I don't see how Gay Pride integrates the gay population into mainstream society. I think respect for sexual orientation should be developed and is absolutely necessary to treat all people as they deserve, but Gay Pride I feel rather imposes a particular image of homosexuality that has nothing to do with homosexuality itself, but a sub-culture. See what I'm getting at?
Being gay has nothing to do with rainbows, or dressing in drag, or acting as effeminate as you can with a couple of other guys that are also effeminate. What about people that are queer and just dgaf? I don't see it as marching for equality, but being as outspoken as possible - it's important to modify your message to your audience. I don't want to see the queer back in the closet, but I don't want to see them appropriate rainbows or waving around pompoms either. There once was a day when rainbows were just rainbows. Now I can't display that without people thinking I'm making a statement - and that is the reason why I am against it. I am a conservative person who doesn't make statements - I make arguments. But now it's all about "expressing yourself" and I find that to be incredibly superficial. I think more of the people marching should take the example of CF members who march. They show me that queer people are normal people, and are contributing to society just like everybody else.
And your association with prostitutes and drug users goes as far as not donating blood. It's not offensive at all to me because there is no inherent connection. Drug users and prostitutes, I guess offend common sensibility - define that how you will, while gay men don't, so nobody's going to look down upon you because you share the same trait as not being able to donate blood and organs. They will for other reasons, but it's a false comparison and not really a reason to feel offended.
The reason that gay men are not allowed to donate blood and organs is the prevalence of HIV/AIDS in that population. In fact, MSM (men who have sex with men, as it's known in the literature because it doesn't matter your orientation but your behaviour really) are responsible for a majority of the incidences of HIV/AIDS even though they are a small minority of the population. It is not discrimination that MSM are overrepresented in the statistics. Now I agree there should be some provisions, like a time delay due to the virus' undetectability shortly after infection, laid out for long-term monogamous relationships. But I don't think it's a big deal anyways. My girlfriend donates blood, I'm too much of a scaredy cat to do it so even if I was gay I'd just say aha! I'm not allowed thank you very much with no harm done to my masculinity!
Being gay has nothing to do with rainbows, or dressing in drag, or acting as effeminate as you can with a couple of other guys that are also effeminate. What about people that are queer and just dgaf? I don't see it as marching for equality, but being as outspoken as possible - it's important to modify your message to your audience. I don't want to see the queer back in the closet, but I don't want to see them appropriate rainbows or waving around pompoms either. There once was a day when rainbows were just rainbows. Now I can't display that without people thinking I'm making a statement - and that is the reason why I am against it. I am a conservative person who doesn't make statements - I make arguments. But now it's all about "expressing yourself" and I find that to be incredibly superficial. I think more of the people marching should take the example of CF members who march. They show me that queer people are normal people, and are contributing to society just like everybody else.
And your association with prostitutes and drug users goes as far as not donating blood. It's not offensive at all to me because there is no inherent connection. Drug users and prostitutes, I guess offend common sensibility - define that how you will, while gay men don't, so nobody's going to look down upon you because you share the same trait as not being able to donate blood and organs. They will for other reasons, but it's a false comparison and not really a reason to feel offended.
The reason that gay men are not allowed to donate blood and organs is the prevalence of HIV/AIDS in that population. In fact, MSM (men who have sex with men, as it's known in the literature because it doesn't matter your orientation but your behaviour really) are responsible for a majority of the incidences of HIV/AIDS even though they are a small minority of the population. It is not discrimination that MSM are overrepresented in the statistics. Now I agree there should be some provisions, like a time delay due to the virus' undetectability shortly after infection, laid out for long-term monogamous relationships. But I don't think it's a big deal anyways. My girlfriend donates blood, I'm too much of a scaredy cat to do it so even if I was gay I'd just say aha! I'm not allowed thank you very much with no harm done to my masculinity!
