You, an alleged heterosexual, walk into a LGBT forum and ask a classic "When did you stop beating your wife?"-style question -- i.e., "Why do some gays get up on floats and behave in ways that are overtly sexual?" -- and when you get well-thought-out answers you don't seem to want (what do you want? for all of us to agree with you that gay people should curb whatever it is you perceive as "overtly sexual" behavior?), you argue with the very people whose opinions you are soliciting.
Everyone here -- including me -- has answered your question with thought and respect, regardless of how offensively you put it. You may not see it as offensive; I do. The way you frame your questions is patently judgmental; right out of the gate, we're "overtly sexual" and "provocative." Now you're back to "overt sexuality," plus "sexually suggestive." You're stuck in "overt," "provocative," and "suggestive" overdrive, and, after reading the rest of your posts here, the only conclusion I can come to is that
you are offended by same-sex behavior, period.
If you can't see how I came to that conclusion, then you've got blinders on -- or you don't have any close LGBT friends or family you feel comfortable with, or truly accept (as oppose to "tolerate").
As for being "overly hostile" toward you, you're reading something into it that simply isn't there. Believe me, you haven't seen "hostile" out of me; if you had, you'd know the difference, immediately. Maybe you just don't care for my attitude, which is up-front and pull-no-punches. I can't afford to play polite word games with anybody who (seems to) ask a genuine question about the LGBT community.
Maybe you prefer the polite approach. That's unfortunate. The upshot is: You can't ask such a "provocative" question (and, believe me, it is "provocative," in the truest sense of "provoking"), then cry when somebody calls you on your own crystal-clear prejudice (your mind was already made up that behavior at LGBT parades is "overtly sexual," which to you is inappropriate) that was formed long before you ever asked your initial question.
In my first response to you, I gave you credit for being able to recognize what you were doing by using pointed humor. Don't insult my intelligence by playing dumb, and then try to shift focus onto some stunningly trivial (and incorrect) argument about how the time of day has anything to do with it.
So, gay people offend you? Don't bring your five-year-old near us then. But to imply, very clearly, that children in general may be damaged by the sight of a (gasp!) naked ass also suggests, just as clearly, that we really need to keep any
physical display of sexuality behind closed doors.
Frankly, I don't think you give kids much credit.
You're the one flustered by dirty dancing on parade floats; maybe what upsets you is that
you're the one who's going to have to explain anything "unseemly" to your kid.
The thing that scares me is that you seem to have an awfully narrow definition of what is "overtly sexual" behavior. You cannot
honestly tell me that you have
ever seen a gay man giving a blow job on a float, or a lesbian demonstrating the use of a strap-on. In fact, you said yourself, "I've never heard of anyone dropping pants or 'that kind of thing' in a pride parade!" So now that we've established that you have never witnessed
explicit sexual activity at Pride, what it is you find so inappropriate?
What you do witness is nothing worse than the same gyrations you'd see in a dance scene on any primetime TV show. The problem is, you're
seeing "Will and Grace," but you're
perceiving it as "Queer As Folk."
Of course, I'm stumbling around in the dark here, with no help from you; you have not yet defined what is "overtly sexual" in your eyes. "Overtly sexual" to me would be the examples I just gave above. To you, the sight of two women engaged in an open-mouth kiss might be too much to handle.
In any case, your question is not "purely political." It is purely judgmental, frought with preconceived notions about what is and what is not "appropriate."
And don't bother to quote a question to you if you're not going to answer it:
"Why does this issue interest you so much? Are you worried about LGBTs dragging the Dem party down before the next election or something?"
Hardly. It feels like you're being overly hostile towards me, and I see no reason for it.
Do you feel that I should not ask a question about the gay pride parade or express an opinion about it?
Don't turn it back on me. I'll extend the courtesy you didn't extend me, and answer your question: Yes, you have the right to ask any question you want, and express any opinion you want. But it's disingenuous to pretend that your questions are free of prejudice and judgment -- and then make me out as the big, bad bully who's being "hostile" for no reason. Dancing around direct questions and crying "victim" doesn't foster the sort of open dialogue I thought you were asking for.
So, again, why does this issue interest you so much? Are you afraid we're going to do it in the streets and scare the horses? Are you afraid that we'll scar your kid for life?
Fine, you have every right to worry about what your five-year-old sees. What you don't have the right to do is expect other people to conform to
your notions of proper conduct in order to "protect"
your child. If you don't like what your kid is seeing on TV, turn off the TV. If you don't like what your kid is seeing on the Internet, turn off the computer. Protecting your child from perceived bogeymen is your job; you're the dad, you make the rules for your child.
But you don't make them for us.
If it's not paternal instinct driving your questions, then what is it? I could see you caring if you were gay, and trying to hash out the issue inside yourself, but you say you're straight -- so why do you care?
You say you are "interested in oppression." In what way? If you want to fight oppression, then terrific -- keep talking. But in your own way, whether you see it or not (and I think by now you do), you are
contributing to oppression, by walking in here with preconceived ideas about gay people, and expecting us
not to recognize bias when we see it.
Fella, we're
experts on bias and oppression.
After realizing you're Canadian, it dawned on me that you can't be
that concerned about any effect gay people have on the Democratic party itself. We may be the "sleeping giant" at your doorstep, but nothing that happens in the U.S. has so great an impact on Canadian politics that what goes on during Pride in San Francisco, or Chicago, or Sioux City, Iowa, will have any effect on whether your prime minister is Harper, Martin, or a box of rocks. If you're so concerned about oppression, I would think you would take a much greater interest in your own Native American tribes (for just one example), as LGBT Canadians are (for the moment) light-years ahead of U.S. LGBTs in terms of rights. When it comes to social issues, Canada doesn't give a damn what the U.S. does. (And thank goodness for that!)
And if you still think I'm being hostile, re-read Harvey Korman's comments in post #57. Yes, the reaction is "hair-trigger" -- and Harvey explains exactly why.