK in general) have a loooong way to go before equality is here to stay.

I'd give it at most 20 years (considering how far its come since the 80's)

I have to say i take exception to what Tiina Rosenburg was reported as saying in this article. As someone who is currently the university Queer Officer and having just come back from my country's national queer youth convention i strongly disagree with her propositions.

Firstly; as a marginalised community within society all our gains have been dependent upon the concession of heterosexuals so it's mindless to simply push them aside as a background character in the narrative of Queer social emanciapation. Although i do understand her desire to underscore the burden of the work that's been taken out by Queers in promoting their own agenda.

Secondly i disagree so strongly with the underlying values that shape her second statement that projects Queer as being somehow inherently dichotomous to a heterosexuality that gets the privledge of "owning" practices such as monogomy, child raising, living together, long-term relationships, marriages etc etc. My sexuality IS different but it's not defined by its opposition to things that heterosexuals get the assumed right to perform. I don't think Queer sexuality is somehow undermined when Queers choose certain lifestyles that happen to resemble those practiced by some (many) heterosexuals.

As for "the right" to have sex without love while i support the 'right' of people to determine their own sexuality i don't think the right to frak specifically without love is someone owned by Queers or even something we should necessarily promote. In fact i think a lot of this sex without connection is the product of - and a perpetuation - of the marginalised positon that Queers have been subjected to. Especially gay men. When you demonstrate your relationship in public or even in private, when something as mundane as going on a date is enough to stir hateful and aggressive behaviour how may other options are there beyond the beats? My point is, while i think there's nothing wrong with sex per se i think this whole gay-queer culture of detatched frakking is a symptom and a reinforcement of our marginalisation rather than some kind of brave and wonderful act of liberation.

well 2004 was when happy slapping was gaining speed
Och, a bunch of media-fuelled nonsense.

I'd give it at most 20 years (considering how far its come since the 80's)
Hopefully.

Public perception and legislation are a different matter, though.

I have to say i take exception to what Tiina Rosenburg was reported as saying in this article. As someone who is currently the university Queer Officer and having just come back from my country's national queer youth convention i strongly disagree with her propositions.

Firstly; as a marginalised community within society all our gains have been dependent upon the concession of heterosexuals so it's mindless to simply push them aside as a background character in the narrative of Queer social emanciapation. Although i do understand her desire to underscore the burden of the work that's been taken out by Queers in promoting their own agenda.

Secondly i disagree so strongly with the underlying values that shape her second statement that projects Queer as being somehow inherently dichotomous to a heterosexuality that gets the privledge of "owning" practices such as monogomy, child raising, living together, long-term relationships, marriages etc etc. My sexuality IS different but it's not defined by its opposition to things that heterosexuals get the assumed right to perform. I don't think Queer sexuality is somehow undermined when Queers choose certain lifestyles that happen to resemble those practiced by some (many) heterosexuals.

As for "the right" to have sex without love while i support the 'right' of people to determine their own sexuality i don't think the right to frak specifically without love is someone owned by Queers or even something we should necessarily promote. In fact i think a lot of this sex without connection is the product of - and a perpetuation - of the marginalised positon that Queers have been subjected to. Especially gay men. When you demonstrate your relationship in public or even in private, when something as mundane as going on a date is enough to stir hateful and aggressive behaviour how may other options are there beyond the beats? My point is, while i think there's nothing wrong with sex per se i think this whole gay-queer culture of detatched frakking is a symptom and a reinforcement of our marginalisation rather than some kind of brave and wonderful act of liberation.Well said, especially the end part.

Awwww man, I thought the title said Swedish Fish

/corny joke

That's a great thing. I support people who cherish who they are, and not ashamed of who they are, 200+% .

I must admit I think I'm a bit homophobic though, but as long as I don't get hit on, I'm alright.

And No, I would never even think of committing a hate crime over sexuality.

Yes, Biotopia, that was very well said at the ending there, you are right IMHO.

I must admit I think I'm a bit homophobic though, but as long as I don't get hit on, I'm alright. *refrains from making comment about shaking hands with your one-eyed weasel*

Is there a point to all this?

Really Fass it is about time you got yourself a blog.

Is there a point to all this?

Really Fass it is about time you got yourself a blog.

I sense bigotry.

I sense bigotry.

Why because he just put up an editorial and said this is it, rather then giving us a question or something to debate?

Why because he just put up an editorial and said this is it, rather then giving us a question or something to debate?

Of course if you apply the simplistic label of "Bourgeois" to anything you disagree with Andaras will pretty much support any view you want him to. He's like the Red Scare running in reverse.

Of course if you apply the simplistic label of "Bourgeois" to anything you disagree with Andaras will pretty much support any view you want him to. He's like the Red Scare running in reverse.

True, true but I think AP was looking for an argument.

EU minister Cecilia Malmström reminded us that homosexuality is banned in 70 countries. Amnesty spoke of "curative rapes" to turn lesbians. Women told of being thrown in prison cells filled with men and fainting as they were raped.

Well that's about as evil a thing as I've ever heard of. Brightens your day, doesn't it?

Why because he just put up an editorial and said this is it, rather then giving us a question or something to debate?

No, it looks to me like your ignoring this important topic because you harbor a secret bigotry.

Oh, the poor homosexuals. Aren't they just the most persecuted and unjustly-treated group there ever was? Not being able to have same-sex unions endorsed by every government and religion on the planet is exactly the same as the injustices forced upon the Jews in WWII Europe or the African-Americans in pre-1970s America.

Oh, the poor homosexuals. Aren't they just the most persecuted and unjustly-treated group there ever was? Not being able to have same-sex unions endorsed by every government and religion on the planet is exactly the same as the injustices forced upon the Jews in WWII Europe or the African-Americans in pre-1970s America.

:rolleyes: You're comparing apples to oranges, hon. You don't compare how one minority is treated today with how another was treated in the past. Rather you compare them in the same historical era. In doing this, you will see that Jews and homosexuals were treated very similarly in Nazi Germany. Both groups were rounded up and sent to the death camps. In pre 1970s America gay men were regularly imprisoned, institutionalized, lobotomized, and castrated. In the US today, both Jews and African-Americans are allowed to marry and are legally protected against discrimination in employment, housing, insurance, etc., while the gay community is not. So yes, the gay community is treated worse than other minorities in the US today. And yes this should be rectified.

No, it looks to me like your ignoring this important topic because you harbor a secret bigotry.

Well we already know you have poor vision AP, however, as this tabloid is self described as Socialist I am sure you love this biased paper, just as much as you hate FOX for being biased.

Oh, the poor homosexuals. Aren't they just the most persecuted and unjustly-treated group there ever was? Not being able to have same-sex unions endorsed by every government and religion on the planet is exactly the same as the injustices forced upon the Jews in WWII Europe or the African-Americans in pre-1970s America.

No-one can be considered persecuted anymore because of the bigotries of the past?
What the hell?

Well we already know you have poor vision AP, however, as this tabloid is self described as Socialist I am sure you love this biased paper, just as much as you hate FOX for being biased.

Andaras is the Jack Chick of Socialism. It's not enough being a Socialist, you have to be a Stalinist or he'll probably claim you're too bourgeois.

Andaras is the Jack Chick of Socialism. It's not enough being a Socialist, you have to be a Stalinist or he'll probably claim you're too bourgeois.

I wonder what Andaras thinks of Santa Claus…

I wonder what Andaras thinks of Santa Claus…
Bourgeois?

Bourgeois?

Yeah, but I meant beyond that.

Yeah, but I meant beyond that.

He is an exploter of the common elf and uses them for his own selfish gain, that selfish gain being giving kids all over the world free gifts.

Cut it out.

Sirocco has ruled (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13870065&postcount=2) on whether this topic is legit (it is) and I am ruling on whether you can continue the topic hijack about Andaras -- you can't.

Andaras, quit theorising about other posters' motives.

Everybody, back to the topic.

er... gay = 'good' hate = bad and thus the conversation slowly shunts along the designated rail lines of debate

No-one can be considered persecuted anymore because of the bigotries of the past?
What the hell?

Pretty much. But haven't our mothers been saying that for years?

"Stop complaining and eat your dinner; there are children starving in China."

Allow me, as a Swede, laugh my ass of.

Tiina Rosenberg, they couldn't possibly have chosen a worse symbol, her official name in Sweden is "Riksidioten" (The national idiot). Among my favorite statements made by this mentally challenged fascist is "all women who have sex with men are gender traitors", she harbors exactly the hate that the gay community in Sweden OH SO FIERCELY OPPOSES IN THE NAME OF BUTTSEX.

I am unable to put in words how much the Swedish people are ashamed of this abomination, she effectively turns everything she touches to shit, "Femenistiskt Initiativ" is a fine example, she along with her fellow fanatics turned this, respectable feminism party, with hopes of change for women in Sweden, into a steaming pile of hypocritical shit, no one takes it serious anymore.



While I'm at it, posting, I would like to hear your opinions the fact of the Pride festival itself - Is there a need for it? In Sweden? Would a hetero festival be equally accepted and cheered on by politicians who are hungry for politically correct points?

Please, share your views!

*snip*

I'm interested in what you have to say and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Having no practical knowledge about Sweden, I don't know if your description of Rosenberg is accurate or agreed upon by most people, but I would say that even if it is accurate, it makes little difference to Fass--he doesn't like women or heteros anyway.

I thought the whole "Love before sex" thing went out decades ago.....

A leading editorial in Sweden's leading evening paper: (http://www.aftonbladet.se/ledare/ledarkronika/asapetersen/article2975130.ab)

Hurrah! Finally it is said, and finally it is brought to the foreground. We must never apologise for ourselves, we must never settle for acceptance on the majority's terms. We will fight for our rights to our sexualities no matter how shameless it makes us. Shame is for losers, and other wretched Christian Democrats!
Dude! Get a bl- Oh wait! This isn't a bloggish OP. Nevermind!

On topic, I'd say that I agree and disagree with her. It is about sex - and homosexuals should never have to give up sex - but it's also about love, so I wouldn't exclude one or the other. Both are areas in which there still remains work to be done when it comes to equality.

It's like when people say "I have no problem with homosexuals, just homosexual acts" - both are areas where there's work to be done.

Nice.

The question is, has it set the movement back 40 years, or just maybe 10.
How so?

...she harbors exactly the hate that the gay community in Sweden OH SO FIERCELY OPPOSES IN THE NAME OF BUTTSEX.
Methinks I smell someone who doesn't approve all that much of the homosexual community?


While I'm at it, posting, I would like to hear your opinions the fact of the Pride festival itself - Is there a need for it? In Sweden? Would a hetero festival be equally accepted and cheered on by politicians who are hungry for politically correct points?
There is a need for it, and not just because homosexuals are attacked, killed, persecuted and generally treated badly in other countries and this should be used to show sympathy beyond the borders - but also because acts of bigotry and intolerance also happens in Sweden today.

A hetero festival... While I have no objections to it I fail to see the point of it. But I'm sure you can show how heterosexuals are discriminated against and persecuted in Sweden and elsewhere.

IHaving no practical knowledge about Sweden, I don't know if your description of Rosenberg is accurate or agreed upon by most people, but I would say that even if it is accurate, it makes little difference to Fass--he doesn't like women or heteros anyway.
Wut?

Methinks I smell someone who doesn't approve all that much of the homosexual community?

I really don't care what hole people prefer to put their dick into. However, I do not like idiots, Tiina Rosenberg, is a idiot beyond measure, letting her talk at something homosexuals think is important is like the red cross hiring Mugabe.


There is a need for it, and not just because homosexuals are attacked, killed, persecuted and generally treated badly in other countries and this should be used to show sympathy beyond the borders - but also because acts of bigotry and intolerance also happens in Sweden today.

In Sweden we have a problem with street violence, however it is not limited to homosexuals, I can safely say, there isn't much of a problem, people are more likely to be targeted for what suburb they come from, or what soccer team they like. Why not spend the time and money to improve the living standards of homosexuals in other countries, instead of painting yourself in yellow and running around in thong, I can't see how doing that has a positive effect on the views many people around the world have on homosexuals.


A hetero festival... While I have no objections to it I fail to see the point of it. But I'm sure you can show how heterosexuals are discriminated against and persecuted in Sweden and elsewhere.

That I can't, but the question is, do I have to?

Tiina Rosenberg, they couldn't possibly have chosen a worse symbol, her official name in Sweden is "Riksidioten" (The national idiot). Among my favorite statements made by this mentally challenged fascist is "all women who have sex with men are gender traitor", she harbors exactly the hate that the gay community in Sweden OH SO FIERCELY OPPOSES IN THE NAME OF BUTTSEX.


Explains why Fass is so supportive of this person then.

I really don't care what hole people prefer to put their dick into.
Yet you feel the need to give whole Swedish gay community a slap in the face.


Why not spend the time and money to improve the living standards of homosexuals in other countries, instead of painting yourself in yellow and running around in thong, I can't see how doing that has a positive effect on the views many people around the world have on homosexuals.
Because they can't possibly be doing both?


That I can't, but the question is, do I have to?
If you want to justify a hetero pride parade, yes.

The idea of a hetero pride parade to me is strangely reminiscent of SS troops marching down a street saying 'down with Jewish tyranny', isn't it just rubbing the oppression in?

...Tiina Rosenberg...

Is she the one who called all men "animals"?
And that in a most derogatory way possible..

If so, then yes, she is an idiot.

Yet you feel the need to give whole Swedish gay community a slap in the face.

There there, do you really consider what I have said to be a slap in the face?

Because they can't possibly be doing both?

I don't doubt it, but what I am trying to say is, why do they waste their time, our time, their money and our money it? If homosexual rights is soo damn important why not try to work for a better tomorrow instead of parading like a bunch of clowns, and I can assure you, doing that does not make things better for anyone. If anything, it confirms every prejudice out there.

If you want to justify a hetero pride parade, yes.

Is a gay pride parade more justified?

The idea of a hetero pride parade to me is strangely reminiscent of SS troops marching down a street saying 'down with Jewish tyranny', isn't it just rubbing the oppression in?

Its not exactly the same thing.

Many, if not most, say that pride is a way of celebrating "our" sexuality. So isn't it discriminating that hetero's they can't celebrate their sexuality by running around dressed in clothes resembling a Amsterdam sex orgie.

Its not exactly the same thing.

Many, if not most, say that pride is a way of celebrating "our" sexuality. So isn't it discriminating that hetero's they can't celebrate their sexuality by running around dressed in clothes resembling a Amsterdam sex orgie.
Well I think it's disturbing because it sounds like you have some kind of emotional problem in that you have a hatred against homosexuals and want to 'get back at them' by posited a 'competition' because homosexuals and heteros.

And even so, it seems rather perverse that a hetero-pride parade would happen while the kind of oppression Fass was highlighted still exists around the world.

Its not exactly the same thing.

Many, if not most, say that pride is a way of celebrating "our" sexuality. So isn't it discriminating that hetero's they can't celebrate their sexuality by running around dressed in clothes resembling a Amsterdam sex orgie.Mainstream society already celebrates heterosexuality, a parade doing so would be redundant.

The idea of a hetero pride parade to me is strangely reminiscent of SS troops marching down a street saying 'down with Jewish tyranny', isn't it just rubbing the oppression in?Its not exactly the same thing.

Many, if not most, say that pride is a way of celebrating "our" sexuality. So isn't it discriminating that hetero's they can't celebrate their sexuality by running around dressed in clothes resembling a Amsterdam sex orgie.
Well I think it's disturbing because it sounds like you have some kind of emotional problem in that you have a hatred against homosexuals and want to 'get back at them' by posited a 'competition' because homosexuals and heteros.

And even so, it seems rather perverse that a hetero-pride parade would happen while the kind of oppression Fass was highlighted still exists around the world.


I hate to say it, but I agree with AP...

Well I think it's disturbing because it sounds like you have some kind of emotional problem in that you have a hatred against homosexuals and want to 'get back at them' by posited a 'competition' because homosexuals and heteros.

And even so, it seems rather perverse that a hetero-pride parade would happen while the kind of oppression Fass was highlighted still exists around the world.

Well that is not entirely correct, I am only talking in theory, I don't intend to do it nor support it if someone would bring up the topic.

There there, do you really consider what I have said to be a slap in the face?
Not to me, but to them, yes..


I don't doubt it, but what I am trying to say is, why do they waste their time, our time, their money and our money it? If homosexual rights is soo damn important why not try to work for a better tomorrow instead of parading like a bunch of clowns, and I can assure you, doing that does not make things better for anyone. If anything, it confirms every prejudice out there.
Because becoming visible is an important part of the fight for equality too. To show you that there are many of them, that they're people - just like you - and that they're allowed to make fools of themselves and ridicule stereotypes if they choose to do so.


Is a gay pride parade more justified?
Yes.

Radical groups clash with Hungarian police and attack gay marchers. (http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hRvZGLmXDq6_UsD_XWjjUAv9wS2A)

Bulgarian extremists attack gay parade with rocks (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hPPVP5pSuOhYBaqSzedYwenFMqZgD91JA0O80)

Speaking during an Assembly committee meeting addressing the issue of paedophilia, Iris Robinson announced, “There can be no viler act, apart from homosexuality, than sexually abusing innocent children”.
http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/33296


Its not exactly the same thing.

Many, if not most, say that pride is a way of celebrating "our" sexuality. So isn't it discriminating that hetero's they can't celebrate their sexuality by running around dressed in clothes resembling a Amsterdam sex orgie.
Can't they?

Is there a lack of celebration of heterosexuality in the mainstream media these days?

Is a gay pride parade more justified?

Oh, and I should add: In how many countries are homosexuality considered a disease? In how many countries are homosexuality or homosexual acts prohibited and punishable? Not to mention the societal discrimination...

Wut?

Okay, maybe I exaggerated. I don't know that he hates women. I apologize, NSG. But he has articulated his feelings on homosexuals being superior to heterosexuals in a variety of ways.

Is there a lack of celebration of heterosexuality in the mainstream media these days?

Heh. Touche.

Oh, Odin, the gay = pedophile thing. So fucking illogical. How can people who think in those terms not be extinct yet?

lets say I had a horse...and we became more than friends :p*begins picking apart your culture*

You seem to think I would mind you fucking your horse, or sensually caressing your cow's udders. On the contrary, I'd much rather you do that than send them to a glue factory or slaughter them to feast on their flesh or to wear pieces of their carcasses as clothing. I can think of far worse things you have on your conscience against animals than a sexual act here or there that probably never even hurt the animal.

I fear Lerdala is just an angry conservative hopelessly trapped in his little western world upset with seeing Queer Eye for the Straight Guy on tv.

I fear Lerdala is just an angry conservative hopelessly trapped in his little western world upset with seeing Queer Eye for the Straight Guy on tv.

If I had to watch that, I'd probably be bitter too.

Sweden must be particularly insular if they think that the LGBT movement stops at their borders.

And you must be particularly deluded if you think we in Sweden would care what foreign homophobes have to say about us. I mean, I know in some countries it is extremely common to go around thinking about what sort of things might give evil people ideas - "don't desecrate the Koran, that might get the islamofascists upset! Instead curtail your freedoms and speech out of concern for them and out of fear for what they might do!" - we are not such cowards here.

In deciding to make the argument that homo-sexual relationships are about sex,

They are about sex. They are about love, but they are also about sex. We will not be de-sexed or rendered eunuchs because some morons some place find it unpalatable to think of us as sexual creatures. In that same category of "morons" I do not just put homophobes, I also put so called "supporters" whose support ends at the abstraction of "love".

this brilliant maneuveur has presented the rightwing parties of the world with exactly the sort of target they've wanted - leverage to make this a 'moral' issue.

It will only be a "moral" issue if we cede sexuality as a moral issue. Again, I repeat: I do not care what right-wing parties of the world think. They are wrong.

With their mindless renunciation of romantic notion, one group of dullards has made the LGBT ientity that of commitment-phobic hedonists, focused on carnal satisfaction above all else.

And with idiotic utterances we are far more hurt by from some of our so called "supporters", they like to claim this is all about love. It is not. The theme of Pride this year is "Swedish Sin, Breaking Borders". It is about sex. We are about sex. We are about love, but we are also about sex. And don't you forget it, no matter how much it churns you "supporter" stomach to think of it.

It was stupidity. Issues like 'right to marry' may well have been set back decades, because one group of loudmouths decided to present the whole issue as being about casual fucking.

Again, you make the mistake to think we care of homophobes and false supporters abroad.

You seem to think I would mind you fucking your horse, or sensually caressing your cow's udders.

Or manually stimulating your tortoise. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=561363)

ETA: Yay! One of the positive changes of these last days is that they reduced the in-between-searches-time to 20 seconds, which actually renders the search function useful.

Firstly; as a marginalised community within society all our gains have been dependent upon the concession of heterosexuals

Pishposh. Anything we ever got, we did not get it as a hand-out. We forced it out of them. So, we have nothing to thank heterosexuals for. You do not tell massa "thank you for letting me free", you tell him "it's about bloody time you gave up your stupid resistance to sanity".

Secondly i disagree so strongly with the underlying values that shape her second statement that projects Queer as being somehow inherently dichotomous to a heterosexuality that gets the privledge of "owning" practices such as monogomy, child raising, living together, long-term relationships, marriages etc etc. My sexuality IS different but it's not defined by its opposition to things that heterosexuals get the assumed right to perform. I don't think Queer sexuality is somehow undermined when Queers choose certain lifestyles that happen to resemble those practiced by some (many) heterosexuals.

It is undermined when quislings and other assorted trash not just from within our own ranks, but also our supporters, narrow down queer sexuality to be palatable to the heterosexist majority by pushing for and demanding that it be more like theirs, and that we indeed "shut our legs" lest they think less of us. Fuck them! We are not fighting this fight so that some wannabe-heterosexual and thus "sympathetic" fags and dykes out there get to be the only ones with rights and acceptance - we are fighting this fight so that all of us get it. All of us, and that includes not just those who "love", but also those who fuck.

As for "the right" to have sex without love while i support the 'right' of people to determine their own sexuality i don't think the right to frak specifically without

"Frak"? It's called "fuck".

love is someone owned by Queers or even something we should necessarily promote. In fact i think a lot of this sex without connection is the product of - and a perpetuation - of the marginalised positon that Queers have been subjected to. Especially gay men. When you demonstrate your relationship in public or even in private, when something as mundane as going on a date is enough to stir hateful and aggressive behaviour how may other options are there beyond the beats? My point is, while i think there's nothing wrong with sex per se i think this whole gay-queer culture of detatched frakking is a symptom and a reinforcement of our marginalisation rather than some kind of brave and wonderful act of liberation.

And I think it sad beyond belief that you think something as heterosexist as that, and that you've drunk their neo-moralist kool-aid so willingly.

Allow me, as a Swede, laugh my ass of.

Du gör sannerligen rätt för ditt bonnläppnamn.

I am unable to put in words how much the Swedish people are ashamed of this abomination

I am however quite able to put into words how deluded it is of you not only to think you can speak for us as a people, but also that you do so thinking you have a clue thereto.

Or manually stimulating your tortoise. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=561363)

That is quite possibly the greatest arrangement of English words that I shall ever see.

I really don't care what hole people prefer to put their dick into. However, I do not like idiots, Tiina Rosenberg, is a idiot beyond measure, letting her talk at something homosexuals think is important is like the red cross hiring Mugabe.

No, it is more like the Red Cross hiring Albert Schweitzer, and exposes how little you actually know of Tiina Rosenberg and her work. Let me guess, you've never even actually read anything of and by her, but instead get all you get about her from the tabloids?

In Sweden we have a problem with street violence,

No, we don't, but that's not the thread topic.

Why not spend the time and money to improve the living standards of homosexuals in other countries, instead of painting yourself in yellow and running around in thong, I can't see how doing that has a positive effect on the views many people around the world have on homosexuals.

http://www.stockholmpride.org/en/feel/Programme-List/Pride-House-Day-by-Day/

Thank you for exposing you know nothing of Pride and the 10 days of activities it is host to, and how many of them this year are indeed focused on the international perspective, or how Stockholm Pride and the Swedish GLBT movement have in the last decade supported with manpower as well as funds and solidarity the GLBT movements in Eastern Europe. Also, thank you for exposing you've never been to the Pride parade with your "painting yourself in yellow and running around in thong" cluelessness:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=534791

http://www.qx.se/nyheter/bilder/200708/20070804184000.jpg

Du gör sannerligen rätt för ditt bonnläppnamn


Särskrivning.se

Jag är nöjd för idag! Att göra PK fascister upprörda på Internet blir aldrig gammalt!

That is quite possibly the greatest arrangement of English words that I shall ever see.
Stick around, there's lots more where that came from.. welcome to NSG.

Särskrivning.se

"Särskrivning innebär att ett sammansatt ord felaktigt skrivs som två eller flera ord." Jag tror inte riktigt att du förstod detta om du lyckades se en särskrivning i mitt inlägg...

Jag är nöjd för idag! Att göra PK fascister upprörda på Internet blir aldrig gammalt!

... speciellt som du sedan särskriver "PK-fascister". Raring? Du är verkligen mer clueless än vad du först lät påskina. Underbart.

Stick around, there's lots more where that came from.. welcome to NSG.

While many aspects of NSG are hilarous in and of themselves, I see the phrase "manually stimulating my tortoise" as being applicable in any possible social situation.

While many aspects of NSG are hilarous in and of themselves, I see the phrase "manually stimulating my tortoise" as being applicable in any possible social situation.
Right. Off the top of my head:

- Sorry hon, no sex tonight. I need to manually stimulate my tortoise; you know she's been there first.

- Sorry professor, I really did plan on handing in this paper earlier, but then I urgently had to manually stimulate my tortoise.

- Dear X, I'd like to apply for your job offer from August 2008. One of my main competencies include manually stimulating my tortoise.

- Sorry, could you go a little faster? I need to rush home to manually stimulate my tortoise.

...

"Särskrivning innebär att ett sammansatt ord felaktigt skrivs som två eller flera ord." Jag tror inte riktigt att du förstod detta om du lyckades se en särskrivning i mitt inlägg...



... speciellt som du sedan särskriver "PK-fascister". Raring? Du är verkligen mer clueless än vad du först lät påskina. Underbart.

Jag älskar dig! Du är precis vad som gör Internet till en så fantastiskt rolig plats!

Om du nu är för fokuserad på att masturbera framför apor och dylikt för att förstå ska jag illustrera det för dig.

Du http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/3/38/Baaaaaw.jpg

Jag http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/5/5b/Successful_troll2.jpg

snip

"Hi, Mr or Mrs NMS, this is Nicole calling to tell you that you may already have won a…"
"MANUALLY STIMULATING MY TORTOISE!"
*click*

Jag älskar dig! Du är precis vad som gör Internet till en så fantastiskt rolig plats!

Om du nu är för fokuserad på att masturbera framför apor och dylikt för att förstå ska jag illustrera det för dig.

Du http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/3/38/Baaaaaw.jpg

Jag http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/5/5b/Successful_troll2.jpg

Uh... is Lerdala saying she's trolling? I don't really... read Swedish... okay, that has to be the word for masturbate...

Om du nu är för fokuserad på att masturbera framför apor och dylikt för att förstå ska jag illustrera det för dig.

Du http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/3/38/Baaaaaw.jpg

Jag http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/5/5b/Successful_troll2.jpg
Wow, the discussion has risen to a new level of maturity and coherence. It could, of course, also be my imperfect grasp of the Swedish language that prevents me from seeing the true light shining in this post, but somehow I doubt it.

Wow, the discussion has risen to a new level of maturity and coherence. It could, of course, also be my imperfect grasp of the Swedish language that prevents me from seeing the true light shining in this post, but somehow I doubt it.

Swedish may be difficult to grasp, but I don't think Chris Crocker is.

Uh... is Lerdala saying she's trolling? I don't really... read Swedish... okay, that has to be the word for masturbate...
Or 'Master Beret'...?

Swedish may be difficult to grasp, but I don't think Chris Crocker is.
If "grasp" also means understanding (my grasp of the English language is also not 100% perfect), I think I have more trouble "grasping" Chris Crocker than Swedish.

Or 'Master Beret'...?
I personally prefer "Mass Starvation"

Uh... is Lerdala saying she's trolling?

Yup. Always nice when people hide the stupidity of their posts behind admitted trolling, isn't it?

And you must be particularly deluded if you think we in Sweden would care what foreign homophobes have to say about us.


Missed the point, eh?

The question you hould be asking yourself is "is it more important for a couple of selfish attentionwhores to strut their stuff in Stockholm, or for the whole cause of sexual/gender equality to move forwards".

How you answer that question will tell a lot about how you'll judge this little debacle.


They are about sex. They are about love, but they are also about sex.


And that's not the message that got pushed. They 'defend the right to have sex without love'. This little parade pushed an agenda of promiscuity, even at the same time that they were drawing attention to REAL problems like the illegality of homosexuality, or the attempt of curative rape.

What's the best platform to run on - actually curing problems like that, or bitching about the fact that you feel like you're being forced to not have random sex?


We will not be de-sexed or rendered eunuchs because some morons some place find it unpalatable to think of us as sexual creatures.


No - instead, apparently, you'll let some group of loudmouths portray you as creatures of sensual indulgence who have no feeling for any deeper relation.

This is one of those cases of being your own worst enemy.


In that same category of "morons" I do not just put homophobes, I also put so called "supporters" whose support ends at the abstraction of "love".


So - they're not REAL supporters, unless they promote promiscuity?

Merely, I don't know... defending civil rights for homosexuals, changing laws to allow all gender combinatuions to marry, opposing the actual violence (that's real violence, the sort that actually hurts - not just wounds your pride)... none of that matters unles they're also protecting YOUR right to fuck indiscriminately?


It will only be a "moral" issue if we cede sexuality as a moral issue. Again, I repeat: I do not care what right-wing parties of the world think. They are wrong.


You are wrong.

See how easy that is?

It is a moral issue in the political arena - which means it brings out the people that rally around 'moral' issues.

So - while people in some places are pushing the equality of rights argument, and people are responding to it, one idiot movement like the one you posted turns it away from equality.

Hell - even YOU admit it's a moral issue in your OP.


And with idiotic utterances we are far more hurt by from some of our so called "supporters", they like to claim this is all about love. It is not.


No one is saying it's ALL about love. The problem is, the 'idiot utterances' in THIS case say it's ALL about sex. I see what you mean about how the "supporters" are hurting you though. These "supporters" you allowed to push THEIR agenda in Stockholm have hurt LGBT agendas all across the world.


The theme of Pride this year is "Swedish Sin, Breaking Borders". It is about sex. We are about sex. We are about love, but we are also about sex. And don't you forget it, no matter how much it churns you "supporter" stomach to think of it.


I'm glad Sweden is so progressive. In an ideal culture, who you have sex with, and your romantic connection to them don't matter. But this isn't ideal - this is, instead, the real world. Some of us are still fighting for the kinds of rights this parade decided to piss all over.

There are cool people of every race and gender. Unfortunately, there are also pricks of every culture and gender. On this occassion, the bulk of the equality movement are just going to have to absorb the fact that sometimes, 700 of those pricks get together in one place and do something stupid.

But, you've got to keep pushing forwards. You can't let equality slip all over, just because some group of uneducated mouthbreathers decide to get all self-destructive. They'll just make your job that little bit harder. Thanks.


Again, you make the mistake to think we care of homophobes and false supporters abroad.

Then, the next time you complain about human rights atrocities in other lands, perhaps you'll feel a little prick of hypocrisy - because it turns out you argue in favour of it.

The question you hould be asking yourself is "is it more important for a couple of selfish attentionwhores to strut their stuff in Stockholm, or for the whole cause of sexual/gender equality to move forwards".
And why should he be asking himself that?

Europride is much more than 'attentionwhores strutting their stuff', and moreover, you seem to be saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that the way to bring about equality between those of differing sexualities is for homosexuals to hide their metaphorical candle under a bushel.

Which seems odd, at the least, to me.

So these nutters are trying to demand the right to act out every sordid stereotype that the religious right has painted every single homosexual in the world with? Just like the OP, the whole parade has turned into a bitter Nietzchean Slave Morality-fuelled pissrant. So self-absorbed in their delusions of being the only champion of gay rights in the world they don't give a shit that they're giving the fundamentalist fruitcakes the exact ammo they need to trigger a backlash.

So these nutters are trying to demand the right to act out every sordid stereotype that the religious right has painted every single homosexual in the world with?
Have I missed something?

Since when did a festival celebrating the lack of repression (in certain areas) of homosexuals in many Western countries, focusing on and with in-depth discussions of those homosexuals who are currently being repressed in many other countries, and consisting of homosexuals from all walks of life, become a bunch of 'nutters'?

And why should they kow-tow to reactionary bigots?

Would you also be against a pride march of women celebrating that they have a vote, enjoying being women, and focusing on those women who are still oppressed around the world?

Or would you get pissed of with a bunch of African Americans marching in celebration of the Civil Rights movement, and remembering those who still suffer from racism around the world?

And why should he be asking himself that?

Europride is much more than 'attentionwhores strutting their stuff', and moreover, you seem to be saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that the way to bring about equality between those of differing sexualities is for homosexuals to hide their metaphorical candle under a bushel.

Which seems odd, at the least, to me.

I'll point you to Gauthier, actually. But let me see if I can address your specifics.

He should be asking himself that - simply - because this question is bigger than Swedish nationalism.

Europride IS much more than attentionwhores strutting - but this article is not showing a good example.

Correct you if you're wrong? Okay - you're wrong.

The way to bring about equality is to make people equal - the prize is where your eyes should be. The means to that end, whatever it takes to get there. I'm not saying that lights should be hidden under bushels - but this lights under bushels thing is deceptive.

One of my closest couples-friends back home are a lesbian couple. They've been together for 20 years, and have a kid who is like 18. They are all about commitment. I don't doubt they have sex, but this whole 'spread your leg' agenda is probably not doing THEM any favours. Just like a promiscuous agenda being attached to ME, politically, wouldn't be any help.

By Fass' reckoning, those lesbians who choose to promote an agenda opposite to 'tackle out for the lads (ladies)', are the enemy.

I'm not pushing hetero promiscuity, either. I think attaching either to your platform as one of your central premises, is making your job harder - pretty much no matter WHAT reform you're trying to sell.


So - what it comes down to is - swedes celebrating the good times, but complaining about having to keep sex behind closed doors... or actual issues of equality that are really disenfranchising, harming... sometimes killing... people in the real world.

Fass seems to be saying "Swedes say fuck you to the world". The world - with it's real equality battles - possibly owes Sweden a fuck-you-back.

Have I missed something?


Clearly.

Europride IS much more than attentionwhores strutting - but this article is not showing a good example.
Oh, I see.

Your problem is with the article/Fass' tone, not Europride itself?

Have I missed something?

Since when did a festival celebrating the lack of repression (in certain areas) of homosexuals in many Western countries, focusing on and with in-depth discussions of those homosexuals who are currently being repressed in many other countries, and consisting of homosexuals from all walks of life, become a bunch of 'nutters'?

And why should they kow-tow to reactionary bigots?

Because giving your enemies ammunition for a propaganda campaign in an information society is always a brilliant maneuver.

Would you also be against a pride march of women celebrating that they have a vote, enjoying being women, and focusing on those women who are still oppressed around the world?

Or would you get pissed of with a bunch of African Americans marching in celebration of the Civil Rights movement, and remembering those who still suffer from racism around the world?

And you're comparing a group of nutters demanding the "freedom" to be hedonistic and socially irresponsible regardless of consequences to themselves or the gay rights movement as a whole to women's rights and the Civil Rights Movement? Oh you definitely missed something all right.

Oh, I see.

Your problem is with the article/Fass' tone, not Europride itself?

Absolutely.

THIS Pride event is a bad example of an event - ANY event.

Fass' insistence on defending it (and making demons of any who would oppose it's... platform), coupled with the detructive choice they made this year? Just bad form.

Like I say - I think they're setting back equality on a global scale. The only question is how far.

And you're comparing a group of nutters demanding the "freedom" to be hedonistic and socially irresponsible regardless of consequences to themselves or the gay rights movement as a whole to women's rights and the Civil Rights Movement?
I don't see the problem comparing the Gay Rights movement with the Women's Rights or Civil Rights movements, no.

Nor do I see all those attending Europride as "a group of nutters demanding the 'freedom' to be hedonistic and socially irresponsible regardless of consequences to themselves".

I don't see the problem comparing the Gay Rights movement with the Women's Rights or Civil Rights movements, no.

Neither do I. Either your reading comprehension needs a touchup or you're being deliberately selective with the quote. These marchers are expressing themselves in a manner that will leave the gay rights movement as a whole open to a propaganda attack using this event.

Nor do I see all those attending Europride as "a group of nutters demanding the 'freedom' to be hedonistic and socially irresponsible regardless of consequences to themselves".

Or to the Gay Rights Movement, as I noted in the last post. It works off the same global principle as when any socially repugnant behavior on the part of Al'Qaeda or some other Middle-Eastern terrorist group will be automatically attributed to Muslims as a whole by the Western world. If these folk supposedly represent gay rights and they're recorded as demanding the right to fuck without social responsibilities, how's that going to be spun by the media?

Neither do I. Either your reading comprehension needs a touchup...
This.

I read it as:

"And you're comparing a group of nutters demanding the "freedom" to be hedonistic and socially irresponsible regardless of consequences to themselves to the gay rights movement as a whole or to women's rights and the Civil Rights Movement?"

Apologies.

This.

I read it as:

"And you're comparing a group of nutters demanding the "freedom" to be hedonistic and socially irresponsible regardless of consequences to themselves to the gay rights movement as a whole or to women's rights and the Civil Rights Movement?"

Apologies.

Apology accepted.

Apology accepted.
Apology accepted, Captain Needa. :p

Du gör sannerligen rätt för ditt bonnläppnamn.



I am however quite able to put into words how deluded it is of you not only to think you can speak for us as a people, but also that you do so thinking you have a clue thereto.

Wait a minute. Fass is telling another Swede that he can't speak for all Swedes when that's basically all Fass has been doing since I first read him? Unbelievable. Even for him.

Maybe I'm crazy, but I don't see how casual sex is a domain exclusive to homosexuality and I definitely don't see how a homosexual person choosing not to engage in it is somehow the enemy.

Casual sex is something that some people engage in. Their sexual orientation is completely irrelevant to that fact. Should they be allowed to do so without anyone who is not involved in that sex life having any say in it? Of course! But that isn't inextricably tied to LGBT rights.

Maybe I'm crazy, but I don't see how casual sex is a domain exclusive to homosexuality and I definitely don't see how a homosexual person choosing not to engage in it is somehow the enemy.

Proof!!1!1

Proof!!1!1

Proof of what? That heterosexual people don't engage in casual sex?

Look, to straight people (even to myself at first) gay pride parades and overt displays of sexuality I found a little off taste, but heterosexual people are naturally going to be looking at such things through their own tinted glasses. I would imagine to a homosexual that the overt sexuality of hetero nightclubs etc would be just as distasteful.

Maybe I'm crazy, but I don't see how casual sex is a domain exclusive to homosexuality and I definitely don't see how a homosexual person choosing not to engage in it is somehow the enemy.

Casual sex is something that some people engage in. Their sexual orientation is completely irrelevant to that fact. Should they be allowed to do so without anyone who is not involved in that sex life having any say in it? Of course! But that isn't inextricably tied to LGBT rights.

Classic symptoms of a witch hunt mentality always include the [Fill in the Blank]er than Thou symptom as well as the classical Lightning Round Denunciations. It can happen to any cause unfortunately. Even ones that are positive like gay rights.

Because giving your enemies ammunition for a propaganda campaign in an information society is always a brilliant maneuver.

And you're comparing a group of nutters demanding the "freedom" to be hedonistic and socially irresponsible regardless of consequences to themselves or the gay rights movement as a whole to women's rights and the Civil Rights Movement? Oh you definitely missed something all right.

I have to side with Fass here, and you know I don't do that lightly.

Your point is valid: if the most important goal of the LGBT movement is to gain international acceptance and legal status, then a less divisive and incendiary position would be the way to go.

However, what Fass seems to be expressing frustration about is the way non-dominant sexuality has been effectively "neutered" so much in many societies, particularly in popular culture. This is something that upsets me quite a bit in U.S. popular culture--there's a message that homosexuals must be desexualized in order to be approachable and "safe" to the heterosexual world. This is getting better, but it's still prevalent. Will and Grace was a show people loved that drove me CRAZY in this regard. Of the two gay male leads, one was the stereotypical campy lisper, and the other was rarely portrayed as "gay" in any way that challenged stereotypes or comfort zones.

The issue with casual sex and homosexuality is essentially the same as the issue with casual sex and women's lib. Those who object strongly to homosexuality are likely to object to casual sex, too, and to link the two together. While gay rights proponents may try to downplay this in an effort to portray homosexuals in a different light, the double standard is frustrating. It's like this for many minority campaigns. Those countering racist ideologies will point out their "friend who is black and a lawyer and adopted six kids" to prove that black people aren't "all bad". However, being a "model citizen" (whatever that entails) should NOT be a necessary qualification for equal rights and equal protection under the law. Racism isn't wrong because minorities are made out to look like criminals when they're all wonderful people, it's wrong because race is a stupid, arbitrary place to draw a line when deciding things about people.

Proof of what? That heterosexual people don't engage in casual sex?

Look, to straight people (even to myself at first) gay pride parades and overt displays of sexuality I found a little off taste, but heterosexual people are naturally going to be looking at such things through their own tinted glasses. I would imagine to a homosexual that the overt sexuality of hetero nightclubs etc would be just as distasteful.

I agreed with you and Fass in the same thread. Clearly if we all leave economics aside and focus on parades, we could live quite peacably together. :p

(Not being a smart ass: I do appreciate your staunch rejection of racism, homophobia and other arbitrary categorizations of human beings, especially as this is obviously in line with Marxist theory. Yet, I've met "communists" who didn't like Jews or other random groups of people... astounding).

While I'm at it, posting, I would like to hear your opinions the fact of the Pride festival itself - Is there a need for it? In Sweden? Would a hetero festival be equally accepted and cheered on by politicians who are hungry for politically correct points?

Please, share your views!

No, not in Sweeden.

Don't be stupid not even the press would turn up.

Mainstream society already celebrates heterosexuality, a parade doing so would be redundant.

Is it not 'celebrated' in mainstream Sweedish society or even Western. Also please define celebrated.

Also there are times I wish I could speak Sweedish, just so I knew what Fass and Lerdala were on about.

Some people have mentioned Europride, which sounds like something which would have been promoted to get people to agree to the EU, shouldn't it be more like Gay pride to encompass all people throughout the world rather than just focusing on Europeans.

No, not in Sweeden.

Don't be stupid not even the press would turn up.



Is it not 'celebrated' in mainstream Sweedish society or even Western. Also please define celebrated.

Also there are times I wish I could speak Sweedish, just so I knew what Fass and Lerdala were on about.

I don't think they speak Sweedish either.

Maybe I'm crazy, but I don't see how casual sex is a domain exclusive to homosexuality and I definitely don't see how a homosexual person choosing not to engage in it is somehow the enemy.

That's what I'm sort of wondering about this thread, myself. Four years in college sure provided me with plenty of evidence that straight people are perfectly capable of crazy-random casual sex.

Some people have mentioned Europride, which sounds like something which would have been promoted to get people to agree to the EU, shouldn't it be more like Gay pride to encompass all people throughout the world rather than just focusing on Europeans.

I don't know about the rest of the country, but in Columbus, Pride Week happened over the Fourth of July.

I don't think they speak Sweedish either.

Ha-de- ha-ha It looks like you got me, Ryadn, yeah you got me, keeping my finger on the 'e' which inadvertently meant I spelt it as Sweedish instead of Swedish, looks like you got me.

I wish I could speak Swedish then, so I knew what they were talking about.

Of course, I never could trust a group of people named after a vegetable. I jest.

I don't know about the rest of the country, but in Columbus, Pride Week happened over the Fourth of July.

And?

I mean apart from not spreading out your festivals, rather than lumping them all together.

Ha-de- ha-ha It looks like you got me, Ryadn, yeah you got me, keeping my finger on the 'e' which inadvertently meant I spelt it as Sweedish instead of Swedish,

You did it three times, so I thought maybe you didn't actually know how to spell it, instead of plain laziness. My bad.

I have to side with Fass here, and you know I don't do that lightly.

Your point is valid: if the most important goal of the LGBT movement is to gain international acceptance and legal status, then a less divisive and incendiary position would be the way to go.

However, what Fass seems to be expressing frustration about is the way non-dominant sexuality has been effectively "neutered" so much in many societies, particularly in popular culture. This is something that upsets me quite a bit in U.S. popular culture--there's a message that homosexuals must be desexualized in order to be approachable and "safe" to the heterosexual world. This is getting better, but it's still prevalent. Will and Grace was a show people loved that drove me CRAZY in this regard. Of the two gay male leads, one was the stereotypical campy lisper, and the other was rarely portrayed as "gay" in any way that challenged stereotypes or comfort zones.

The issue with casual sex and homosexuality is essentially the same as the issue with casual sex and women's lib. Those who object strongly to homosexuality are likely to object to casual sex, too, and to link the two together. While gay rights proponents may try to downplay this in an effort to portray homosexuals in a different light, the double standard is frustrating. It's like this for many minority campaigns. Those countering racist ideologies will point out their "friend who is black and a lawyer and adopted six kids" to prove that black people aren't "all bad". However, being a "model citizen" (whatever that entails) should NOT be a necessary qualification for equal rights and equal protection under the law. Racism isn't wrong because minorities are made out to look like criminals when they're all wonderful people, it's wrong because race is a stupid, arbitrary place to draw a line when deciding things about people.

Those who oppose equality DO link homsexuality with casual sex. They use the sometimes promiscuous lifestyles of SOME homosexuals (bisexuals, etc) to suggest that homsexuality isn't about who you find attractive - but about pure gratification. It's not a 'sexuality' - it's just an excuse for fucking.

To that argument, THIS 'pride' event, is a godsend.

To the greater good argument, though... to those who are arguing for equal rights.. to those who are arguing for - for example - the rights of homosexuals to have the SAME protection for their long-term relationships that heterosexuals are allowed, this is just a kick in the teeth. HOW can you seriously put forth an argument about long term commitment, when you've got another group claiming to represent you, who are out there saying "yay! being gay is all about getting all the no-strings ass you can".

It seems like a stupid platform to be constructing when so many people are actually suffering REAL problems because of their orientation. And, what it really does, is make this one little group look selfish and egocentric.

You did it three times, so I thought maybe you didn't actually know how to spell it, instead of plain laziness. My bad.

Did I really? Oh damn, yes I am a very lazy boy.

I agree. Pride in one's sexual preference is perfectly rational, since it's after all a conscious choice.

Er, I mean, it's not, and so it isn't, and I guess I don't really agree either...

I don't get it....
This kind of thing feeds insecurity....and generalises a whole community...to make them sound arrogant, and for lack of a better word and me being insanely tired...Icky.
I've spent a lot of time in the christian communities, and this is what a lot of them think. That homosexuals are souless, flesh driven deviants, with no conscience and no thought to the consequences of their behaviour.
This is like a red flag to a bull. I thought gay people wanted equality? And if we're talking about sexuality, there are spiritual components, emotional components...and they're settling for having the same physical components. The right to fuck....geez, thats so sad...

Shame is for losers, and other wretched Christian Democrats!

Thank goodess the Muslims are open minded about it . . . oh, wait. Well the Hindu religion at least embraces . . . oh, nevermind, lets see, yah, the aetheists they all think homosexuality is ok . . . wait, some don't? hmmm.

Get my point? You appear to be as biased against Christian Democrats as you say they are against GLBT folk. Your point would be much better served if it ended with "shame is for losers" alone, but instead you inserted an ad hominen against a group and undermine your position by revealing a bigotry of your own.

This is like a red flag to a bull. I thought gay people wanted equality?
At what price?

Being promiscuous, as long as one is practising safe sex (as Europride promotes and discusses) and with consenting partners, isn't in itself a bad thing. Sure, many homosexuals want a quiet life with one partner, but some don't. Just as some heterosexuals don't want a life-long partner, and prefer to have lots of sex with lots of partners.

As long as everyone plays safe with consenting adults, I don't see why homosexuals should stop having sex because some people get embarrassed by that sort of thing.

Being promiscuous, as long as one is practising safe sex (as Europride promotes and discusses) and with consenting partners, isn't in itself a bad thing. Sure, many homosexuals want a quiet life with one partner, but some don't. Just as some heterosexuals don't want a life-long partner, and prefer to have lots of sex with lots of partners.

But, again, this isn't tied to homosexuality. So why act as if it is an integral part of the movement? Why act as if a homosexual person who does want a quiet life with one partner is some kind of traitor selling out to "heterosexism"?

As long as everyone plays safe with consenting adults, I don't see why homosexuals should stop having sex because some people get embarrassed by that sort of thing.

Nor do I. But I also don't see how promiscuity and the stigma that goes along with it is restricted to (or even mostly in the domain of) homosexuality.

But, again, this isn't tied to homosexuality.
Oh, certainly.

That's what I was saying above.

So why act as if it is an integral part of the movement? Why act as if a homosexual person who does want a quiet life with one partner is some kind of traitor selling out to "heterosexism"?
I'd call that a bunch of nonsense, and I'd agree it's not an integral part of the LGBT movement; as long as it isn't condemned utterly. It's just that a number of posters, including some who I think are rather libertarian, have posted sentiments that swing far too far the other way; seeming to claim that homosexuals should never be promiscuous.

Though perhaps I've taken their sentiments the wrong way.

But I also don't see how promiscuity and the stigma that goes along with it is restricted to (or even mostly in the domain of) homosexuality.
It's not, that's what I was trying to say.

I'd call that a bunch of nonsense, and I'd agree it's not an integral part of the LGBT movement; as long as it isn't condemned utterly. It's just that a number of posters, including some who I think are rather libertarian, have posted sentiments that swing far too far the other way; seeming to claim that homosexuals should never be promiscuous.

Though perhaps I've taken their sentiments the wrong way.

I'm not sure. I've certainly seen many people who express a general distaste for promiscuity (in this thread and just in general). But finding it distasteful and declaring it truly off-limits are two different things. One can certainly think that someone shouldn't do something while still maintaining that they have a right to do it. I can't speak to exactly what others think, but I generally assume that people aren't going to argue that we should be keeping consenting adults from having sex unless they outright say it.

But what I haven't seen is a sentiment that homosexuals shouldn't be promiscuous while heterosexuals should. I haven't seen it tied to any particular choice of partners that way. So how could one argue that someone having a problem with promiscuity is being discriminatory towards the LGBT community?

It's not, that's what I was trying to say.

Good, we agree. =)

And, in light of that, I don't see how it is helpful for an LGBT rights activist to suggest that it is the focus of the movement.

Where there are laws against promiscuous sex, they should be struck down - but that is an issue for people of any sexual orientation. And fighting the social stigma attached is also an issue for people across the board.

Those who oppose equality DO link homsexuality with casual sex. They use the sometimes promiscuous lifestyles of SOME homosexuals (bisexuals, etc) to suggest that homsexuality isn't about who you find attractive - but about pure gratification. It's not a 'sexuality' - it's just an excuse for fucking.

To that argument, THIS 'pride' event, is a godsend.

To the greater good argument, though... to those who are arguing for equal rights.. to those who are arguing for - for example - the rights of homosexuals to have the SAME protection for their long-term relationships that heterosexuals are allowed, this is just a kick in the teeth. HOW can you seriously put forth an argument about long term commitment, when you've got another group claiming to represent you, who are out there saying "yay! being gay is all about getting all the no-strings ass you can".

It seems like a stupid platform to be constructing when so many people are actually suffering REAL problems because of their orientation. And, what it really does, is make this one little group look selfish and egocentric.

I agree -- mostly.

I don't think demanding that every single person who can legitimately wear any of the labels that society has generated for them should be further required to think like everyone else wearing that label (I'm NOT saying that YOU think that, btw).

If there can be pro-life Democrats and pro-choice Catholics, and so on, pro-promiscuity homosexuals should be no problem. Hetero promiscuity is effectively flashed in people's faces every day with objections only from the far right constituency, yet somehow when it's homosexuals, it's just icky and wrong. Until that disappears (ha), I don't think it should matter which avenue of "pride" you walk down -- marriage or mack-daddy -- so long as everyone's responsible for stopping the spread of STIs, they all should have a voice.

Caving in to the notion that homosexual displays should be squeaky clean because the opposition has gross misconceptions is letting the opposition define their opponent. I don't judge Christians on the wankings of Freddie Phelps or the White Power (no mud men) Christian movement.

HOW can you seriously put forth an argument about long term commitment, when you've got another group claiming to represent you, who are out there saying "yay! being gay is all about getting all the no-strings ass you can".

It seems like a stupid platform to be constructing when so many people are actually suffering REAL problems because of their orientation. And, what it really does, is make this one little group look selfish and egocentric.

Yeah, +1, I've got to agree with you there. That's like a bunch of women getting together for women's rights, but using the argument that they have free choice and they can go out and fuck all they want (which I know a lot that do, but thats beside the point). That makes women look like whores and much less respectable because this small group is representing the whole population of women.

Yeah, +1, I've got to agree with you there. That's like a bunch of women getting together for women's rights, but using the argument that they have free choice and they can go out and fuck all they want (which I know a lot that do, but thats beside the point). That makes women look like whores and much less respectable because this small group is representing the whole population of women.

Which is exactly what some do, and it's anything but beside the point. That makes women look like whores? Only to people predisposed to magical thinking. I know we're not there yet, but responsible promiscuity is not a moral or societal problem in and of itself. Those who read and take literally books written to control people who lived some 2000 years ago MAKE even responsible promiscuity some kind of character flaw. Short answer? It isn't.

Which is exactly what some do, and it's anything but beside the point. That makes women look like whores? Only to people predisposed to magical thinking. I know we're not there yet, but responsible promiscuity is not a moral or societal problem in and of itself. Those who read and take literally books written to control people who lived some 2000 years ago MAKE even responsible promiscuity some kind of character flaw. Short answer? It isn't.

Just a note here: one need not be religious to have a problem with promiscuity. Religion is a common source for such objections, but it is not the only one.

Of course, in my mind, the source of such objections is really irrelevant. My decisions about my sexual partner(s) only apply to those involved. It isn't my place to dictate what other consenting adults do nor is it their place to dictate what I do.

Just a note here: one need not be religious to have a problem with promiscuity. Religion is a common source for such objections, but it is not the only one.

No, but it is the biggest and most-often-cited one. The notion of women as property is another.

Of course, in my mind, the source of such objections is really irrelevant. My decisions about my sexual partner(s) only apply to those involved. It isn't my place to dictate what other consenting adults do nor is it their place to dictate what I do.

Preach it, sister.

I'm free to think dressing in furry costumes to get off is just plain nuts, but that freedom does NOT extend to passing laws banning, say, an Omaha the Cat Dancer theme party.

I don't know about the rest of the country, but in Columbus, Pride Week happened over the Fourth of July.

In the US, it's usually sometime in June, to commemorate the Stonewall Riots in (very) late June 1969.

Yes, queer men and women are oppressed for sex. But not because it is sex--rather because it is queer sex.

Similarly, queer men and women are oppressed for hugging and kissing each other, and walking down the street holding each other's hands. But not because these are signs of affection as such--rather because these are signs of affection between people of the same sex.

A queer liberation movement out to defend "sex without love" as such makes about as much sense as a queer liberation movement out to defend kissing and holding hands as such. Worthy causes, perhaps. But ones that have little to do with securing equality and freedom for lesbians, gays, and bisexuals. And ones that only reinforce the convenient false generosity of homophobes--"Do whatever you want in the privacy of your bedrooms (even regular sex with multiple partners), but don't flaunt yourself outside of it."

When I see what's going on in Sweden and in some other (in)"tolerant" countries I always want the whole World to be like Russia, Moldova or Serbia.

When I see what's going on in Sweden and in some other (in)"tolerant" countries I always want the whole World to be like Russia, Moldova or Serbia.

So you like the idea of people being attacked and beaten for marching for their rights?

Which is exactly what some do, and it's anything but beside the point. That makes women look like whores? Only to people predisposed to magical thinking. I know we're not there yet, but responsible promiscuity is not a moral or societal problem in and of itself. Those who read and take literally books written to control people who lived some 2000 years ago MAKE even responsible promiscuity some kind of character flaw. Short answer? It isn't.

Whoaaaa relax. I'm just using women as an example. In my OPINION, It's bad taste to use promiscuity as a reason for civil rights by a small group when their actions reflect on the larger one because not all in the group are like that. I was just relating to what Grave n Idle said, he really couldn't have said it better.

And I'm highly against religion; remember, when you assume you make an ass out of u and me.

So you like the idea of people being attacked and beaten for marching for their rights?
Yes, because many of them deserve it. All naive idealists deserve beating.

Yes, because many of them deserve it. All naive idealists deserve beating.

That doesn't sound very nihilist of you.

Yes, because many of them deserve it. All naive idealists deserve beating.

"Idealist", perhaps, in that they seek ideals of equality and freedom. But why does seeking such ideals merit a beating?

"Naive", I highly doubt it. The people who do such things are generally perfectly aware of what might happen. They do it anyway. That's courage, not naivety.

In any case, naivety is not a reason to beat someone up, either.

I agree -- mostly.

I don't think demanding that every single person who can legitimately wear any of the labels that society has generated for them should be further required to think like everyone else wearing that label (I'm NOT saying that YOU think that, btw).

If there can be pro-life Democrats and pro-choice Catholics, and so on, pro-promiscuity homosexuals should be no problem. Hetero promiscuity is effectively flashed in people's faces every day with objections only from the far right constituency, yet somehow when it's homosexuals, it's just icky and wrong. Until that disappears (ha), I don't think it should matter which avenue of "pride" you walk down -- marriage or mack-daddy -- so long as everyone's responsible for stopping the spread of STIs, they all should have a voice.

Caving in to the notion that homosexual displays should be squeaky clean because the opposition has gross misconceptions is letting the opposition define their opponent. I don't judge Christians on the wankings of Freddie Phelps or the White Power (no mud men) Christian movement.

It's mainly a matter of focus, I think. There are a lot of different arguments - even within LGBT movements - that are worth fighting for. To be honest, the 'right to be promiscuous' doesn't strike me as an especially worthy cause.

That doesn't mean that I'm arguing everyone has to be monogamous, or even that just homosexuals should - or anything like that. But I think it's not only CONFUSING the issue, but obscuring it - to pretend that promiscuity is even close to being as important as some of the real issues.

Example - 'curative rape' of lesbians - real issue, real infringement of rights - real harm.

Gay marriage - real issue, real infringment of rights.

'Right to promiscuity'? No one has the 'right' to promiscuity, and neither does anyone have that 'right' denied (at least, not in the CONTEXT we're discussing). It's a nonsense.

What it strikes me as, is trying to force something into the faces of your audience, that most of us wouldn't want to see anyway - no matter who the people involved were. Well, there are probably exceptions. But the concept underlying my point is the important thing. Tying your campaign to the 'right to have sex without love' is like tying your campaign to the 'right to shit' - it's something that probably touches on the lives of most of your audience, but most of them don't really want to think about other people doing it. And that's nothing to do with being 'gay' or 'straight'.

The whole thing does strikes me as trite and self-indulgent... and overall, harmful more than helpful.

"Idealist", perhaps, in that they seek ideals of equality and freedom. But why does seeking such ideals merit a beating?

"Naive", I highly doubt it. The people who do such things are generally perfectly aware of what might happen. They do it anyway. That's courage, not naivety.

In any case, naivety is not a reason to beat someone up, either.
Naivety is a reason good enough to kill someone, the naive are worthless people.

Equality and freedom? Equality is unreachable I guess, maybe kind of reachable under the rule of Josiph Stalin, surely many people would have to die, but in the name of equality, everything is allowed. Freedom, ah yes, nice ideal, I'd love to live in anarchy, kill people and finally be killed. Also freedom and equality are totally unreachable at once. It's either freedom or equality (which is unreachable anyways).

I don't see any reason, why I should see those gays as brave people, they were protected by the police. If they made their parade without police, then I'd consider them brave, and I'd consider them even braver if they did it in great Russia, not weak Sweden.

*snip*
Och, don't poke the troll.

You should know better by now, Soheran.

It's mainly a matter of focus, I think. There are a lot of different arguments - even within LGBT movements - that are worth fighting for. To be honest, the 'right to be promiscuous' doesn't strike me as an especially worthy cause.

That doesn't mean that I'm arguing everyone has to be monogamous, or even that just homosexuals should - or anything like that. But I think it's not only CONFUSING the issue, but obscuring it - to pretend that promiscuity is even close to being as important as some of the real issues.

Example - 'curative rape' of lesbians - real issue, real infringement of rights - real harm.

Gay marriage - real issue, real infringment of rights.

'Right to promiscuity'? No one has the 'right' to promiscuity, and neither does anyone have that 'right' denied (at least, not in the CONTEXT we're discussing). It's a nonsense.

What it strikes me as, is trying to force something into the faces of your audience, that most of us wouldn't want to see anyway - no matter who the people involved were. Well, there are probably exceptions. But the concept underlying my point is the important thing. Tying your campaign to the 'right to have sex without love' is like tying your campaign to the 'right to shit' - it's something that probably touches on the lives of most of your audience, but most of them don't really want to think about other people doing it. And that's nothing to do with being 'gay' or 'straight'.

The whole thing does strikes me as trite and self-indulgent... and overall, harmful more than helpful.

So do you really believe that the two sentences made by Tiina Rosenberg will set the movement back? Since none of the other speakers publicly offered support for her views but rather spoke about violence and the real lack of rights? And when the official statement made by Stockholm Pride is as follows
“Here in Sweden, we’ve come a long way when it comes to LGBT rights,” says Sofia Sjöö, spokesperson for Stockholm Pride. “But in many countries, our rights are seen as sins. Attention needs to be brought to attacks on lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people around the world, and action needs to be taken. The Pride movement is an important part of the process.” ?

And?

I mean apart from not spreading out your festivals, rather than lumping them all together.

I was just comparing the timeframes, that's all. Independence Day is only one day, afterall. Pride was a week long event.

Naivety is a reason good enough to kill someone, the naive are worthless people.

Thanks for repeating yourself, but I wasn't looking for another assertion, I was looking for some kind of justification. Why is naivety a "reason good enough to kill someone"?

Equality and freedom? Equality is unreachable I guess, maybe kind of reachable under the rule of Josiph Stalin, surely many people would have to die, but in the name of equality, everything is allowed.

This is equivocation, surely--the relevant application of "equality" is a society and legal system that makes no arbitrary distinctions between opposite-sex and same-sex relationships. The broader ideal behind this application is that distinctions should be made and condemnations should be leveled on the basis of reasons, not the whims of prejudice. I fail to see what either has to do with Stalinism.

Freedom, ah yes, nice ideal, I'd love to live in anarchy, kill people and finally be killed.

The "freedom" sought here is the freedom to have sex and pursue relationships with people of the same sex as well as people of the opposite sex. The broader ideal of freedom referenced is the capacity for people to control their own lives. Not only does this not require violent social chaos, it in fact cannot coexist with it: if we are constantly under threat, we are not free.

Also freedom and equality are totally unreachable at once. It's either freedom or equality (which is unreachable anyways).

Under some understandings of freedom and equality, perhaps, but here the two are clearly related: straight people currently have substantial freedom to have sex and pursue relationships with each other, both socially and legally, and securing the same for gays is a victory both for freedom and for equality.

I don't see any reason, why I should see those gays as brave people, they were protected by the police. If they made their parade without police, then I'd consider them brave, and I'd consider them even braver if they did it in great Russia, not weak Sweden.

I was not speaking of the gays marching in Sweden. I was speaking of the gays who have repeatedly marched in Russia, where the police have repeatedly permitted (or assisted) violent homophobic attacks. I'm glad to see that you agree they have courage. But I do want to know why you persist in your belief that they should be attacked and beaten. Russia is your gay rights model, is it not?

Is it not 'celebrated' in mainstream Sweedish society or even Western. Also please define celebrated.'Celebrated' as in (from dictionary.com) "to make known publicly; proclaim" or "to praise widely or to present to widespread and favorable public notice". And yes, heterosexuality is celebrated in this manner in western society.

I agree. Pride in one's sexual preference is perfectly rational, since it's after all a conscious choice.

Er, I mean, it's not, and so it isn't, and I guess I don't really agree either...Except of course for the fact that there's nothing about pride that requires something be a conscious choice.

Och, don't poke the troll.

You should know better by now, Soheran.

Troll you say? Let's look at the other two posts in Damned Nihilists' five-post career:

Damned Nihilists' first post includes a claim to live in "Continental Europe." I quote it, from the thread "Censorship vs Racism" (Feb 07)

But on the other hand, I am not against censorpship for the State must protect itself by any means. There has never been freedom of speech and will never be. At least here, in continental Europe. And guess what? I got used to it, I know what I can say freely and for what I can be put into prison for years. Most people (including me) even censor themselves, and have to think twice before saying anything. See? Censorship is not that evil, people will eventually get used to it.

DN's SECOND post, to the "Racist Geneticist gets pwned by family" thread (July 07):

Racist? No, he just said truth.

16% black genes? I guess his black ancestor was some shaman or one of those few at least a little bit smart black.

Troll.

You know what else I think? I think it's almost impossible to mis-spell "Joseph."

I was just comparing the timeframes, that's all. Independence Day is only one day, afterall. Pride was a week long event.

Yeah mate, I am still not following

'Celebrated' as in (from dictionary.com) "to make known publicly; proclaim" or "to praise widely or to present to widespread and favorable public notice". And yes, heterosexuality is celebrated in this manner in western society.

So then a parade would still be alright then?

So then a parade would still be alright then?

Go ahead and do it. Who's stopping you?

Who, indeed?

I'd be happy to dress up as a straight guy, and march down the main street while people are trying to get to their jobs, happily proclaiming my preference for putting plug A in socket B, all the while keeping my eye on the enthusiastic socket in the "I like to fuck" t-shirt.

Except ... I'd feel like some kinda pervert.

Oh, to be gay ... :D

GO EUROPRIDE! LOVE IT
I wish I was going!

I still find it amazing how some people like damned nihilists thinks they can say stuff like that, if it was a black rights march no one would dare say anything like the things he said about gay people marching!

Its as if homophobia is the last socially acceptable prejudice, you can't attack the Muslims, you can't attack the black people, you can't attack the disabled people but don't worry you can always attack a queer and no one will give a toss!

I like men, SO WHAT!? its really none of anyone elses business who I sleep with! I'm still a human being and no matter what reason homophobes don't like me for it (religious, self-hate or just plain psychotic Nazism) I still deserve to be treated as such! being gay is not an option just like being black or being disabled or to some extent being a religion isn't! I've been gay all my life! I've known I was different from a very young age! Its completely 100% natural to be gay, if it wasn't why do almost every mammal species under the sun have gay members!?

Anyway rant over!

PINK POWER WOO (lol)

So then a parade would still be alright then?It would be redundant; as I said, heterosexuality is already celebrated in Western society, they don't need a parade to do it.
This of course does not stop them from having Mardi Gras.

Its as if homophobia is the last socially acceptable prejudice
Gay is the new black.

Who, indeed?

Straight people, mainly, for whom their sexuality has never been an issue, has never been a reason for discrimination or marginalization or non-recognition.

If there were a reason for Straight Pride, it would happen.

Gay is the new black.

Exactly!

Gay is the new black.
Inter-racial marriage was the great controversy of the post-War period, but now it is accepted. Gay marriage is just the next controversy.

Except of course for the fact that there's nothing about pride that requires something be a conscious choice.

True. You could be proud of being white, for example, or not having been born in a third world country, or of not being mentally retarded.

True. You could be proud of being white, for example, or not having been born in a third world country, or of not being mentally retarded.

You're not allowed to be proud of being white. People will accuse you of being a racist.

You're not allowed to be proud of being white. People will accuse you of being a racist.

Huh?!? This makes no sense, you can of course feel pride for just about any reason. What others may think of such pride has no baring on ones 'being allowed' to feel it.

Who exactly gets to tell anybody what emotions they are allowed to feel and what ones they are not?

You're not allowed to be proud of being white. People will accuse you of being a racist.

You are allowed, however, to be proud of being IRISH!!! Ha ha!

Huh?!? This makes no sense, you can of course feel pride for just about any reason. What others may think of such pride has no baring on ones 'being allowed' to feel it.

Who exactly gets to tell anybody what emotions they are allowed to feel and what ones they are not?

The press.

You are allowed, however, to be proud of being IRISH!!! Ha ha!

That's true. The only way to celebrate "white" in the US is to either attend Celtic festivals, or to attend Renaissance festivals, in each case celebrating either a heritage that is probably not your own, or another which is completely fabricated.

That's true. The only way to celebrate "white" in the US is to either attend Celtic festivals, or to attend Renaissance festivals, in each case celebrating either a heritage that is probably not your own, or another which is completely fabricated.

Well, I am part Irish, so celebrating it makes sense.

That's true. The only way to celebrate "white" in the US is to either attend Celtic festivals, or to attend Renaissance festivals, in each case celebrating either a heritage that is probably not your own, or another which is completely fabricated.

What about Octoberfest?

What about Octoberfest?

That's more about beer though. Although I see your point - you can be German, and not be called a Nazi.

That's more about beer though.

LOL. So is St. Patty's.

Although I see your point - you can be German, and not be called a Nazi.

Erm...that wasn't my point, but it is true!

It's mainly a matter of focus, I think. There are a lot of different arguments - even within LGBT movements - that are worth fighting for. To be honest, the 'right to be promiscuous' doesn't strike me as an especially worthy cause.

That doesn't mean that I'm arguing everyone has to be monogamous, or even that just homosexuals should - or anything like that. But I think it's not only CONFUSING the issue, but obscuring it - to pretend that promiscuity is even close to being as important as some of the real issues.

Example - 'curative rape' of lesbians - real issue, real infringement of rights - real harm.

Gay marriage - real issue, real infringment of rights.

'Right to promiscuity'? No one has the 'right' to promiscuity, and neither does anyone have that 'right' denied (at least, not in the CONTEXT we're discussing). It's a nonsense.

What it strikes me as, is trying to force something into the faces of your audience, that most of us wouldn't want to see anyway - no matter who the people involved were. Well, there are probably exceptions. But the concept underlying my point is the important thing. Tying your campaign to the 'right to have sex without love' is like tying your campaign to the 'right to shit' - it's something that probably touches on the lives of most of your audience, but most of them don't really want to think about other people doing it. And that's nothing to do with being 'gay' or 'straight'.

The whole thing does strikes me as trite and self-indulgent... and overall, harmful more than helpful.

100% fair enough.

The press.

Unspecific much?

Perhaps if those who oh, so desperately need to celebrate being white would opt to do with without the Nazi regalia and the insistence that their race is superior to all others, White Pride parades would be welcomed as opposed to mocked and derided (notice -- NOT prohibited).

Perhaps if those who oh, so desperately need to celebrate being white would opt to do with without the Nazi regalia and the insistence that their race is superior to all others, White Pride parades would be welcomed as opposed to mocked and derided (notice -- NOT prohibited).

It's perfectly OK to be a black supremacist in the US. But not a white supremacist.

It's perfectly OK to be a black supremacist in the US. But not a white supremacist.

:rolleyes:

Please show me where any Black Supremacist movement has marched with the specific idea that extermination of the white race was it's only goal.

:rolleyes:

Please show me where any Black Supremacist movement has marched with the specific idea that extermination of the white race was it's only goal.
Please show me a U.S. where an N.A.A.C.P. standing for "National Association for the Advancement of Caucasian People" is not going to be classified as a racist organization.

Please show me a U.S. where an N.A.A.C.P. standing for "National Association for the Advancement of Caucasian People" is not going to be classified as a racist organization.

Show me where someone has actually tried to create a National Association for the Advancement of Caucasian People and was panned as a racist.[/Strawman]

Please show me a U.S. where an N.A.A.C.P. standing for "National Association for the Advancement of Caucasian People" is not going to be classified as a racist organization.

Not even close (http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/PitchShifta/shipment_of_fail.jpg).

The difference is that your proposed organization is hypothetical. You're asking me to guess what would happen. I'm asking Hottie to tell me what's actually already happened (and not just in his mind).

Both Black Supremists and White Supremists would be considered racist, but both would be allowed to have their opinions and their clubs. But not the kind you hit people with, I mean like a club where people get together.