Sofia wrote:But, this is where I agree so strongly with JerryR. The 'flamboyant sex in your face' is not the way I would go about it. Because it hurts my cause and wrecks my case that gay people are normal citizens.
Well, there's a point, though I might be taking it into an unintended direction. The Gay Pride Parade is a demonstration, and a party. These two elements may well bite each other. As a demonstration, its meant to invoke the equal rights to equal recognition of a group that should be accepted as as 'normal' as any other. But hey, if you're going to be out on the street with 20,000 men, you're gonna want to have a party, no?
I used to think that demonstrations - considering they're supposed to express anger and condemnation - should consist of sternly faced protestors marching with clenched fists in the air and chanting slogans, expressing in every solemn or determined gesture that they are ANGRY! Instead, you go to a demo and it's full of happy families and rowdy teenagers, dressed up in funny clothes, carrying balloons and singing songs and all the time flirting with one another and just generally having a grand time. Nothing like those socialist-realist paintings of the thirties. I guess there's always going to be a divergence between the intention of the gathering and the actual experience - people just wanna have fun, too, y'know?
Actually, I do think there's a point to the more 'in your face' things at such a parade. It is a gesture of defiance. If you're a persecuted Christian (to take just any sideroad), and you feel you need to challenge society to accept you, you can do one of two things. Stand by the side of the road carrying a modest sign saying: please accept me, I'm Christian but human too, I have the right to be myself. Or you can carry your blasted big cross down the boulevard and carry it high: we are not going to let this be taken away from us! You'd better believe it!
There's always people who are going to tut-tut about the latter kind of thing and say, is there really reason to risk causing offence like that? Wouldnt it be better to just behave and not provoke? Just like some Black mothers migt still admonish their sons to not sport dreadlocks or anything that overtly Black - to not cause offence - and to "just" seek acceptance as "any other normal" person. And it is in that latter reasoning that their counterparts will see the confirmation of why they need to carry that big cross / et cetera: to show they are not prepared (anymore) to "behave" and "not provoke" - they just wanna be. They dont want to merely seek acceptance as "any other person" - they want to celebrate their
difference - as something as positive as anyone else's difference. And once they've acquired the right to "be" at their most extreme on one day a year, they can feel reassured that in the rest of the year they can safely be themselves in their average way. Its a way fo setting clear pickets.