When does this gay pride stuff become parody?

[sr71plt]

I don't think he can hear you, Stella... the closet door is closed...

Talk about nasty sterotyping and gay bashing. I guess we know how well all of those initials in that "movement" title get along, don't we?

 

[sr71plt]

Samuel, of course, didn't have a prayer of a chance here.

 

[Guest]

Samuel, of course, didn't have a prayer of a chance here.

He should have brought his own sheep.

 

[Huckleman2000]

He should have brought his own sheep.

Baah-aaad joke.

 

[sr71plt]

He should have brought his own sheep.

And maybe a pink boa at least.

 

[Guest]

A pink boa is the perfect fashion accessory. Goes with everything.

 

[sr71plt]

A pink boa is the perfect fashion accessory. Goes with everything.

Surprisingly enough, I wouldn't know--despite safe-bet's and BOSTONFICTIONWRITER's jabs at me on this forum.

I'm from that vast majority of gaydom out there that isn't exhibitionist and in your face.

 

[Safe_Bet]

A pink boa is the perfect fashion accessory. Goes with everything.

Maybe he can borrow SRs...

 

[Guest]

Surprisingly enough, I wouldn't know--despite safe-bet's and BOSTONFICTIONWRITER's jabs at me on this forum.

I'm from that vast majority of gaydom out there that isn't exhibitionist and in your face.

I have one saved from the show Gypsy.

"You gotta have a gimmick . . ."

It still twirls quite well, though the cats try to eat the feathers.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Don't think I'd like boas, even pink ones. We didn't do very well with garter snakes, after all.

 

[Xelebes]

The name was not familiar, nor was Bill 44, but I found this by Google.

http://aguynamedbrian.blogspot.com/2009/06/alberta-minister-chooses-calgary-train.html

Oh yes, Bill 44.

Link to Edmonton Journal article.

Link to the actual bill.

 

[Stella_Omega]

On the first, you, of course, have nothing other than your attempt to put me in a box to base that statement on.

On the second, I knew you would start with this stuff if I dared to speak up on the initial posting.

Sort of ironic, ain't it?

*shrug*

*shrug* You said 'oversensitivity.' That's your assessment. Since I see sensitivity that you have over-stated, I draw my conclusions.

And samuel is the one who said I go looking for fights.

Talk about nasty sterotyping and gay bashing. I guess we know how well all of those initials in that "movement" title get along, don't we?

They don't get along all that well. politics, however, make for strange bedfellows.

Lesbians, very often, don't like men. Many gay men don't like women. Queers who march in parades deride the older gays who keep quiet about their sexuality, because they make the total population seem so much smaller than it really is. Quiet gays deplore flamboyant ones because they put queerdom in the face of the straight majority. Both sexes mistrust Bisexuals, figuring that they are merely fence-sitters, and so very many transsexuals do not wish to be labelled as gay at all, and only aim to be normally hetero.

So, yeah. What we all share is a common adversary.

I think Toronto kind of has it right. Each group by and large does have its own identity. Only in the eyes of the majority are we lumped in together, and only because of the majority do we associate, speaking generally, with each other.

 

[Xelebes]

Not without doing more 'net-hunting than I've got time for this morning. I, too, have heard higher numbers claimed by some in such groups as Queer Nation but when serious academics do widespread anonymous surveys, the higher numbers don't stand up. This could be due to either some groups trying to make themselves look larger than they are or to academics narrowing their definitions down to a razor's edge or to something I can't think of right now. I'll bet if someone were to do a really good survey of arousal based on KInsey's continuum (and got honest answers) the results would amaze. Anyone got a couple of hundred thou' to grant?

The gay population pertains to those who are solely attracted by the same gender. This excludes the bisexual population who may or may not be engaged in a same-sex relationship.

 

[Xelebes]

Oh yes, Bill 44.

Link to Edmonton Journal article.

Link to the actual bill.

In a synoptical summary, it's a bill that permits parents to withdraw their children from classes concerning same-sex relationships and evolution, which I may interject is not so bad, but that if the parent so finds their children being taught such may take it to the Human Rights Tribunal. That there is why the bill is just a terribly awful written piece of legislation.

It makes a mockery of the Human Rights Tribunal (HRT) which only serves to undermine the legal power that the HRT has. If the HRT is undermined, then the Vriend vs. Kings (a very important ruling in Canada) ruling loses it's potency.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

The gay population pertains to those who are solely attracted by the same gender. This excludes the bisexual population who may or may not be engaged in a same-sex relationship.

See? This is exactly the problem. Like Stella pointed out, the various segments of the non-exclusively-het population don't get along with each other, either. Once again, come the day . . . (insert earlier statement about tolerance).

 

[sr71plt]

Just my opinion, of course, but in keeping with what was set forth as the thread topic, I don't think it's going to be the "movement" exhibitionist, in-your-face paraders who are going to get mainstream rights for the gay community--it's going to be the suited, get-into-positions of actual power people of the community--the lawyers and business people and politicians--chomping away on legal briefs and showing they aren't some sort of circus clowns who are going to get this done.

So, this alphabet soup circus is more of a sideshow, holding the real movement up a bit, than either the real voice or the hammer of the broader gay community.

 

[Stella_Omega]

See? This is exactly the problem. Like Stella pointed out, the various segments of the non-exclusively-het population don't get along with each other, either. Once again, come the day . . . (insert earlier statement about tolerance).

The only thing many of these groups have in common is oppression from the majority.

I once had an Australian shepherd, and I would come outside sometimes to find that she'd herded the neighbors' three small mutts and any number of cats, into one angry unhappy huddle. They didn't want to be grouped together, she gave them no choice. As soon as I had pulled her away, the quasi-herd gladly went its own ways.

And srplt has exactly asserted the assertion I made above.

I think that both groups are necessary, srplt, for reasons I spoke of several pages back.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

The only thing many of these groups have in common is oppression from the majority.

I once had an Australian shepherd, and I would come outside sometimes to find that she'd herded the neighbors' three small mutts and any number of cats, into one angry unhappy huddle. They didn't want to be grouped together, she gave them no choice. As soon as I had pulled her away, the quasi-herd gladly went its own ways.

And srplt has exactly asserted the assertion I made above.

I think that both groups are necessary, srplt, for reasons I spoke of several pages back.

That's a better analogy, Stella, than I think you realize. The shepherd (het majority) pushes all the non-cooperative groups together until you (the courts) pull it away. Then the non-cooperating groups go their separate ways and keep it up so long as no one pushes them back together again. When GLBT, etc., rights are secured by law, each of the groups will probably get along better with the majority than they do with each other. It's kind of sad, no?

 

[Samuel667]

Sarcasm is used in humor?

Yes, it is. Have you every watched The Daily Show?

I also love puns, so perhaps I like lowbrow humor...

But I apologize that my last response to you sounded a little harsh. It wasn't mean to be. I shouldn't have let my irritation with Stella bleed over in my post to you.

Sam

 

[Samuel667]

BTW, nice start in the AH, bub! Don't think you made too many friends yet, though... (except for the few "self haters" and/or trolls... but you're welcome to them )

Safe Bet – You’re blowing this way out of proportion. Apparently there are others here who understood the point I was making and thought it was a worthy one. Or are Liar, 3113, boxlicker and sr71plt the self-haters and trolls you’re talking about? Humor is subjective; just because you don’t find something amusing doesn’t mean that no one does.

As for this being a writer’s forum, let’s look at the definition you helpfully provided, in particular the word “or” in the definition. The use of the word “or” means that sarcasm doesn’t have to include all of the features of the definition. Yes, I intended to mock this organization in Toronto. Yes, my remarks could be described as “cutting”. But it wasn’t intended to wound and it certainly wasn’t intended to ridicule everyone who identifies themselves with one of the many labels used by the organization. It was intended to gently mock this specific organization for the use of all these letters in their title. There’s a difference, a subtle one, but it’s there.

Also, I’m not laughing at inclusiveness. Inclusiveness is a good thing. I’m laughing at the desire to put all those letters in their title instead of coming up with an easy-to-use catch-all term for the group of people.

You said “You started sarcastic and then went immediately into insulting.” If I went into insulting, it was only because she did it first. I know, it’s not an excuse, but you should be criticizing her as well as me.

Finally, I don’t know what AH means, so you’ve lost me there.

Sam

 

[Samuel667]

Samuel, repeat after me;

"I apologise for my inappropriate sarcasm."

That wasn't so very difficult, was it?

There was nothing inappropriate about what I said. Go pick a fight somewhere else against another hypothetical antagonist.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Finally, I don’t know what AH means, so you’ve lost me there.

Sam

AH: Authors' Hangout. This forum you're on. Better?

 

[sr71plt]

As for this being a writer’s forum,

If you check, I think you'll see that about the only evidence of "writer" that you'll see in most of the folks you're talking to in this thread is writing about their hobby horses on this forum.

 

[Guest]

Sarcasm is used in humor?

Yes, it is. Have you every watched The Daily Show?

I also love puns, so perhaps I like lowbrow humor...

But I apologize that my last response to you sounded a little harsh. It wasn't mean to be. I shouldn't have let my irritation with Stella bleed over in my post to you.

Sam

Psst. Sam? My post was sarcastic.

 

[Guest]

If you check, I think you'll see that about the only evidence of "writer" that you'll see in most of the folks you're talking to in this thread is writing about their hobby horses on this forum.

I like hobby horses.

Something about that up and down motion.