32

Cons: sure thing—right after the flying pigs.


 

PRIDE2

…and silent it will likely remain.


 
Filed under:

Cons: sure thing—right after the flying pigs.

  1. Do you think Harper would support a Gay Marriage Pride parade?

    Extoll the virtues of being fantastically true, trumpet the value of stable and very happy families? I think he'd be gay to do it.

    It's about the values, not teh gays, in my humble opinion of Harper.

  2. Hmmmmmmm – I can't help but wonder how taking a stance on this actually hurts the Libs.
    As open minded a society we might think we have, who knows?
    I never ever would have guessed that gay marriages would be banned in California.
    But when I was down there on election week-end (for a friends hetro wedding), I really got to see how much money and lobbying went behind the proposition. The plane's in the sky delivering smoke generated messages must have been pretty expensive. While it may be popular to maintain the pretense of being open minded on sexuality, I wonder how many people keep their true thoughts shielded. I'm curious (politically, and not sexually as of this moment) – if Harper does not comment on this, does it hurt or help him?

  3. I'm glad they're announcing it now. By that time, the social conservatives will have probably gotten their fill of poring over Internet porn in their God-given mission, difficult as it is, to denounce these sex parades

  4. You know, there's a joke in here about "stimulus" and "package', but I'm not going there.

    • on second thought I too will not comment – way to easy

  5. Heh, what coat of arms is that?

    • canada's

  6. I think there is a difference between accepting/tolerating the sexuality of others and having a parade about it. I cannot see the point of a parade, sex should remain a private matter for the most part. However, if people want to throw a parade, that's fine, all the power to them, but I don't see why the rest of us should fund it, particularly for something that should remain a private affair. And these stupid arguments about economic activity are annoying – if there is so much money to be had, then they should be able to fund it themselves through sponsorships and advertising. The truth is, these economic spin-off arguments are always an extreme exaggeration.

  7. I think there is a difference between accepting/tolerating the sexuality of others and having a parade about it. I cannot see the point of a parade, sex should remain a private matter for the most part. However, if people want to throw a parade, that's fine, all the power to them, but I don't see why the rest of us should fund it, particularly for something that should remain a private affair.

    And these stupid arguments about economic activity are annoying – if there is so much money to be had, then they should be able to fund it themselves through sponsorships and advertising. The truth is, these economic spin-off arguments are always an extreme exaggeration.

    • I'm sure you would see the point in proclaiming your sexuality if it was oppressed, frowned upon, etc.
      More often than not, homosexuals have little choice but to do their best to blend in, especially in their place of employment.
      I would imagine that it rather sucks to have to lead this Bruce Wayne/Batman double life.
      The parade is a symbol of liberation.

      And come on – In today's world, sex is not private – not at all.
      Sex is used and abused anywhere and everywhere – whether to shill products, scandalize public figures, etc.
      Not your cup of tea? The answer is simple – don't go.
      Regarding funding – it turns out, homosexuals and sexually liberated individuals pay taxes as well.
      Who woulda thunk?

      • I'm sorry, sex is private. Talking about it is not. But the act of sex is private – although in pride parades you might say otherwise.

        Not my cup of tea? the answer is simple – they can have it, but I don't have to pay for it with my taxes. And if you want to go, then help them foot the bill with your own money.

        I did not know there was a sexuality check box on the tax return. I though it was Canadian citizens that pay taxes, regardless of sexuality. I hear that beastialists pay taxes too, let's throw a sheep-shagging parade.

        Your arguments are childish, simplistic and patronizing.

      • I will never understand people who wish that government intrudes on every single aspect of our lives.

      • I will never understand people who wish that government intrudes on every single aspect of society, every single event, every single human desire.

        • There can't be that many of those folks, so why worry?

      • I'm sorry, sex is private. Talking about it is not. Showing off your body is not. Dancing is not. But the act of sex is private (try it and watch yourself get arrested) – although in pride parades you might say otherwise.

        Not my cup of tea? the answer is simple – they can have it, but I don't have to pay for it with my taxes. And if you want to go to the parade, then help them foot the bill with your own money. I pay for my tickets to sporting events and concerts, so you pay for your parades.

        I did not know there was a sexuality check box on the tax return. I though it was Canadian citizens that pay taxes, regardless of sexuality. I hear that beastialists pay taxes too, so let's throw a sheep-shagging parade.

        Your arguments are childish, simplistic and patronizing.

        • Yeah, I don't want my tax dollars going to support your sporting events and concerts.. and they often do.
          I don't want my tax dollars going to support the roads you drive on that I"ll never see.
          I don't want my tax dollars doing a lot of things.

          If only I lived in a society of one, that might be a reasonable viewpoint.

          • Surely though, there could be an argument made that government should restrict itself to providing essential services, no matter what your political persuasion, and that it should get out of cultural or corporate subsidies entirely?

          • No, not no matter what your political persuasion, because what you're espousing is a statement of belief. And people of political persuasion similar to mine disagree. I do believe that the government providing cultural or corporate subsidies is entirely valid. So our beliefs conflict, but this is what politics is about.

            However to declare flat out that your taxes shouldn't go to anything you don't support is unreasonable. What you may consider essential, I might not, and vice versa. So instead, what we should be debating is the merits of what they are supporting.

            Or in other words, the devil is in the details, so lets fight the devil rather than just avoiding the whole thing.

        • Thanks for grading my Reply!
          Your sense of humour – top notch!

          I believe government should be involved in funding cultural events.
          I'm guessing you do not.

          Now that I think about it, I no longer believe in Santa Claus.
          Everyone by now must know that he is a total scam.
          Why on earth would any government spend money on something as silly as a parade for him?
          Bah humbug!

    • I will never understand the socially conservative understanding of Pride as a sex parade. Sexuality informs a whole lot more than just merely who you sleep with. I've always thought of it more as an affirmation of an identity. And there is a lot more to gay couples than just the sex. They share the same bonds of love and respect that straight couples do. By the same ludicrous logic that any sign of gay affection is automatically sexual, you could say the sight of a heterosexual family walking down the street is also shoving the parents' sex life in your face. After all, barring adoption, we all know the kids were not conceived via the work of the Holy Ghost.

      • well… all the pictures I've ever seen seem to feature leather and whips and less actual clothing than your average gym locker room!

        • You should try to go sometime. You'll get a better understanding. It's flashy, but seldom indecent. And with very few notable exceptions(e.g. Toronto's nudist cyclists), there's no more skin displayed than at a beach.

        • Stop looking for those types of pictures then and you'll find you see them a lot less.

      • If it's about identity, then why throw a parade? Let's have a parade for sexual abstinence, and a parade for promiscuous sex. Let's have a parade for sex with inanimate objects. Let's have an parade for smart people. Then we can have the parade for good-looking people, then the parade for tall people, followed by the parade for arts-lovers, and the parade for confident people, followed by the parade for shy people. We can have the parade for people with big heads, the parade for Asians, the parade for heavy drinkers and then the parade for 30-somethings.

        You seem to have flown off into a tangent that has nothing to do with anything I said.

        • My argument is that you are considering Pride to be solely and exclusively a sex parade. It would be disingenuous to say that sex has no part in the celebration, but it is merely a component of a larger thing. We have parades for all sorts of (sometimes stupid) reasons. When do you hear people challenge Caribana or the Stampede? They are cultural events. They raise the profile of the host city. They bring in tourism. In my point of view, Pride has served an important and beneficial function in helping further the rights of gays and lesbians, but that is something where your mileage may vary. Allow me to add that if I thought there was a sufficiently large market for the World Abstinence Congress that it would result in an economic windfall for the city, I wouldn't knock on Dave Bronconnier for pursuing hosting rights.

          • The whole concept of Pride is about homosexual and other alternative forms of sex. That's it. lesbian, gay, transgendered, etc. That's what Pride is about, and during Pride there is no shortage of acts going on to remind you of that fact. You can whistle in the wind all you like, but I can assure you:
            -Caribana is about Caribbean culture: people from the islands
            -the Stampede is about cowboy culture: cowboys/girls and ranches and farming
            -Pride is about people who have alternative forms of sex: lesbian, gay, etc

            Sure, they may sell candy apples at the Pride parade, but that does not mean the parade is about apple farmers.

            What is a gay/lesbian person? The definition reveals the whole thing is about sex and sexual identity. There is no difference between a gay person or anyone else other than sexual behaviour.

            Anyway, I don't care if Pride is about sex or not. Like I said, I don't care if they have the parade. I have nothing against parades, nor do I have anything against homosexuals, lesbians, and so on. I just don't want to pay for it, and I don't begrudge anyone else for not wanting to pay for it because it's not their cup of tea.

          • The whole concept of Pride is about homosexual and other alternative forms of sex. That's it. lesbian, gay, transgendered, etc. That's what Pride is about, and during Pride there is no shortage of acts going on to remind you of that fact. You can whistle in the wind all you like, but I can assure you:
            -Caribana is about Caribbean culture: people from the islands
            -the Stampede is about cowboy culture: cowboys/girls and ranches and farming
            -Pride is about people who have alternative forms of sex: lesbian, gay, etc

            Sure, they may sell candy apples at the Pride parade, but that does not mean the parade is about apple farmers.

            What is a gay/lesbian person? The definition reveals the whole thing is about sex and sexual identity. There is no difference between a gay person or anyone else other than their sexual behaviour and their relationships.

            Anyway, I don't care if Pride is about sex or not. Like I said, I don't care if they have the parade. I have nothing against parades, nor do I have anything against homosexuals, lesbians, and so on. I just don't want to pay for it, and I don't begrudge anyone else for not wanting to pay for it because it's not their cup of tea.

          • The whole concept of Pride is about homosexual and other alternative forms of sex. That's it. lesbian, gay, transgendered, etc. That's what Pride is about, and during Pride there is no shortage of acts going on to remind you of that fact. You can whistle in the wind all you like, but I can assure you:
            -Caribana is about Caribbean culture: people from the islands
            -the Stampede is about cowboy culture: cowboys/girls and ranches and farming
            -Pride is about people who have alternative forms of sex: lesbian, gay, etc

            Sure, they may sell candy apples at the Pride parade, but that does not mean the parade is about apple farmers.

            What is a gay/lesbian person? The definition reveals the whole thing is about sex and sexual identity. There is no difference between a gay person or anyone else other than their sexual behaviour and their attraction and relationships with members of the same sex.

            Anyway, I don't care if Pride is about sex or not. Like I said, I don't care if they have the parade. I have nothing against parades, nor do I have anything against homosexuals, lesbians, and so on. I just don't want to pay for it, and I don't begrudge anyone else for not wanting to pay for it because it's not their cup of tea.

          • Are you against publicly funding all festivals, or is it the political nature of the event that loses your support?

        • We already have churches so there's your parade for sexual abstinence (and hidden promiscuity)

  8. seems to me a festival is not just a parade, as scf so ignorantly spoused. This is essentially a big deal, just like all the other festivals that bring in tourist dollars, fuel the hotel and restaurant industries during their duration. I'd dare say, these celebrations are big parts of the economy for big cities and provinces, too.
    To not step up and partner with them is to risk throwing that economic whirlwind out the wind. But considering just how well Harper has shown for throwing money out the window, I'd not hold my breath either.
    It's not like their forcing Red Deer to host the event.

    • Seems to me you're wrong. If parades are the engine of the economy, then why don't we have them morning, noon and night, 7 days a week? Let's shut down the car factories and the banks, and use them as parade factories instead. Seriously, you need a better argument than facile platitudes, a complete ignorance of opportunity cost, and a complete ignorance for honest accounting of economic benefits.

      The reality is, there are no economic benefits to parades, the only hope is that you steal business from neigbouring towns for your own town. Parades in themselves actually generate no wealth, when people stop walking there is no lasting economic benefit of any kind, and in fact you have people using their energy to walk around town for no lasting good or service. Parades are economic benefits no more than birthday parties or poker nights at your buddies' places.

Sign in to comment.