Gay Pride In Toronto, God Help Us All


petros
Avatar
#241
Quote: Originally Posted by LiberalmanView Post

A parade is a parade a gay parade sexualizes it

Jugglers, clowns, acrobats, etc are straight people parading? Shriners trying to lure kids into those tiny cars with candy.

Nice mini skirts on the majorettes and cheerlearders. Nothing sexual there...
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#242
Quote: Originally Posted by LiberalmanView Post

All the gays and lesbians from out of town from America and all over the world are going home.
Toronto will be a little safer until next year when Gay Pride week comes to this great city so they can pull their muscles in front of the children in defiance that they are Gay and Lesbian and they are here to stay.

Good bye all and have a safe trip

You can feel safe now, child. What a hateful person you are. It must be pleasant to be unhappy and bitter all the time. I'll pass, though. I like being in my type of misery. lol
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#243
Quote: Originally Posted by LiberalmanView Post

No fascination but I did notice a lot of children along the gay pride route on the evening news last night and the gay guys were licking their lips on the news.
Says it all lone wolf

Then you have a fascination with watching gay guys lick their lips? Most people go to watch a parade for other reasons.
Last edited by L Gilbert; Jun 29th, 2009 at 03:41 PM..
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#244
Quote: Originally Posted by LiberalmanView Post

lone wolf are you saying little children should go the the Gay Pride parade?

Kids hear the word "parade" and they're all over it. I'm sure the parents of the kids that were there are self-confident enough in their sexuality to not have any fear of gay people.
 
karrie
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#245
Quote: Originally Posted by ZzarchovView Post

I personally think the gay pride parade sets a bad stereotype.

I agree IF that's what the parade does, but, never having been to one except one in Nice, I can't say one way or the next. The one we went to had drummers and dancers and was more of a Carnivalle atmosphere than a leatherboy competition one.

And I never really trust the media to be portraying any but the most sensational of participants in a parade.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#246
Quote: Originally Posted by LiberalmanView Post

TenPenny I am obsessed with the safety of children I like all children to grow up in a safe social environment.

Aaaaahhh .... one as hateful as yours seems to be. I see. Definitely nice and safe there, alright.

Quote:

They don't need to be exposed to the gay lifestyle until they are the age of majority when they can make an informed decision.

Like you? You can't even distinguish between homosexual and paedophilic. lmao

Quote:

The children don't need to see the sexual perversion of scantily dressed men on floats acing out their fantasies.

And no parent can say, "See kids, this is a caricature of real gay life and, like any other parade, the displays are exaggerated".

Quote:

On the news I saw the lesbians march on TV news on Saturday and it was women carrying the rainbow flag riding motorbikes or marching in their normal clothes no sexual perversions there.

Jeeeez, how boring a parade could that be?
Anyway, so you think it's ok for gay women to dress how they choose, but not gay men for parades? Sounds sexist to me.

Quote:

When the Gay parade men reach that level then it’s a different story.

Quote:

You think? So when did you discover that women are different than men? Recently?
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#247
LM, I used to like Batman comics when I was a kid. Batman is a caricature of a man who has a psychotic hatred for criminals. I don't have a big pile of hatred for criminals. I also saw Santa Claus parades, yet have never been dressed up as a Santa. Saw lots of war movies, yet never joined any armed forces. So you're intimation that if kids become what they see or will be scarred for life by what they see is just unfounded garbage.
 
karrie
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#248
Les, that's not fair. Seeing gay men behave sexually may not cause a homosexual response for you, and so you think it's a moot point. But obviously for some people it does evoke a reaction, and thus they assume it will in others too. Life is all about personal perspective.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#249
Quite true. I didn't think of it like that as I was viewing it from a personal perspective. You have a point. lol
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
Avatar
#250
I have been a raging heterosexual all my life. Then one day I met a gay man who explained to me that I was only heterosexual because I had not met a man who turned me on. I agreed and said I doubted I ever will. I knew a lot of gay men back in Montreal. I have met quite a few since. I like a lot of them as a person. But it has never made me think once of switching or even exploring. Like has been said, you are either born gay or you are not.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#251
Sometimes it is an acquired preference. I'm not raging, I like being rational, but I think we have a daughter that prefers girls. I think in guys it is different, though. Societal pressures and all that I think put more stigma onto gay men than gay women.(LM is a prime example of one who wholly swallows and perpetuates that stigma).
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
Avatar
#252
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Sometimes it is an acquired preference. I'm not raging, I like being rational, but I think we have a daughter that prefers girls. I think in guys it is different, though. Societal pressures and all that I think put more stigma onto gay men than gay women.(LM is a prime example of one who wholly swallows and perpetuates that stigma).

It is cool these days to experiment, play both sides of the fence. That's OK. If someone is indecisive, it will help clear things up for them. LM is a product of his upbringing. If everything was that black and white, I think I would abdicate my place on this planet, but that's me.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#253
You'd go offplanet for bichromal living? That's extreme. Kinda expensive these days, so far, too. I am the hopeful sort, though. It's never too late in an accidental detour to turn around. I admit, however, the later you wait, the narrower the road gets and hence, harder to turn around on.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#254
Oh, yeah, concerning daughter #2, she's a darling, feisty, and a very lovely human being. If she's happy, we are, too. (much sweeter than a lot of "righteous" people).
 
TenPenny
Avatar
#255
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

It is cool these days to experiment, play both sides of the fence. That's OK.

Just these days? I thought it was required to experiment with homosexuality when attending a British public residential school.
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
#256
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

Just these days? I thought it was required to experiment with homosexuality when attending a British public residential school.

I wouldn't know. Never been to one.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#257
Quote: Originally Posted by ZzarchovView Post

So straight people also like to have sex with children then in your eyes? When a pedophile man molests a 4 year old girl thats what you consider normal heterosexual behaviour?

If you think having sex with toddlers is ok as long as they aren't the same sex I hope you rot in a ditch somewhere.

I hope to god you're on a sex offenders registry.

Pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality. Just as a pedophile man molesting a 4 year old girl is not normal heterosexual behavior, a man molesting a 4 year old boy is not a normal homosexual behavior.

Indeed, a man molesting a four year old child is not a homo or heterosexual behavior, it is pedophilia. Pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality.

Studies indicate that most pedophiles are heterosexual, not homosexual. A man who has sex with a four year old boy usually prefers to have sex with adult women, not adult men.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#258
Quote: Originally Posted by mt_pockets1000View Post

I was watching Global earlier today and they were talking about the Dyke Parade. At first I was a bit shocked at the name of the parade. I'll be honest...I raised an eyebrow. About a minute into the piece she mentions the Dyke Parade again. Again I was still taken by surprise but this time slightly amused. By the time Dyke Parade was mentioned 5 or 6 times my wife and I were laughing out loud.

Dyke and queer were pejorative terms, terms of insult hurled at gays by the gay hating lobby. Gays adopted those terms and wore them with pride, as a batch of honour, like the Star of David that Hitler made Jews wear.

These days the terms dyke and queer have lost their punch, their insulting undertone, and have become just descriptive terms. There is the organization called Queer Nation.

I expect these days very few lesbians will feel insulted if referred to as a dyke. Same for gays and queer.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#259
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

I heard the parade was a great success. The rain stopped and the sun came out just as the parade began. Good spirits, outrageous costumes, body paint... It was a giant party. The crowd got wet anyways as some floats sprayed water. Every ethnic group was there. Even gay police and firefighters had floats.

Sounds like fun. Maybe I'll go next year.

They were expecting one and a half million people for the parade; it was the biggest gay parade in North America. The parade generated 150 million $ in revenue. And that is just from the people who came from out of town.

Because of the strike, they were thinking of canceling Canada Day celebrations. However, nobody even talked about canceling the gay pride parade; it generates too much revenue for that.

Indeed, I wonder how Toronto got along before the gay pride parades. When the parade generates 150 million $ of revenue for Toronto, that has to be a substantial contribution to the city’s economy.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#260
Quote: Originally Posted by LiberalmanView Post

lone wolf are you saying little children should go the the Gay Pride parade?

And why not?
 
Risus
#261
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

And why not?

I think its called something like exploiting children.....
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
Avatar
#262
Quote: Originally Posted by RisusView Post

I think its called something like exploiting children.....

...and religion isn't? Not only is religion, any religion, fed to children an exploitation, it is an abuse.
 
Zzarchov
Avatar
#263
Quote: Originally Posted by LiberalmanView Post

lone wolf you never answered the question

You never answered the question either. If Gay people are pedophiles because some pedophiles molest little boys, does that mean all straight people are pedophiles because some pedophiles molest little girls?

Answer?
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#264
Quote: Originally Posted by RisusView Post

I think its called something like exploiting children.....

That is not exploiting children, Risus, that is teaching them to be tolerant, to expose them to lifestyle that they may not normally see.

In the old days the country was lily white, most people thought the same way, most people had identical lifestyle. 50 or 100 years ago it was not necessary to expose children to alternate lifestyles, but it is very necessary today.

It can be beneficial, provided done in an age appropriate manner.
 
Ron in Regina
Free Thinker
Avatar
#265
I don't think the country (or civilization as a whole) was ever lily white...
we just had different directions to focus our prejudices upon.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#266
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in ReginaView Post

I don't think the country (or civilization as a whole) was ever lily white...
we just had different directions to focus our prejudices upon.

Ron, how many blacks were there in Canada say 50 or 100 years ago? I would say very few. There was a population in the Maritimes, largely composed of escapees on the underground railroad. However, Asians is practically nonexistent.

I haven’t looked up the numbers (I assume that should be fairly easy to do), but my guess is that 100 years ago there wren very few non whites. I think the country was mostly white and mostly Christian. It was a lot more homogeneous that it is today.


Racism was not a major problem precisely because there were not enough non white to make noise, raise a ruckus to make it a problem.
 
gerryh
Avatar
#267
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

Ron, how many blacks were there in Canada say 50 or 100 years ago? I would say very few. There was a population in the Maritimes, largely composed of escapees on the underground railroad. However, Asians is practically nonexistent.

I haven’t looked up the numbers (I assume that should be fairly easy to do), but my guess is that 100 years ago there wren very few non whites. I think the country was mostly white and mostly Christian. It was a lot more homogeneous that it is today.


Racism was not a major problem precisely because there were not enough non white to make noise, raise a ruckus to make it a problem.


I think ol SJP should let the ol time Chinese in BC know that racism wasn't a problem in the ol days..... and while he's at it he can let all the First Nations people know the same thing..... oh yes...50 to a 100 years.....he can add the East Indians to that list he should be talking to.
 
karrie
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#268
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in ReginaView Post

I don't think the country (or civilization as a whole) was ever lily white...
we just had different directions to focus our prejudices upon.

Absolutely... people used to have a much more diverse hate portfolio. Now it's all invested into a much narrower market.
 
TenPenny
#269
Quote: Originally Posted by RisusView Post

I think its called something like exploiting children.....

I think you're in need of something called a dictionary.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#270
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

Ron, how many blacks were there in Canada say 50 or 100 years ago? I would say very few. There was a population in the Maritimes, largely composed of escapees on the underground railroad. However, Asians is practically nonexistent.

I haven’t looked up the numbers (I assume that should be fairly easy to do), but my guess is that 100 years ago there wren very few non whites. I think the country was mostly white and mostly Christian. It was a lot more homogeneous that it is today.


Racism was not a major problem precisely because there were not enough non white to make noise, raise a ruckus to make it a problem.

You may be surprised, quite a few blacks settled on Saltspring Island in the 1860s and possibly other areas around the country too. There were a few Chinese building the R.R. and cooking in mining camps. Lazy, fat Englishmen couldn't do all the work.
 

Similar Threads

46
What is Pride?
by pfrattali | Dec 20th, 2009
0
County Pride
by Blackleaf | Sep 29th, 2006
1
Pride Canadians Can Share: Graham
by FiveParadox | Feb 28th, 2006
2
no new posts