08-06-2019, 03:54
Just for the record, I've tried to separate out the rainbow flag discussion and move it to Off Topic, but unfortunately the site's demons are wreaking havoc with our mod tools, and it's just not happening, so it'll have to stay in here until I find a better option. Furthermore, I do appreciate the efforts both to keep the thread on-topic, and to keep the tangential discussion civil from all parties.
However, at the risk of continuing the derailment of the thread (and believe me, this is why I wanted to shift the topic elsewhere), I have to make a few broad points.
1. Pride is a about a group of people who in the not-too-distant past were forced by society to hide who they were, doing the exact opposite as both a celebration and a statement. "But I don't go around saying I'm proud to be heterosexual!" misses the pretty elementary point that no one has ever told you that you should be ashamed of it. No one has ever attacked you in the street for being out with a member of the opposite sex, like they did to those poor women on that London bus. At no point in human history has anyone ever been imprisoned or executed simply for being straight. And nor did these anti-gay attitudes just melt away by magic; society changed because LGBT people made themselves visible and made themselves heard, asking for equal rights under the law and acceptance in public life. Specifically, through movements like Pride.
2. You could make the argument, "But all of that stuff is in the past! Why are they still marching now?" And I think it's fair to say that there's probably no better time and place in history for someone to be gay than in the Western world in 2019. But that doesn't mean that things can't still be better: certainly, for those who are born into strict religious backgrounds and/or ethnic minorities where anti-gay taboos are still strong, being open about their sexuality can mean being cast out of their community, permanently breaking ties with their family - worst-case scenario, even winding up homeless or fearing for their life. Public Pride marches and events are a way of showing people in that kind of godawful dilemma that they don't have to spend their life living in shame and fear, concealing who they are. If they do come out, then there's a network of people who'll help and support them. And on top of that, in the age of social media, photos and videos from Pride events in the West spread around the world to countries where LGBT people are still persecuted, imprisoned and sentenced to death, and they become a symbol of hope to gay people there: the message is that if things can change so significantly in one place, then it can happen elsewhere too.
3. "They're pushing it down my throat!" is, I'm afraid, only an argument if there's a gay pride parade actually marching through your living room. Otherwise, it's a group of people having a party in a public place, as they're entitled to do in a free society. Same goes for St George's Day parades, Bonfire Night, Halloween, New Year, and countless others. You can choose not to take part, as many people do for those events I've just listed. Personally, I'm in favour of all. And why not?
4. "They've hijacked the rainbow!" Right. They took an otherwise neutral concept and made it the symbol of their community, which is literally how every flag and badge in existence has ever come into being, from the Albion throstle to the Red Cross. Anyone who feels hard done by on that score (a few old hippies with a wardrobe full of moth-eaten rainbow suits?) has my sympathy. But it's not unreasonable to ask what would be acceptable to them as an alternative. What could LGBT people use to represent themselves that wouldn't be a "hijacking"? A spoon? A parallelogram? A duck-billed platypus? The god Quetzalcoatl? If we're being honest here, everything would be a problem of one kind or another, wouldn't it? The rainbow at least has a solid and understandable meaning in the context of gay rights, and its use isn't doing any harm to anyone.
5. "Vegans storm restaurants and abuse meat-eaters!" And they're self-defeating idiots who are doing their cause more harm than good. But they're not LGBT people, so that's irrelevant to this issue. (If they were organising a celebration of veganism in city centres with food stalls and entertainment, and people could choose whether or not they wanted to participate, then that'd be just fine... as it is with Pride).
If you've made it this far, then thank you for reading. Apologies again for derailing the thread, and another thank you to everyone for being civil and friendly in the discussion. If this is still bubbling up at this time tomorrow then I may have to try splitting the thread again. As it is, I'll let things continue for now.
However, at the risk of continuing the derailment of the thread (and believe me, this is why I wanted to shift the topic elsewhere), I have to make a few broad points.
1. Pride is a about a group of people who in the not-too-distant past were forced by society to hide who they were, doing the exact opposite as both a celebration and a statement. "But I don't go around saying I'm proud to be heterosexual!" misses the pretty elementary point that no one has ever told you that you should be ashamed of it. No one has ever attacked you in the street for being out with a member of the opposite sex, like they did to those poor women on that London bus. At no point in human history has anyone ever been imprisoned or executed simply for being straight. And nor did these anti-gay attitudes just melt away by magic; society changed because LGBT people made themselves visible and made themselves heard, asking for equal rights under the law and acceptance in public life. Specifically, through movements like Pride.
2. You could make the argument, "But all of that stuff is in the past! Why are they still marching now?" And I think it's fair to say that there's probably no better time and place in history for someone to be gay than in the Western world in 2019. But that doesn't mean that things can't still be better: certainly, for those who are born into strict religious backgrounds and/or ethnic minorities where anti-gay taboos are still strong, being open about their sexuality can mean being cast out of their community, permanently breaking ties with their family - worst-case scenario, even winding up homeless or fearing for their life. Public Pride marches and events are a way of showing people in that kind of godawful dilemma that they don't have to spend their life living in shame and fear, concealing who they are. If they do come out, then there's a network of people who'll help and support them. And on top of that, in the age of social media, photos and videos from Pride events in the West spread around the world to countries where LGBT people are still persecuted, imprisoned and sentenced to death, and they become a symbol of hope to gay people there: the message is that if things can change so significantly in one place, then it can happen elsewhere too.
3. "They're pushing it down my throat!" is, I'm afraid, only an argument if there's a gay pride parade actually marching through your living room. Otherwise, it's a group of people having a party in a public place, as they're entitled to do in a free society. Same goes for St George's Day parades, Bonfire Night, Halloween, New Year, and countless others. You can choose not to take part, as many people do for those events I've just listed. Personally, I'm in favour of all. And why not?
4. "They've hijacked the rainbow!" Right. They took an otherwise neutral concept and made it the symbol of their community, which is literally how every flag and badge in existence has ever come into being, from the Albion throstle to the Red Cross. Anyone who feels hard done by on that score (a few old hippies with a wardrobe full of moth-eaten rainbow suits?) has my sympathy. But it's not unreasonable to ask what would be acceptable to them as an alternative. What could LGBT people use to represent themselves that wouldn't be a "hijacking"? A spoon? A parallelogram? A duck-billed platypus? The god Quetzalcoatl? If we're being honest here, everything would be a problem of one kind or another, wouldn't it? The rainbow at least has a solid and understandable meaning in the context of gay rights, and its use isn't doing any harm to anyone.
5. "Vegans storm restaurants and abuse meat-eaters!" And they're self-defeating idiots who are doing their cause more harm than good. But they're not LGBT people, so that's irrelevant to this issue. (If they were organising a celebration of veganism in city centres with food stalls and entertainment, and people could choose whether or not they wanted to participate, then that'd be just fine... as it is with Pride).
If you've made it this far, then thank you for reading. Apologies again for derailing the thread, and another thank you to everyone for being civil and friendly in the discussion. If this is still bubbling up at this time tomorrow then I may have to try splitting the thread again. As it is, I'll let things continue for now.
"I would rather spend a holiday in Tuscany than in the Black Country, but if I were compelled to choose between living in West Bromwich or Florence, I should make straight for West Bromwich." - J.B. Priestley