Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I would /really/ like this topic to not become a flamefest after a few posts. No fundamental discussions on homosexuality and, please, no religion vs. homosexuality / homosexual relationships drama. Thanks in advance.

Now, during today's lunchbreak, I met with two gay friends of mine (WAT SIGVATR HAS HOMOSEXUAL FRIENDS WAT WAT) and we had a very interesting discussion which still left me thinking about - and I wanted to share the thoughts and get more input on the matter.

All of us are familiar with events that celebrate homosexuality with Gay Pride and the Christopher Street Day standing out as the most popular ones. To me, usually, they were seen as events that celebrated homosexuality, a way to express their sexual orentiation to the public with pride and joy. We always visited the CSD in Cologne just because of the awesome and welcoming atmosphere. Now, that thought got a different spin today. One of my friends said that he'd wish for all or most of these events to rather disappear than get bigger. I was baffled at first, and so was my other friend, but he actually had a point worh a thought or too. He said that while they were a good place to celeberate in a safe environment, those events also celebrated one huge problem: segregation. He said that while those were fun events, especially the CSD, they represented the homosexual community in an extremely clichée way and portrayed homosexuals as the ones a lot of people imagine in their minds: colorful, dancing men and women with flailing arms, dancing to electronic music. Especially male homosexuals which have a much harder time in regards to acceptance were portrayed as the clichée flameboyant paradise birds with a nasal accent. He wondered if having those events were a true sign for a more accepting community or, rather, the opposite...as in: if society truly was more welcoming towards homosexuals, wouldn't there be less of a need for such events as it would be natural to have homosexuals doing the same things, at the same places that heterosexuals do? After all, they are the same bar their sexual orientation. He especially mentioned Gaymercon, a games convention aimed specifically at homosexual guests. I'm with him there: why? Do homosexuals have a different taste in video games than heterosexuals do? And why? Why especially differentiate gamers?

Now, I know that there are different groups among homosexuals and he belongs to the "undercover" homosexuals, i.e. you would never be able to guess that he's homosexual. My other friend is more...openly homosexual, think Kurt Hummel from Glee in his early 30s. Still...his idea kinda makes sense and his thoughts keep ringing in my head. What do you guys think? I'm really interested in more thought-provoking posts / ideas.

Thanks

Things like the pride parade are fething awesome. It is opportunities for people to openly flaunt something they may usually be ashamed/fearful of together with lots of others, and be loved and celebrated for it, which may help them to not be so ashamed/fearful of it in the future.

It also brings political and media attention to the topic, which can only be a good thing.

It's also really fun.

This is also true for gay-specific events. If people did not assume heterosexuality, it would not have been necessary. (And the majority argument is null. Whites are in majority in Brazil. When you are talking with a Brazilian over the phone, do you assume they are white or does the possibility of another ethnicity strike you as possible?)

I do hope that quote wasn't meant to be serious, else it'd be pretty darn offensive.

 Ashiraya wrote:
It's also really fun.

First of all, this. I HIGHLY recommend everyone to go visit such an event, homosexual or not. Atmosphere's amazing and people are extremely open to everyone visiting. Friendly and just want to hang out, have a good time and party. Secondly...to a less related part, it's similar with gay bars. They are MUCH, MUCH nicer places to hang out than regular bars unless you specifically want to hook people up and are heterosexual.

 Ashiraya wrote:

It also brings political and media attention to the topic, which can only be a good thing.

That's the critical part, though. On the one side, they are amazing because they show people who normally cannot celebrate their sexuality in such a way, but rather are constantly faced with their sexual orientation being "special" and not normal, but on the other hand, they also portray them as what people with a clichée-filled mind think homosexuals are like, reinforcing a stereotype and neglecting the majority (?), i.e. just your average neighbour who might also be gay.

Segregation is when the majority or a power elite deliberately exclude the minority or weaker groups who want to be involved, rather than a voluntary action by the group concerned.

 Sigvatr wrote:
I do hope that quote wasn't meant to be serious, else it'd be pretty darn offensive.

I do not know myself what the meaning of the SIGVATR HAS HOMOSEXUAL FRIENDS WAT WAT remark was, but I just pointed out its similarity to a common argument. I have yet to see any 'I have gay friends but...' so far ITT, so rest assured, there is nothing for me to complain on.

That's the critical part, though. On the one side, they are amazing because they show people who normally cannot celebrate their sexuality in such a way, but rather are constantly faced with their sexual orientation being "special" and not normal, but on the other hand, they also portray them as what people with a clichée-filled mind think homosexuals are like, reinforcing a stereotype and neglecting the majority (?), i.e. just your average neighbour who might also be gay.

People can express themselves how they want - I believe the point of the pride parades etc. being so flamboyant is that it's intended to symbolise a 'Look at us, we are not ashamed of what we are, and we do not fear displaying it to the entire world' mindset.

If everyone walked down the street in grey office costumes, it just wouldn't be the same thing, y'know?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Segregation is when the majority or a power elite deliberately exclude the minority or weaker groups who want to be involved, rather than a voluntary action by the group concerned.

It's not.

 Ashiraya wrote:


I do not know myself what the meaning of the SIGVATR HAS HOMOSEXUAL FRIENDS WAT WAT remark was

OT people perceiving me as a super gay-hating giga bigot

If everyone walked down the street in grey office costumes, it just wouldn't be the same thing, y'know?

I'm used to seeing nothing but black/grey DRESSED [edit] people all day, 5-6 times a week so...yes, that might be a reason for us being so appreciative of the flamboyant fairs. That...and our daughter loves it.

You do realize most of these events sprouted up from being BANNED from the standard 'all inclusive' events.

And those events are in no way segregated. People of all sexual preferences are welcome.

Events like 'gaymercon' happen because anti-homosexual abuse happens at regular gamer conventions. If you have ever played online gaming you would know about the rampant slurs and grossly bigoted attitudes left to flourish.

Most of these events exist because apparently they are still needed. Some are so ready to declare 'post-bias era' to make it just go away when we are no where close to being there.

Funny (actually sad) thing... In DC there is a thriving homosexual community, but it is mostly a white homosexual community which has isolated black homosexuals which has lead to 'black homosexual bars' not because people are not welcome but many of the community won't go to 'those' bars.

That's a bit like saying a gamer convention is a firm of segregation, because you run into people who conform to the gamer stereotypes and if the hobby was truly accepted by the mainstream, people could just set up a table wherever and start rolling dice. There'd be no need to get a big group of like-minded people in one place for a day or two and hang out...we all enjoy similar things outside of tabletop, after all.

I mean, except for the fact that it's fun.

Obviously, that's an exaggeration. Not trying to equate the difficulties faced by the homosexual community with gaming. But like you said, it looks like a lot of fun, people are getting out and enjoying themselves and showing who they are. Who cares if it's flamboyant? Some people ARE flamboyant.

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Segregation is when the majority or a power elite deliberately exclude the minority or weaker groups who want to be involved, rather than a voluntary action by the group concerned.

It's not.

Agreed... Making a place inhospitable to a group of people without banning them make them go elsewhere, combine that with people only choosing to go places with people like them and what used use be institutionalized happens by conscious but legal choices.

Let's say we have Blues and Reds. A portion of the Reds hate Blues.

Bar 1 serves everyone, Bar 2 serves everybody, but tends to give Reds preferential treatment.

Because of that, many of the Blues gravitate to Bar 1. Reds who dislike Blues notice Bar 1 seems to have 'too many Blues' so they go to Bar 2 Exclusively.

Bar 1 gets a reputation of being a BLUE BAR ONLY and Reds who don't have a particular problem with Blues begin to feel unwelcome and go to Bar 2.

We now have a mostly segregated set of establishment and Bar 1 is now a 'BLUE' bar even when it did no explicit action to exclude anyone and did nothing bad.

Now people in the RED media blame Bar 1 for being segregated and say nasty things about them for refusing to integrate with society. The last of the Reds refuse to go to Bar 1.

Bar 1 goes out of business. Blues now are forced to go to Bar 2 and be neglected as customers or stay home.

I don't think that there is anything wrong with having a gay pride event. Especially in Germany where many different groups and cultures are very open about having festivals/marches/etc. I do think that they can have the side effect of reinforcing some stereotypes as well as alienating members of their own group.

One of the gay pride events that I attended locally had a contest to see who can stick a foot long hotdog down their throat the longest and included all the crude remarks you would imagine from the commentator. This was at 2pm in a public park at an event where many of the people attending came with family. I do remember thinking "this is why people might think of gays as crude and oversexed".

I wonder if your friend would consider organizing his own group to march in the parade? It could just be a simple group of people dressed "normal" and acting "normal" participating to show that not all gay people fit the stereotype?

Of course it might just be that this is the one weekend that everybody does let loose and that most of the people are more "normal" the rest of the year. Bavarians might wear regular others 360 days of the year, but the few days that they celebrate their heritage during local festivals might have them out in full Tracht. Maybe the gay pride event is something similar?

 Sigvatr wrote:
OT people perceiving me as a super gay-hating giga bigot

Okay. Well. Then that link shows you why SIGVATR HAS HOMOSEXUAL FRIENDS WAT WAT proves nothing in that discussion, for those who are willing to bother with it.

 d-usa wrote:


One of the gay pride events that I attended locally had a contest to see who can stick a foot long hotdog down their throat the longest and included all the crude remarks you would imagine from the commentator. This was at 2pm in a public park at an event where many of the people attending came with family. I do remember thinking "this is why people might think of gays as crude and oversexed".

To be fair, I went to a Beer and BBQ festival this year which had vendors and events. One of the booths was a 'sex education consultant' tent which was doing bondage demonstrations. Next to her was a 90-year old woman in leiderhosen selling baked nuts. Also, there was a sex toy vendor at the county fair.

I can't remember a sports tailgating situation I have been to in the past few years which DIDN'T have a DJ doing a wet tee-shirt content or some other thing which would be seen as "crude and oversexed."

I think parents would see Men lusting after boobs as reinforcing the societal structure they like, which makes it ok. They would see 'sucking hotdogs' as deviation from their societal structure hence offensive even though both are probably not family friendly.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
OT people perceiving me as a super gay-hating giga bigot

Okay. Well. Then that link shows you why SIGVATR HAS HOMOSEXUAL FRIENDS WAT WAT proves nothing in that discussion, for those who are willing to bother with it.

I think he was making a humorous remark on the premise of this discussion which, to be fair, is reasonable. When I saw who authored the thread, I was pleasantly surprised to find it wasn't an argument for forcing the gays to sew pink triangles on their shirts.

On topic: I can see your friend's point, Sig, but don't think I agree. An event that wanted straight folks not to attend, that might be something over the line. But all the gay events in my area (and we have a ton) are extremely open to the community. The broader LGBT community has always been very open to straight folks sympathetic to their cause, and I've never gotten a strong sense of segregation there, either locally or nationally.

Interesting topic of discussion.

Yeah, I mean, I am straight as a baseball bat in every way, but do you know how many Pride parades I have attended?

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Segregation is when the majority or a power elite deliberately exclude the minority or weaker groups who want to be involved, rather than a voluntary action by the group concerned.

It's not.

Gay pride marches aren't segregated. Anyone can join in.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Yeah, I mean, I am straight as a baseball bat in every way, but do you know how many Pride parades I have attended?

,..because they're so much fun! It's like carnival, but with less drunk idiots molesting everyone. Sure, you also got a random annoying person at Prides too, but somehow, there are far, far less. They just wanna have fun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Segregation is when the majority or a power elite deliberately exclude the minority or weaker groups who want to be involved, rather than a voluntary action by the group concerned.

It's not.

Gay pride marches aren't segregated. Anyone can join in.

Can we get past the semantics part, please? You know exactly what I meant to say by using the term, so please be constructive and provide a more suitable one if there is. Getting worked up on a specific word seems rather nitpicky.

 Sigvatr wrote:

He said that while they were a good place to celeberate in a safe environment, those events also celebrated one huge problem: segregation. He said that while those were fun events, especially the CSD, they represented the homosexual community in an extremely clichée way and portrayed homosexuals as the ones a lot of people imagine in their minds: colorful, dancing men and women with flailing arms, dancing to electronic music. Especially male homosexuals which have a much harder time in regards to acceptance were portrayed as the clichée flameboyant paradise birds with a nasal accent.

The representation of homosexuality seen at pride tends to be along stereotypical lines, but its a representation of the community by themselves. Sure, if I saw a TV program written by a straight person where all of the gay characters were colourful, dancing people with flailing arms etc, I'd be a bit ticked off. But the people at pride are real people representing their own community, so not problematic. It would be nice to see a bit more representation of the more-low key elements at the parades, but 'low-key' and 'parades' don't tend to mix.

 Sigvatr wrote:

He wondered if having those events were a true sign for a more accepting community or, rather, the opposite...as in: if society truly was more welcoming towards homosexuals, wouldn't there be less of a need for such events as it would be natural to have homosexuals doing the same things, at the same places that heterosexuals do? After all, they are the same bar their sexual orientation. He especially mentioned Gaymercon, a games convention aimed specifically at homosexual guests. I'm with him there: why? Do homosexuals have a different taste in video games than heterosexuals do?

Pride parades are not particularly meant to be a sign of a welcoming general community. They arose from a time when LGBT people were more persecuted than they are now; there was and is a need to affirm a right to an identity that was and is marginalised. Its great that we can don the eyeshadow and neons and make noise walking down a street for a day, and its a sign of how far society has come that so many pride parades are allowed to happen.

If society had always been completely welcoming of gay peope, we wouldn't have the parades. But the friend saying that they'd like to see the parades go away because they are a sign of the community's lack of complete acceptance of the queer community seems like attacking the symptom but not the disease.

P.S. Gaymercon and suchlike tends to happen when the general community in a thing is not welcoming of fringe groups - the homophobic remarks that get tossed around on online games have already been mentioned above. Plus, its nice to be able to more openly discuss games which are more representative of the gay community, as most games tend to be very hetero-gaze oriented. (So yes, gay people, at least in so far as I've seen, can be more inclined to play different games)

P.P.S. Nice choice of topic, and well handled so far

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Yeah, I mean, I am straight as a baseball bat in every way, but do you know how many Pride parades I have attended?

,..because they're so much fun! It's like carnival, but with less drunk idiots molesting everyone. Sure, you also got a random annoying person at Prides too, but somehow, there are far, far less. They just wanna have fun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Segregation is when the majority or a power elite deliberately exclude the minority or weaker groups who want to be involved, rather than a voluntary action by the group concerned.

It's not.

Gay pride marches aren't segregated. Anyone can join in.

Can we get past the semantics part, please? You know exactly what I meant to say by using the term, so please be constructive and provide a more suitable one if there is. Getting worked up on a specific word seems rather nitpicky.

I am only using the word you selected as a topic of discussion.

Gay pride marches are an expression of support and celebration for a group of people that is to a significant degree defined by its sexuality, rather than say its profession, sport or other non-sexual factor.

This is not segregation, either voluntary or involuntary.

I'll never understand what the feth one's sexual orientation has to do with self identity or freedom of expression. By the same token, I'll never understand why people feel the urge to harass others of a differing orientation.

 trexmeyer wrote:
I'll never understand what the feth one's sexual orientation has to do with self identity or freedom of expression. By the same token, I'll never understand why people feel the urge to harass others of a differing orientation.

Your sexual orientation is a huge part of your self identity and thus freedom of expression. It just appears to be not special to you if you belong to the majority culture and / or have not emphasized with homosexuals before. Homosexuals and their individual expression of self identity greatly varies, far more than heterosexuals do, ranging from the extremely sexualized groups over the clichée "ta-taaaaaa", the closed homosexuals and undercover homosexuals...just to name a few. That, to me, is a huge part of your self-identity. Freedom of expression is pretty closed tied to it, especially if large groups publicly talk your interests down and hate / anger towards you is very common. Being heterosexual is normal and the downside is that without contact to homosexuals and their very own experience(s), it's tough to see what they go through, even nowadays, in modern countries.

@Killkrazy: I bow down before you, oh great master of words. I suck at speaking English, you win. Can we get back to the actual topic then? With or without you. I don't want this topic to devolve into unnecessary, nit-picky semantic debates. Thanks.

 trexmeyer wrote:
I'll never understand what the feth one's sexual orientation has to do with self identity or freedom of expression. By the same token, I'll never understand why people feel the urge to harass others of a differing orientation.

Wearing a wedding band, holding hands in public, Valentine's Day dinners, holding open the door, picture of your family on your desk, sharing pictures on Facebook, engagement and wedding announcements in the newspaper, who you take to prom, talking to you friends about who is hot, how much you sleep around, who you fancy, etc etc.

These are all things that pretty much every person has their identity shaped by their sexual orientation. If you are heterosexual you just don't really think about it because all those things are normal and people won't look at you funny when you do any of it. I'm just marginally more aware of it because I am in an interracial marriage and that part of my identity still creates some raised eyebrows.

Nothing wrong at all with "gay specific" events, as long as they're not "gays only". Same goes for pretty much any sort of event and any sort of demographic with a very few exceptions.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Segregation is when the majority or a power elite deliberately exclude the minority or weaker groups who want to be involved, rather than a voluntary action by the group concerned.

Really?
seg·re·ga·tion
ˌseɡrəˈɡāSH(ə)n/
noun
the action or state of setting someone or something apart from other people or things or being set apart.
"the segregation of pupils with learning difficulties"
the enforced separation of different racial groups in a country, community, or establishment.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Segregation is when the majority or a power elite deliberately exclude the minority or weaker groups who want to be involved, rather than a voluntary action by the group concerned.

So male-female segregation of Muslim worshipers in Mosques is not actually segregation?

Your interpretation sounds suspiciously like one of those modern sociological definitions designed to redefine a term to better fit political agendas and narratives.

e.g. When people say its impossible for non-white people to racially discriminate against white people because Racism = power/privilege + discrimination.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Segregation is when the majority or a power elite deliberately exclude the minority or weaker groups who want to be involved, rather than a voluntary action by the group concerned.

I'm curious as to where you learned this definition of the word.

I've never actually been to a gay pride event, or even a gay bar. I have been to a coupe informal gay support meet ups and for the most part they were fun... even if everyone thought I was straight and dating one of the female friends of the group the first few weeks.

Bleh

I dislike the flamboyance and in your face sterotyping that I see in media coverage of these things but like I said I've never been so I can't say.

I've been to a few Gaymer sites and its a refreshing feeling to be in a forum were I can talk about a game, with out the highschool esk homo jokes flying around... that sort of thing is what pushed me off online gaming for the most part.


I should look into any local pride events, hell if just to meet people, its lonely out here.
I don't see them as segregation, sure I'm embarrassed by some of what happens, but thats gonna happen at any huge meet up with tons of folk involved.

There are two kinds of segregation: de facto and de jure.

De facto segregation comes about when individuals separate themselves (for a variety of reasons) without external pressure. Using an earlier example given in this thread about Reds, Blues, and bars, if all of the Blues go to Bar #1 and all of the Reds go to Bar #2 without anyone from either group being banned from said bar, then that is an example of de facto segregation. The Reds and the Blues are separate from each other and the bars are segregated (even though the government didn't force it, nor did the respective bars' owners). When you go to a high school lunchroom and see all the African-American kids sitting together at one table, all the Asian-American kids sitting at another table, and all the Caucasian-American kids sitting at another, that is an example of de facto segregation (as long as the school isn't forcing them to sit at different tables).

De jure segregation is when segregation is enforced, typically by a governing entity. Jim Crow laws? De jure segregation. Laws in certain Middle Eastern countries that keep men and women from sitting together in Mosques or in public? De jure segregation.

I hope that clears things up for everyone.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Segregation is when the majority or a power elite deliberately exclude the minority or weaker groups who want to be involved, rather than a voluntary action by the group concerned.

So male-female segregation of Muslim worshipers in Mosques is not actually segregation?

Your interpretation sounds suspiciously like one of those modern sociological definitions designed to redefine a term to better fit political agendas and narratives.

e.g. When people say its impossible for non-white people to racially discriminate against white people because Racism = power/privilege + discrimination.

The female Muslims believe their religion wants them to be in a separate area of the mosque. Some would say this was voluntary segregation, which isn't usually thought to be something to worry about. After all, the women are worshipping in the manner they wish.

Segregation and discrimination are different things.

I think that, overall they are merely self- or group-expression. However, wasn't there a Pride event in the UK fairly recently that "banned" drag-queens because they felt that it was "bad" for people who are Trans? That sort of thing, I do have a bit of an issue with, simply due to the small, tiny amount of "history" that I know the Queens have had for the LGBT community.