NationStates Jolt Archive

I’m often wondering why our queer friends have separated games. Yeah, yeah, I know, it’s about making a statement, getting attention, positive discrimination and stuff.

But come on, be serious. Who would cry for mummy, when we arranged some Hetero Games? Yep, them, the ‘other’ side!

Did you ever heard about a Hetero Parade? Me either.

And what if all minority groups are doing this? Like Black Games or a Jew Parade…

IMHO, get rid with this!

This thread isn't going to end well.

*makes a bowl of popcorn, a nice big one 'cause there will be other spectators.*

This thread isn't going to end well.

*makes a bowl of popcorn, a nice big one 'cause there will be other spectators.*

*brings the beer*

This will be plenty 'o fun.

Did you ever heard about a Hetero Parade? Me either.
Actually I was thinking about organizing one.

"Straight Pride" - straight men, straight women, straight engines.

"How can there be black tv, imagine what would happen if there was white tv"
"All tv is white tv"

This conversation can be adapted for all similar situtations.

I’m often wondering why our queer friends have separated games. Yeah, yeah, I know, it’s about making a statement, getting attention, positive discrimination and stuff.

But come one, be serious. Who would cry for mummy, when we arranged some Hetero Games? Yep, them, the ‘other’ side!

Did you ever heard about a Hetero Parade? Me either.

And what if all minority groups are doing this? Like Black Games or a Jew Parade…

IMHO, get rid with this!
You could organise the first Hetero Games, if you want. I'm sure you would only get 100% support from all parts of society.

There's a gay games?

There's a gay games?

Yea, male figure skating. *nod*

Because, of course, heterosexuals are SO oppressed.
They get beaten up just for holding hands or kissing in the street.
They get called names when they walk down the street.
They get murdered just because they date the icky opposite gender.
"That's SO Hetero!" means "that's so stupid/bad" in common slang.

Gosh, you're among friends here.... we don't care that you're straight.....

(but I wouldn't want you dating my siblings!)

If games aren't gay, why are people playing them? Aren't games supposed to be a source of merriment and fun, after all?

To tell the truth, I am fatigued of the word "gay" being used in an trite an inappropriate manner; homosexual games should simply be called homosexual games. "Gay" is a word that makes them sound special, or different, in a variety of ways; homosexual makes it clear: "we are people who like putting our copulation organs in an area which most of society does not enjoy thinking about."

They get beaten up just for holding hands or kissing in the street.
They get called names when they walk down the street.
They get murdered just because they date the icky opposite gender.
What country or state do you live in?


"That's SO Hetero!" means "that's so stupid/bad" in common slang.
Actually the way I hear it, "gay" mostly rather means "liberal" (as in liberal movements), or sometimes "cheesy" - which brings us a bit back to the original meaning of the word "gay", which didn't mean homosexuals.

What country or state do you live in?
*tap tap tap*

Apparently your sarcasm meter has broken, Vault.


Actually the way I hear it, it mostly rather means "liberal" (as in liberal movements), or sometimes "cheesy" - which brings us a bit back to the original meaning of the word "gay", which didn't mean homosexuals.
Of course the original meaning was different. The Flintstones theme, "We'll have a gay old time", was not a promotion of any sexual orientation.

Gay simply meant happy, enjoyable. However, I can see where some folks early on looked at the stereotypically flamboyant homosexual and applied it as a pejorative rather than in its original meaning. Now it's mutated in slang into stupid, bad, undesirable. :-p

"That's SO Hetero!" means "that's so stupid/bad" in common slang.

That is another misuse of the word "gay" that irritates the hell out of me (which is not easy). About people who use "gay" to describe something bad, I use homosexual in the same way, and they look at like I am crazy.

"This is so gay."

"I agree, completely homosexual, without any redeeming heterosexual tendencies to speak of."

*tap tap tap*

Apparently your sarcasm meter has broken, Vault.

Mine was fine, until I read your post.

Then it exploded.

BTW, I will be attending the Hetero Games straight away.

Since when has heterosexuality special redeeming qualities? Remember, most criminals are heterosexual!

Why do they need a Gay games?

Mine was fine, until I read your post.

Then it exploded.

BTW, I will be attending the Hetero Games straight away.
Hee!

Thanks, Big Jim.

Why do they need a Gay games?
They didn't. I believe the one referred to in the OP is being held under a bridge.

They didn't. I believe the one referred to in the OP is being held under a bridge.

With the rest of the trolls (yes I just pointed out the obvious), fair enough.

Of course the original meaning was different. The Flintstones theme, "We'll have a gay old time", was not a promotion of any sexual orientation.
Gay simply meant happy, enjoyable.
Yeah, and the use of "gay" as derived from homosexuals has actually retained, or returned to the original meaning of "happy", just with a skeptical tone.


However, I can see where some folks early on looked at the stereotypically flamboyant homosexual and applied it as a pejorative rather than in its original meaning. Now it's mutated in slang into stupid, bad, undesirable. :-p
Silly, perhaps, but rarely bad.
But what do you expect? Things happen. Words change their meaning. It was the homosexuals in the first place who took the word.

It's normal for people to attach a negative meaning to any word denoting a different group. I mean ANY. Kids beat each other for just being from another street. Teens divide in cliques based on what music they listen to, and use pejorative names for any other music.
And seen my mention of straight engines above? There is a lot of mutual disrespect between fans of American cars and Japanese cars. Even these, both being car fans, dislike each other, and you're talking about people of different orientation liking each other. It won't happen, but that in no way means gays are hated - it's always that way between different groups.

homosexual makes it clear: "we are people who like putting our copulation organs in an area which most of society does not enjoy thinking about."

You pretty nicely sum up why using "homosexual" is a bad idea....

Did you ever heard about a Hetero Parade? Yeah. Mardi Gras.

To tell the truth, I am fatigued of the word "gay" being used in an trite an inappropriate manner; homosexual games should simply be called homosexual games. "Gay" is a word that makes them sound special, or different, in a variety of ways; homosexual makes it clear: "we are people who like putting our copulation organs in an area which most of society does not enjoy thinking about."There's more to being gay than where one's copulation organs are put.

"That's SO Hetero!" means "that's so stupid/bad" in common slang.


Actually, I use that one all the time on friends of mine who are a lesbian couple: "You two are holding hands? Ugh, that's really straight!"
Never fails to baffle innocent bystanders.

I live in the second gay bashing capital of Canada...the first being Calgary, Alberta.

Having Pride, or other such gay-friendly events is absolutely necessary, not only to provide a bit of respite from the constant discrimination, but also to help educate the public at large...which is ALWAYS a huge part of these events. Education.

We don't need to be educated about heterosexuality. It's everywhere, it's pervasive, it's 'the norm', it's the 'default'. We don't need to provide safe spaces for hets for the same reasons.

I’m often wondering why our queer friends have separated games. Yeah, yeah, I know, it’s about making a statement, getting attention, positive discrimination and stuff.

But come one, be serious. Who would cry for mummy, when we arranged some Hetero Games? Yep, them, the ‘other’ side!

Did you ever heard about a Hetero Parade? Me either.

And what if all minority groups are doing this? Like Black Games or a Jew Parade…

IMHO, get rid with this!

Sigh...mediocre troll is mediocre. It is blatantly obvious why. Majority groups who don't face hostility from wider society don't need such events to increase their visibility and assert their equality. To illustrate, how about you do go organise your hetero parade, games or whatever. Then, when you find that half an hour after the supposed start time no-one except you has turned up, take a picture and caption it "epic fail". Next time you think about starting a thread, just bash your head against the keyboard and post that. Quality and reasonableness of argument will much improve.

Majority groups who don't face hostility from wider society don't need such events to increase their visibility and assert their equality.
I digress. There's a law (or a proposal, but it'll pass) requiring that if there are no compelling reasons for one or another candidate, the employer should hire a gay person. And don't even talk about firing a gay person. We the straight people demand equality! Also, I want the carmakers to stop putting ugly, noisy, vibrating V6 and V8, and return to proper, quiet, smooth, stylish Straight-6.


To illustrate, how about you do go organise your hetero parade, games or whatever. Then, when you find that half an hour after the supposed start time no-one except you has turned up, Depends on the state, dude, depends on the state.

I digress. There's a law (or a proposal, but it'll pass) requiring that if there are no compelling reasons for one or another candidate, the employer should hire a gay person. And don't even talk about firing a gay person

Well, if thats true (my sarcasm detector reading is currently "unclear") its unenforcable and meaningless. I doubt the few people who'd pay attention would come near to counterbalancing those who'd specifically not employ someone on the grounds that they suspect them of being gay. And as for not being able to sack a gay person, thats nonsense. Even if someone was sacked for being gay, there would have to be evidence of it being on these grounds, which could only be found if the workplace was a genuinely homophobic environment. In which case legal action would be quite right anyway. Of course, if you're looking at the LGBT community as a whole rather than just the gays, transgender people are treated worst of all, but I will restrain myself from ranting on that (though its one of my pet topics for rants) as it'd be going of the original topic.

nah, Hetro games.. phssshaw.

but I wouldn't mind watching the 'athletes' prove that they're hetro. :p

And what if all minority groups are doing this? Like Black Games or a Jew Parade

They have that, it's called the NBA.

IMHO, get rid with this!

I don't think there's such a thing as a humble opinion. Lord knows, I've never seen one, heard one, or had one.

Having Pride, or other such gay-friendly events is absolutely necessary, not only to provide a bit of respite from the constant discrimination, but also to help educate the public at large...which is ALWAYS a huge part of these events. Education.

What if the public doesn't want to be/doesn't feel the need to be 'educated' about a particular lifestyle? I know gay people exist, I don't need to see two shirtless men in ass-less chaps maul each other in the middle of the street next to a fat guy dressed as Marilyn Monroe.

I demand parades for practitioners of panupunitoplasty!

Eh, I figure if people stopped busting balls (or ovaries) about homosexuality and let people live their lives without harassment or discrimination there wouldn't be a need for events like this. If you don't like "gay games" or pride parades, fight to end discrimination and gay-bashing in your community. Even better, if you don't like homosexuality fighting these problems will mean you won't have to see these kinds of events!

At least that's my take on it.

I demand parades for practitioners of panupunitoplasty!

there was one... don't tell me you missed it!? :eek2:

there was one... don't tell me you missed it!? :eek2:

What!? Damn it all! I've been waiting for something like that for AGES :(

Personally I'm planning to attend the Lesbian Olympics. I hear it's all done in the nude. Very...er...tastefully.

Going to the Hetero Games?

I am the Hetero Games.

To me ladies! I has a flavor!

I’m often wondering why our queer friends have separated games. Yeah, yeah, I know, it’s about making a statement, getting attention, positive discrimination and stuff.

But come one, be serious. Who would cry for mummy, when we arranged some Hetero Games? Yep, them, the ‘other’ side!

Did you ever heard about a Hetero Parade? Me either.

And what if all minority groups are doing this? Like Black Games or a Jew Parade…

IMHO, get rid with this!

Your icon is terrifying.

I live in the second gay bashing capital of Canada...the first being Calgary, Alberta.

Edmonton? I hear stories from my friends who are gay/bi Edmontonians. Sad, embarrassing stories.

What if the public doesn't want to be/doesn't feel the need to be 'educated' about a particular lifestyle? I know gay people exist, I don't need to see two shirtless men in ass-less chaps maul each other in the middle of the street next to a fat guy dressed as Marilyn Monroe.

I don't want to see an ugly guy and chick make out on the bus, but so far they've ignored my petitions to make it illegal.

I don't want to see an ugly guy and chick make out on the bus, but so far they've ignored my petitions to make it illegal.

I never said anything about making it illegal, I just said it was unnecessary and not anything I needed or wanted to see. Whatever flavor of private shenanigans you get up should not be inflicted on the public.

Eh, I figure if people stopped busting balls (or ovaries) about homosexuality and let people live their lives without harassment or discrimination there wouldn't be a need for events like this. If you don't like "gay games" or pride parades, fight to end discrimination and gay-bashing in your community. Even better, if you don't like homosexuality fighting these problems will mean you won't have to see these kinds of events!

At least that's my take on it.

This. If people stop acting like being gay is something to be ashamed about, gay people will stop having pride parades.

To tell the truth, I am fatigued of the word "gay" being used in an trite an inappropriate manner; homosexual games should simply be called homosexual games. "Gay" is a word that makes them sound special, or different, in a variety of ways; homosexual makes it clear: "we are people who like putting our copulation organs in an area which most of society does not enjoy thinking about."And I suppose it hasn't occurred to you that this is not how they think about themselves?

For one thing *gasp* not all gay men enjoy anal sex. Oral counts, you know. As, for that matter, does holding hands, kissing, enjoying romance in all its many forms. Being gay or queer, for most people who identify as such, is not in any particular way about "organs."

Is being straight simply about organs and what we do with them? Funny, I've never thought of myself that way.

That is another misuse of the word "gay" that irritates the hell out of me (which is not easy). About people who use "gay" to describe something bad, I use homosexual in the same way, and they look at like I am crazy.

"This is so gay."

"I agree, completely homosexual, without any redeeming heterosexual tendencies to speak of."

I was discussing movies with some coworkers the other day, and I'm not sure why, but the "Brotherhood" series came up. I said , "those are so gay." One person began to chastise me for my use of the pejorative and I challenged her to watch one.

I'm not certain I can post the clips, but you can check youtube for "young warlocks."

She later told me I was right.

Edmonton? I hear stories from my friends who are gay/bi Edmontonians. Sad, embarrassing stories. Indeed.

What if the public doesn't want to be/doesn't feel the need to be 'educated' about a particular lifestyle? I know gay people exist, I don't need to see two shirtless men in ass-less chaps maul each other in the middle of the street next to a fat guy dressed as Marilyn Monroe.


The hell kind of neighborhood do you live in? Apparently you assume the worst possible scenario that could be imagined, is a regular occurrence. To me, it shows a sort of fear of something.

Wait, homosexuals have their own Olympic games? What? Why? Did I miss something? Or are you talking about scandalous bedroom games?

And what if all minority groups are doing this? Like Black Games or a Jew Parade…

We already had Black Games, but then the Civil Rights Movement happened.
I would totally be down with a Jew Parade though.

Wait, homosexuals have their own Olympic games? What? Why? Did I miss something? Or are you talking about scandalous bedroom games?

Gay Games (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Games)
Federation of Gay Games (http://www.gaygames.com/en/)

There's more to being gay than where one's copulation organs are put.

Please clarify.

And I suppose it hasn't occurred to you that this is not how they think about themselves?

I do not care how they "think about themselves". They enjoy coupling different then most heterosexuals; what does that have to do with thought?

For one thing *gasp* not all gay men enjoy anal sex. Oral counts, you know.

Indeed!

As, for that matter, does holding hands, kissing, enjoying romance in all its many forms.

That romance is common to heterosexuality as well, ergo it is not "special".

Being gay or queer, for most people who identify as such, is not in any particular way about "organs."

But that is really all it is.

Is being straight simply about organs and what we do with them? Funny, I've never thought of myself that way.

But there are no heterosexual games.

I do not care how they "think about themselves".Ah. How objectifying.

They enjoy coupling different then most heterosexuals;Did you miss the part where I pointed out that... uh, they don't? At least, not all of them.

what does that have to do with thought?We're talking about human identity, sexuality... not the sex lives of pheasants, in which case you'd have a point.

That romance is common to heterosexuality as well, ergo it is not "special".Thank goodness for that!!

But that is really all it is.And who are you to say what it "really" is?

But there are no heterosexual games.So? What does that have to do with whether we identify sexuate being with a physical act or with a projected identity?

I do not care how they "think about themselves". They enjoy coupling different then most heterosexuals; what does that have to do with thought?

Because when you respect others, you respect how they choose to define themselves, not how you prefer to define them.

"Putting our copulation organs in an area which most of society does not enjoy thinking about" may be how you understand homosexuality, but it is not how gay people experience or make sense of their sexual orientation. Indeed, I would suggest that the only reason you see it that way is because it is what stands out to you about homosexuality. Certainly it is in no sense "objective"--as if identity ever was, or could be.

For too long have straight people been able to control social conceptions of the various forms of non-heterosexuality--as sin, as perversion, as disease, as strange, distasteful predilection best kept out of public view. If queer liberation means anything at all, it entails the rejection of that control... and that includes the freedom of people to choose their own terms of identity.

(Me, I'd like to do away with the abomination of "bi"... but, alas, no one ever listens to me.)

That romance is common to heterosexuality as well, ergo it is not "special".

Oral and anal sex is common to heterosexuality, too. It is the gender of the partner and not any particular sexual act (any placing of "copulation organs") that is the defining feature of homosexuality, and romantic attraction to other people is something that extends far beyond narrow sexual terms.

("Heterosexuality" and "homosexuality"--and "bisexuality", for that matter--will just have to do before we find something that is not as awkward as "straightness" or "gayness.")

But that is really all it is.

Does your only exposure to same-sex attraction come through Religious Right tracts and pornography? How can you seriously make this claim?

But there are no heterosexual games.

What does that have to do with anything?

Because when you respect others, you respect how they choose to define themselves, not how you prefer to define them.

I respect my father for the time and money he put into raising me. I do not believe I respect anyone else that I know of (least of all myself).

"Putting our copulation organs in an area which most of society does not enjoy thinking about" may be how you understand homosexuality, but it is not how gay people experience or make sense of their sexual orientation. Indeed, I would suggest that the only reason you see it that way is because it is what stands out to you about homosexuality. Certainly it is in no sense "objective"--as if identity ever was, or could be.

*sigh* Next time my definitions will come from a dictionary, all right?

For too long have straight people been able to control social conceptions of the various forms of non-heterosexuality--as sin, as perversion, as disease, as strange, distasteful predilection best kept out of public view.

Hypocrites.

If queer liberation means anything at all, it entails the rejection of that control... and that includes the freedom of people to choose their own terms of identity.

White-man games, black-man games, blonde games, brunettte games, homosexual games, heterosexual games, whatever you wish.


(Me, I'd like to do away with the abomination of "bi"... but, alas, no one ever listens to me.)


Do you mean to say that all people are attracted to both sexes?

Oral and anal sex is common to heterosexuality, too. It is the gender of the partner and not any particular sexual act (any placing of "copulation organs") that is the defining feature of homosexuality, and romantic attraction to other people is something that extends far beyond narrow sexual terms.

Gender (more appropriately, "sex") of the partner only relates to copulation and child-bearing; it has no effect upon behavior.

("Heterosexuality" and "homosexuality"--and "bisexuality", for that matter--will just have to do before we find something that is not as awkward as "straightness" or "gayness.")

Obtuseness.

Does your only exposure to same-sex attraction come through Religious Right tracts and pornography? How can you seriously make this claim?

I distaste being serious.

What does that have to do with anything?

Heterosexuals are not encouraged to define their identity by their biological urges.

Ah. How objectifying.

Are you saying one's sexuality affects one's thinking process?

Did you miss the part where I pointed out that... uh, they don't? At least, not all of them.

Then they are even less "special".

We're talking about human identity, sexuality... not the sex lives of pheasants, in which case you'd have a point.

Human identity and sexuality are not the same thing.

Thank goodness for that!!


So why celebrate it as if it were peculiar to homosexuals?

And who are you to say what it "really" is?

Sorry, "apparently".

So? What does that have to do with whether we identify sexuate being with a physical act or with a projected identity?

I do not understand why you think a human should base her identity on her sexuality.

I respect my father for the time and money he put into raising me. I do not believe I respect anyone else that I know of (least of all myself).

I think this is equivocation, but it may just be obnoxiousness.

The sense of "respect" I was getting at was not "esteem", and has nothing to do with merit or accomplishment or what anyone has done for you--rather the regard we owe to others in themselves and for themselves.

I don't know what random people on the street have done in their lives, but I still would not steal their things.

*sigh* Next time my definitions will come from a dictionary, all right?

No, not "all right", because to consult a dictionary is to miss the point entirely.

People have the right to define themselves. For various reasons, which have been explained to you but really need not be, people of exclusive or predominant attraction to the same sex tend to prefer "gay" to "homosexual."

Of course, some of them instead reject the connotations of "gay", and indeed at times "homosexual" as well... but that's digressing somewhat from the point.

Hypocrites.

Who are hypocrites? What are you talking about?

White-man games, black-man games, blonde games, brunettte games, homosexual games, heterosexual games, whatever you wish.

Obviously there is a limit to the flexibility of cultural meanings. But just as obviously "gay" does not trespass that limit, because most everyone understands what it is getting at.

Do you mean to say that all people are attracted to both sexes?

No. I mean to say that I find the term "bi" annoying. "Bisexual" is just as bad, for somewhat different reasons. "Queer" is much better, but it has that damned ambiguity to it.

It was parenthetical for a reason. ;)

Gender (more appropriately, "sex") of the partner only relates to copulation and child-bearing; it has no effect upon behavior.

This sentence makes no sense at all. For one, on its face it appears contradictory--do you mean to suggest that "copulation and child-bearing" are not forms of behavior? For another, it seems inappropriate in context--my entire point was that sexual orientation is concerned with the object of romantic and sexual attraction (male, female, both) rather than with sexual behavior narrowly.

Heterosexuals are not encouraged to define their identity by their biological urges.

Yes, they are, and they do. It's just that it's implicit with straight people, because straightness is defined as the norm. Heteronormativity, by its very nature, obscures itself.

Straight people only don't think of (say) their marriages as opposite-sex marriages because the culture they are party to has already embraced their relationships and institutions as legitimate... and not just legitimate, but also normative.

Are you saying one's sexuality affects one's thinking process?No. I'm saying that each person should have the freedom to conceive her sexuate being in whatever way she chooses, free of the objectifying judgment of others. At any rate, I know that it would be a belittling of my sense of myself as a sexuate being to reduce my sexuality to an objectifying definition such as "likes vagina."

Then they are even less "special."I think you're the only one here obsessed with the notion that there might be something "special" about gay people.

Or are you still upset that they like to promote their cause for liberation (or, for that matter, just unite as a community to have fun) in games and parades and the like? Apparently it hasn't gotten through to you yet: this is not about announcing, "Hey, look at us! We're special!!" Quite the contrary. It's about asserting the fact that they are human, they are people, and--against much in society that says otherwise--they deserve to feel good about themselves.

Is that your main point of confusion? You think gay people have parades because they think they're "special" and they want to lord it over the rest of us or something?

Human identity and sexuality are not the same thing.Sexuate being is deeply bound up with our overall identity. I'd go into the whole theory, but I doubt you're interested. "Sexuality," however, is a very narrow concept indeed... and to that extent, you're right. But LGBT activists turned away from the concept of sexuality or "sexual orientation" as a focus for reform a long time ago. It's only objectifying bigots like you who still insist that the important thing is what kind of body I like to have sex with and/or how it is I like to rub organs together.

So why celebrate it as if it were peculiar to homosexuals?Who is? You're the only one here trying to figure out "what makes them different." The rest of us are trying to insist on how we are all alike. And THAT is the point of the parades and the games and the rallies.

I do not understand why you think a human should base her identity on her sexuality.I don't. I think her sexuality is already a part of her identity.

I don't think the Gay Games is a good idea, at all.

The Paralypics IS a good idea. Those athletes have specific disabilities which mean that, even if they put in the same level of effort and are as gifted in the abilities they do have, they will not be competitive with Olympic athletes.

A Gay Games implies that by being gay, an athlete has some disadvantage, and needs a deliberate limitation on who can compete against them, in order to win a medal. Indeed, if being gay is more important to them than being a great runner or equestrian or whatever, hell no they don't deserve to win a real medal.

If it's about recognizing equal worth as individuals, well: qualify for the Olympics. Win a medal. When the press throng you, dedicate your win to your same-sex partner (ie, relate it to your private life in the same context as any other athlete does.)

Don't make a mockery of competition, and of yourself as an athlete, by making your sexuality more important than your sporting performance.

A Gay Games implies that by being gay, an athlete has some disadvantage, and needs a deliberate limitation on who can compete against them, in order to win a medal.

No, it doesn't. That's not the point of the Gay Games at all. If some people choose to interpret it that way, that's their problem, and is in any case not the issue.

Indeed, if being gay is more important to them than being a great runner or equestrian or whatever, hell no they don't deserve to win a real medal.

Well, first, your premise that this has anything to do with relative importance is flat-out wrong--a person can want to be a "great runner and equestrian" more than anything else and also not want to deal with the homophobia of mainstream sports. Priority does not imply exclusivity.

Second... why not? Is it a prerequisite of being a great athlete that one's athletic commitment must outweigh everything else? To me such single-minded commitment seems far more unsettling than a gay person's unwillingness to compromise with a heterosexist world.

If it's about recognizing equal worth as individuals, well: qualify for the Olympics. Win a medal. When the press throng you, dedicate your win to your same-sex partner (ie, relate it to your private life in the same context as any other athlete does.)

Well, for starters, this is only possible for people in countries already relatively tolerant of homosexuality.

More to the point, your objection here is tactical at most. Sure, it may ultimately be better for equality if that battle is fought in the mainstream Olympic world... but who are you to tell LGBT athletes that they must make such a commitment? Maybe they're not out to change the world. Why must they be?

The hell kind of neighborhood do you live in? Apparently you assume the worst possible scenario that could be imagined, is a regular occurrence. To me, it shows a sort of fear of something.

Every time there is some kind of big gay celebration or event, what you see is, if not exactly what I described in every particular, pretty friggin' close to it. I've said it before, and I'll probably have to say it again, if I'm going to have any kind of 'fear' it's not going to be of some poof flouncing down the street.

A Gay Games implies that by being gay, an athlete has some disadvantage, and needs a deliberate limitation on who can compete against them, in order to win a medal.How's that, again?

Anyone can compete in the Gay Games, regardless of sexual orientation. Maybe you should, uh, know what you're talking about before being critical?

How's that, again?

Anyone can compete in the Gay Games, regardless of sexual orientation. Maybe you should, uh, know what you're talking about before being critical?

How's that again?

The Gay Games are a media stunt. Tell me how it's a huge co-incidence that they happen once every four years. Tell me how they politely changed the name from "Gay Olympics" without being forced to by legal action.

And tell me, please, how the Olympic games discriminates against gay people. And therefore, why there is any need for an "inclusive" alternative.

More to the point, your objection here is tactical at most. Sure, it may ultimately be better for equality if that battle is fought in the mainstream Olympic world... but who are you to tell LGBT athletes that they must make such a commitment? Maybe they're not out to change the world. Why must they be?

http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg49/3-laws-of-Hobotics/25thA160by153.jpg

My objection is ENTIRELY tactical.

I didn't say "they shouldn't do this." I said "this is a bad idea."

And it is. Getting in "the mainstream"s face, but disdaining or even mocking "the mainstream" and then saying "hee-hee, I was just having some fun, don't change the world for me" is very very bad tactics.

The Gay Games are a media stunt.Partly, yeah. So what?

Tell me how it's a huge co-incidence that they happen once every four years.Why would I suggest any such thing?

Tell me how they politely changed the name from "Gay Olympics" without being forced to by legal action.Actually, they were forced to by legal action... unlike any number of other "Olympic" events that have never been challenged.

Why don't you tell me why out of all the other media-stunt alternative "Olympics," the Olympic Committees singled out the "Gay Olympics" for a lawsuit?

And tell me, please, how the Olympic games discriminates against gay people.I never said it did, although Soheran has alluded to the fact that many individual nations may discriminate when it comes to the make-up of their national teams.

And therefore, why there is any need for an "inclusive" alternative.When did I suggest the need for an alternative has anything at all to do with an inability to compete in the Olympic Games?

There are no qualifying standards to compete in the Gay Games. It does not CLAIM to find the best of the best in athletics. Its purposes are not the purposes of the Olympic Games.

You keep asking, "Why shouldn't they just compete in the Olympics?" Well, here's a shocker: there are lots of athletes in the world who have no desire to compete at that level. We have different priorities, and the devotion to training and practice it would take to be an Olympic athlete simply doesn't interest us--whether or not, in fact, we might have the natural talent and ability to compete.

When I was much younger, I was approached by a coach who wanted me to train for Olympic downhill skiing. I was good. Maybe I could have made it. My parents left the decision up to me, but they made it very clear how much training it would take, how I would have to move in order to train on proper mountains for a proper season.

Sorry, not interested. But does the fact that I will never, ever compete at the Olympic level mean I should never compete at all? Should no one hold local events? Just for fun? Or for charity? Or to publicize a worthy cause?

Nonsense. Competition, you must recall, is not merely about finding the best of the best. For athletes, it's about more than proving oneself against the stiffest competition one can find.

Getting in "the mainstream"s face,In what way?

...but disdaining or even mocking "the mainstream"...Who? When? Where? :confused:

My objection is ENTIRELY tactical.

Then you're still working on the assumption of an objective that may not be present.

Sometimes people just want to compete, and they'd prefer to do it in an environment of inclusion and acceptance. So what?

Getting in "the mainstream"s face, but disdaining or even mocking "the mainstream"

The only connection the "mainstream" has to any of this comes at its own initiative--the lawsuit by the International Olympic Committee, the repetitive irritation of (some) straight people towards queer-focused institutions and events.

and then saying "hee-hee, I was just having some fun, don't change the world for me"

How about just "Leave us alone and let us do what we want"?

Partly, yeah. So what?

Media stunts should be judged by their effect.

I consider the Paralympics a successful media stunt. The sight of people without legs, or without sight, exerting themselves, injuring themselves, extending all of their abilities from sheer ego (well, sport is that) has done a lot to dispell the myth that a disability makes one deserving of pity in everything.

The Paralympics has limits. Frankly, I won't spend as long watching those Games as the Olympic Games. But they've had a positive effect on my perceptions and many others.

What do the Gay Games offer? My guess: lots of people punching the air and grinning like lanterns.

Actually, they were forced to by legal action... unlike any number of other "Olympic" events that have never been challenged.

I could Google, but hey. It's your claim.

Why don't you tell me why out of all the other media-stunt alternative "Olympics," the Olympic Committees singled out the "Gay Olympics" for a lawsuit?

I never said it did, although Soheran has alluded to the fact that many individual nations may discriminate when it comes to the make-up of their national teams.

Ah! The Olympics do indeed need reform ... to make eligibility entirely on the basis of talent and dedication. The national sports academies (governments buying medals, essentially) have vastly corrupted it.

Tell me that the Gay Games has some mechanism to overcome this injustice, and I'll change my mind about them right now.

When did I suggest the need for an alternative has anything at all to do with an inability to compete in the Olympic Games?

There are no qualifying standards to compete in the Gay Games. It does not CLAIM to find the best of the best in athletics. Its purposes are not the purposes of the Olympic Games.

That seems like a very good reason why it should not be called "the Gay Olympics."

You keep asking, "Why shouldn't they just compete in the Olympics?" Well, here's a shocker: there are lots of athletes in the world who have no desire to compete at that level. We have different priorities, and the devotion to training and practice it would take to be an Olympic athlete simply doesn't interest us--whether or not, in fact, we might have the natural talent and ability to compete.

I might have said that once, yes.

There are plenty of opportunities to simply play, or to compete. Club fees are usually nominal (well, golf or yachting perhaps not) and I see no reason to organize such amateur competition to be sponsored and funded by the idiots who think "sport" is something you watch.

When I was much younger, I was approached by a coach who wanted me to train for Olympic downhill skiing. I was good. Maybe I could have made it. My parents left the decision up to me, but they made it very clear how much training it would take, how I would have to move in order to train on proper mountains for a proper season.

OK.

Sorry, not interested. But does the fact that I will never, ever compete at the Olympic level mean I should never compete at all? Should no one hold local events? Just for fun? Or for charity? Or to publicize a worthy cause?

Oh, most surely. Amateur and charity events are a lot of fun.

Presenting them as "an inclusive alternative to the Olympics" though ... well, as a joke maybe.

Nonsense. Competition, you must recall, is not merely about finding the best of the best. For athletes, it's about more than proving oneself against the stiffest competition one can find.

It's not even that. It's simply finding stiff enough competition that one can be one's best.

Or, as the Federation of Gay Games site puts it:

The Federation of Gay Games ensures that the Gay Games offers participants the opportunity to express themselves openly and to experience camaraderie and validation through sport and culture.

I enjoy a bit of sport myself. The stiffest competition I can find is far beyond what I would be comfortable competing against. I'm crap at pretty much every sport I play ... but I still play.

So sure, I'd join a cricket team or accept a challenge to a foot-race ... but pretend that our little contest is some "more inclusive" version of the Olympics? I'd feel like a fool!

In what way?

Who? When? Where? :confused:

Don't read the posts I direct to Soheran, and you won't get all confused like that.