Obama pronounces June 2010, LGBT Pride Month

[Perd Hapley]

Brought to you by our fair, impartial, and oh, so reasonable Democratic administration.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-proclamation-lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender-pride-month

[MillCreek]

Does this trouble you?  If so, what exactly?

[Perd Hapley]

It doesn't "trouble" me any more than the thousand other signs that something is terribly wrong with our country and its leadership.

Do you mean to say you don't find it absurd, offensive, maybe even outrageous, that the president should dedicate a month to having pride in severe sexual misconduct?  

Edit:  I forgot to mention the irony of a leftist making a moral judgment on our behalf, when the left so often fakes outrage at politicians who would (gasp) publicly moralize on sexuality, or a host of other issues.  Before such ironies became commonplace, this would have been good fodder for satire.

[MicroBalrog]

The reason lesbians, gay, bisexuals, and transgendered individuals need gay pride events is precisely the same reason we need open carry events.

Because we don't believe there's something wrong without behavior and we seek to normalize it by expressing it.

Morality and the role of the President are inextricably tied. People vote based on their moral beliefs.

Had there been a conservative President, fistful would make this same argument to back up a condemnation of homosexuality, I assume. Well, you know what, I agree.

It's just this time, a person who does not believe homosexuality is wrong won the election.

[MillCreek]

It doesn't "trouble" me any more than the thousand other signs that something is terribly wrong with our country and its leadership.

Do you mean to say you don't find it absurd, offensive, maybe even outrageous, that the president should dedicate a month to having pride in severe sexual misconduct?  

Since I do not share your view that LGBT equals severe sexual misconduct, no, I don't find such a proclamation absurd, offensive or maybe even outrageous.  Your mileage may vary, of course.

[Perd Hapley]

The reason lesbians, gay, bisexuals, and transgendered individuals need gay pride events is precisely the same reason we need open carry events.

Because we don't believe there's something wrong without behavior and we seek to normalize it by expressing it.

Oh, I realize that is part of his reasoning, but you left out the other half.  That is, the pres. needs to shore up his support among the sexually confused, the sexually intransigent, and their political sympathizers.

Morality and the role of the President are inextricably tied. People vote based on their moral beliefs.

I'm glad we agree.

Had there been a conservative President, fistful would make this same argument to back up a condemnation of homosexuality, I assume.

I don't favor a "Heterosexism Month," but for a very different reason.  Namely, that it would only serve to offend the regressives who will be celebrating LGBT Pride Month.  Besides, I'm not sure it's the president's place to formally condemn sexual sins, even very barbarous ones.

I only object to Obama's moralizing, because of the hypocrisy thereof.  As I stated, the main objection is his declaring a month of national pride in what is egregiously wrong. 

[MicroBalrog]

That is, the pres. needs to shore up his support among the sexually confused, the sexually intransigent, and their political sympathizers.

I'm not sure what a sexually confused person is, but what is clear to me  is that President Obama has never concealed his sympathy for the LGBT cause and that he had won the election. The LGBT community and their political sympathizers comprise, it appears, enough people to carry the White House and both houses of Congress.

This is how the Republic works.

[Monkeyleg]

...what is clear to me  is that President Obama has never concealed his sympathy for the LGBT cause and that he had won the election.

Exactly. And this is political payback, nothing more.

If we're celebrating something, why not have a national Oral Sex day? Not much difference, really.

[BridgeRunner]

If we're celebrating something, why not have a national Oral Sex day? Not much difference, really.

Because all he'd hear from his supporters is how much they miss Clinton. 

[MicroBalrog]

Exactly. And this is political payback, nothing more.

That's what politics are. That's what politics are in fact supposed to be.

A politician connects with a variety of social groups - in this case gays, leftists, Greens, anti-war activist, etc. et.c - and forges a political coalition to propel him to power. After he rises to power, he pays there groups back.

This is how it is supposed to work, and as long as everyone operates within the confines of the Constitution there's no really big deal about it.

If we're celebrating something, why not have a national Oral Sex day?

I approve this message. Of course, most of the same arguments that are brought against an LGBT month can be brought against an Oral Sex Day.

[roo_ster]

Because all he'd hear from his supporters is how much they miss Clinton. 

Heck, relative to BHO, I miss WJC!

[Monkeyleg]

I approve this message. Of course, most of the same arguments that are brought against an LGBT month can be brought against an Oral Sex Day.

Yes, and that's why I think either celebration is a bad idea. People will say they want the government out of their bedrooms, but they turn around and want the government to officially celebrate their sexual activity. And anyone who says that this isn't about sex hasn't been to a gay pride event.

Maybe I'm a prude, but I remember when even the use of the word "sex" was restrained on TV, and I think we were the better for it. There are very few movies made today in which the sex acts depicted really advance the story. It's just obligatory to show people screwing.

There's a show I read about that will be on a network geared for kids. In the show a basketball player loses his pants on the court, and the whole school sees that he's unusually endowed. That's the premise of the episode. In one scene a girl says to him, "any place, any time, any orifice."

We've come a long way from Rob and Laura on "Dick Van Dyke" sleeping in separate beds, but I don't think we've come the right way.

[MicroBalrog]

Yes, and that's why I think either celebration is a bad idea. People will say they want the government out of their bedrooms, but they turn around and want the government to officially celebrate their sexual activity. And anyone who says that this isn't about sex hasn't been to a gay pride event.

The problem is that you misunderstand the issue.

1. Sexual orientation is not related to sexual activity, or at least not directly. THere are some gay people who are celibate, and there are some straight people who for some reason have sex with others of their own gender (prison/some Middle Eastern nations). I don't have sex with any males, but I ain't straight.

2. The reason that gay pride parades and all that floofla exists is because for a long time gay people were subject to all sorts of nastiness. This is exactly in the same way as people carrying AR-15s to rallies is the result of decades of silly anti-gun bias.

There are very few movies made today in which the sex acts depicted really advance the story. It's just obligatory to show people screwing.

Where are those (ostensibly mainstream) movies that openly depict sexual acts?

[Jimmy Dean]

personally, I oppose this idea, for the same reasons that I oppose things like black history month, or the NAACP.

Because if there was a white history month, or a (nationally known) WAACP, or a striaght people's month, the other side would be up in arms and taking people to court.

[BridgeRunner]

Yes, and that's why I think either celebration is a bad idea. People will say they want the government out of their bedrooms, but they turn around and want the government to officially celebrate their sexual activity. And anyone who says that this isn't about sex hasn't been to a gay pride event.

They do vary in their level of profligacy.  The local one is reportedly pretty restrained.  I've got several friends who take their kids every year.  I may take my family one of these years.  When I was trying to fit into the Good Catholic mode, I was pretty ambivalent, but not because of the behavior at the event.  

Maybe I'm a prude, but I remember when even the use of the word "sex" was restrained on TV, and I think we were the better for it. There are very few movies made today in which the sex acts depicted really advance the story. It's just obligatory to show people screwing.

If the story was the only point, we could all just buy the book and not deal with all this irritating technology (ok, maybe my weird is showing there, whatever).  My first and most memorable experience with sex in a movie was Branagh's version of Othello.  A lot of sex, ranging from back alley tumbles to princely sex.  It worked very well in the movie and make the whole "insane jealousy" premise so much more believable.

[BridgeRunner]

The problem is that you misunderstand the issue.

Don't you think there's a difference between not understanding an issue and between deliberately forming an opinion on an issue that seeks to antagonize the proponents of a given thing be delegitimatizing that thing, or by reframing the issue in one's own terms?

1. Sexual orientation is not related to sexual activity, or at least not directly. THere are some gay people who are celibate, and there are some straight people who for some reason have sex with others of their own gender (prison/some Middle Eastern nations). I don't have sex with any males, but I ain't straight.

2. The reason that gay pride parades and all that floofla exists is because for a long time gay people were subject to all sorts of nastiness. This is exactly in the same way as people carrying AR-15s to rallies is the result of decades of silly anti-gun bias.

No.  People like me, who felt attracted to people of the same sex and did so from within socially sanctioned hetero relationships were not subjected to much nastiness.  Pretty much the nastiness was directed at people who had sex with people of the same sex.

It's all well and good to ascribe to a modern concept of sexual orientation or gender identity, but those things are very recent developments.  While today, I can say "I'm bisexual and genderqueer" and that has social implications even if I don't sleep with women or cross-dress (much), those concepts didn't exist over the course of most of history.  Historically it has been about the acts. 

[Ben]

Yes, and that's why I think either celebration is a bad idea. People will say they want the government out of their bedrooms, but they turn around and want the government to officially celebrate their sexual activity. And anyone who says that this isn't about sex hasn't been to a gay pride event.

Bingo.

As long as they're not involving kids or helpless animals and it's consensual, I don't care what people do in their bedrooms. But I don't want it shoved down my throat. I don't go around making sure everyone knows about my heterosexual activities, nor do I introduce myself to people or describe myself as a heterosexual American. Don't bother me and I won't bother you.

If you push your opinion or your belief system on me, I tend to get irritated and the opposite of "enlightened" about your cause. Especially when you want to overdo it for the "shock value". There may very well be gay pride parades made up of people wearing LL Bean casual wear, but I've never heard of one.

[BridgeRunner]

...for the "shock value". There may very well be gay pride parades made up of people wearing LL Bean casual wear, but I've never heard of one.

Um. No, you haven't.  They don't have shock value.  Which gun owners do you read about in the news?  Let's see, some famous gun owners:  Klebold, Harris, Cho....

[MicroBalrog]

It's all well and good to ascribe to a modern concept of sexual orientation or gender identity, but those things are very recent developments.  While today, I can say "I'm bisexual and genderqueer" and that has social implications even if I don't sleep with women or cross-dress (much), those concepts didn't exist over the course of most of history.  Historically it has been about the acts.  

This is true. But I'm trying to explain the motivation for having an LGBT day/month/week now. For  the modern LGBT movement, this isn't solely about sex, but about their identity.

Don't you think there's a difference between not understanding an issue and between deliberately forming an opinion on an issue that seeks to antagonize the proponents of a given thing be delegitimatizing that thing, or by reframing the issue in one's own terms?

Here's the deal.

I assume that if we're debating an issue, a person either wants to better understand my opinion, or persuade me of his own.

If you just operate assuming that I share your underlying assumptions, then this is not productive to either of these.

[Ben]

Um. No, you haven't.  They don't have shock value.  Which gun owners do you read about in the news?  Let's see, some famous gun owners:  Klebold, Harris, Cho....

I can't tell if we're on the same page here or not, but maybe we are. Perhaps I'm prejudiced, but I'm much more amenable to having a conversation on the subject and listening to the opinion of the person in the LL Bean clothes than I am debating someone wearing feathers and a merkin.

If the gay community wants to be mainstream, I'm not sure San Francisco style parades help people in the accounting firm or law firm think of their gay coworker as just another coworker. I certainly have to hear about "gun nuts like Ben" in my predominately liberal office any time there's a shooting somewhere. That shock value doesn't have the same effect as taking someone to the range and teaching them about guns.

[BridgeRunner]

This is true. But I'm trying to explain the motivation for having an LGBT day/month/week now. For  the modern LGBT movement, this isn't solely about sex, but about their identity.

Of course.  And I obviously agree with you position.  But as a proponent of the GLBTQ movement, I recognize that the history matter.  We can't insist that this has nothing to do with sex when historically it has had to do with nothing but sex (ok, little but sex).  Clearly it isn't that simple.  Despite the lack of a social movement for GLBTQ rights and culture or any general ideas of identity, people did feel socially constrained from expressing GLBTQ-ness.  It was denied social recognition and therefore denied social sanction.  Fine.  

But on its face, discrimination against GLBTQ people has been based on acts, usually sex acts, not identities.  I think that it's important to recognize that.  I also think that gay pride events that over-focus on sex acts are unwise.  

[BridgeRunner]

If the gay community wants to be mainstream, I'm not sure San Francisco style parades help people in the accounting firm or law firm think of their gay coworker as just another coworker. I certainly have to hear about "gun nuts like Ben" in my predominately liberal office any time there's a shooting somewhere. That shock value doesn't have the same effect as taking someone to the range and teaching them about guns.

... I also think that gay pride events that over-focus on sex acts are unwise.  

That's funny.  X-posted.

[MicroBalrog]

See, I'm not a member of the "gay community."

In the sense that I've never enjoyed the 'gay stuff' which I'm 'supposed' to like because I happen to be... not completely straight.

I've met several other LGBT people at different events, attended classes with some and I've never really connected with the overall vibe. I've even once ended up at a "Gay Film Festival", looked at the posters, was intensely bored, and escaped.

The question is, of course, what we want to do.

I, personally, think society becoming more sexually libertine is a great thing - but then I derive my personal views on morality from the same place I derive my views on politics.

[MicroBalrog]

But back on the tactics issue, I'm thinking of it like a combined arms battle.

You need a whole variety of 'branches' in your grand political army.

The gun rights community needs the NRA moderates and it needs Alan Gura, and it also needs the open-carry people to bring up the flank and keep everyone honest.

The non-straight people also have a variety of groups, and different groups serve different purposes inside the group. I think the phallic floats work really well in Amsterdam or San Francisco. There are other venues where they're entirely inappropriate.

[roo_ster]

The problem is that you misunderstand the issue.

1. Sexual orientation is not related to sexual activity, or at least not directly.

Yes, and one can be a drunk without ever tasting alcohol, a thief without ever engaging in theft, and the Pope without ever being Catholic.

This is the sort of reason one associates with Sir Bedevere.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp_l5ntikaU