24th Annual Gay Pride Events and Parade

[Thunder]

And, yes, Thunder, I will attest that you certainly are not obvious about it.......... at ALL.

Awww, you're so kind.

[USG'60]

Awww, you're so kind.

Well, except for the doilies and other decorative items you make, hee hee. Gotcha there, big guy. ........................................

[Thunder]

:-(

[USG'60]

And before anyone gets their shorts in a wad, I have been highly involved with gays all my life and when I am with them we use words for them you can't say in polite society. When they are real friends PC goes out the window.

[king183]

I understand your legitimate concern for privacy issues, king183, but gay issues are on the public agenda and history is everyone's business. Gay Pride is the topic of this thread, and for those who are public figures, like mayors, that is particularly true. Not at all intending to make an appropriate analogy because it isn't, but to flip the coin to its dark side, I'd be equally interested in knowing what mayors may have been secret members of the KKK. I'd be surprised if there wasn't at least one, if not more, but that's a topic for another day.

As to this topic, do you think that it is OK to mention that Al McAffrey, my state house representative, is gay, and that former county commissioner Roth is, too?

Where do you draw your line as to appropriate public interest in your own view of what is OK and what is not?

Come on, Doug. That's ridiculous. Someone's sexuality is none of your business as long as it does't impact you (and it doesn't). You and USG getting together to "compare notes" on what public figure is gay seems a bit pathetic and high schoolish.

You can talk about gay public policy issues all you want, but you have absolutely no business discussing someone else's sexual orientation if that person has chosen not to have that type of information public. The idea of getting together with someone else to gossip about it is outrageous. For many, such actions are a source of unnecessary hurt.

Al McAffrey and Jim Roth are two public figures who discuss it openly and publicly often. That's their choice. Good for them. You have no business making the choice for someone else, even if it is "just to compare notes."

[USG'60]

:-(

Just pickin' on ya coz you're little, buddy.

[USG'60]

Come on, Doug. That's ridiculous. Someone's sexuality is none of your business as long as it does't impact you (and it doesn't). You and USG getting together to "compare notes" on what public figure is gay seems a bit pathetic and high schoolish.

You can talk about gay public policy issues all you want, but you have absolutely no business discussing someone else's sexual orientation if that person has chosen not to have that type of information public. The idea of getting together with someone else to gossip about it is outrageous. For many, such actions are a source of unnecessary hurt.

Al McAffrey and Jim Roth are two public figures who discuss it openly and publicly often. That's their choice. Good for them. You have no business making the choice for someone else, even if it is "just to compare notes."

Don't miss my post above this one since we posted at the same time.

[PennyQuilts]

Meaning what exactly? Sounds like you are stereotyping...careful.

I have a lot of friends and family who are gay. That doesn't mean I want to see them acting ridiculous in public - any more than I would want heterosexual people acting that way. When people see a celebration of "gayness" and it amounts to public "lewdness," it supports a stereotype that is unfair to the vast majority of gay people. Last I checked, there isn't a celebration of heterosexuality that involves getting out on floats and behaving in a manner that would make ANYONE who was sober uncomfortable.

You can't equate it to what happens at Mardi Gras. Mardi Gras in intended to push the boundaries beyond what is acceptable. That is the whole point. It is people doing things they wouldn't normally do just before lent. When you see gay folks celebrating their sexuality in the same manner as heterosexuals do when they are deliberately pushing the limit (as in Mardi Gras), it leads to a belief by many that this sort of depravity is what defines gay people. If you know gays, you know that isn't true. But if you don't, this suggests that to be gay is to act like a pervert in public. You may not like what I am saying, but think about it. It is one thing for gay folks to walk hand in hand, wave, give each other kisses and hugs, hold signs, etc. It is another to behave in such a hedonistic manner that even gay parents don't want to bring their kids to the parade. If they want to celebrate their gayness by acting like out of control heteros at Mardi Gras, that is one thing. And they are free to do that. But pretending it doesn't support an inaccurate stereotype is unrealistic.

[Thunder]

Just pickin' on ya coz you're little, buddy.

I'm little? :-O

[USG'60]

Certainly, compared to all the other Thunders in town. Six five ain't squat.

Edit: oops, I mean IS squat.

[poe]

I think it's exciting!

[Thunder]

Certainly, compared to all the other Thunders in town. Six five ain't squat.

Edit: oops, I mean IS squat.

I'm sure some of them are shorter.

[USG'60]

Just makin' sure here, Thunder, but you do realize that my calling you "little" in the first place was a joke, right. You could squash me like a bug.

[Thunder]

Just makin' sure here, Thunder, but you do realize that my calling you "little" in the first place was a joke, right. You could squash me like a bug.

I'm a harmless boy. :-O

[bluedogok]

Last I checked, there isn't a celebration of heterosexuality that involves getting out on floats and behaving in a manner that would make ANYONE who was sober uncomfortable.

I guess that you haven't been to some of the larger biker rallies...."adult spring break" is what comes to mind. In fact a year or two ago the fairgrounds where the Republic of Texas (ROT) Rally is held became 18 and over during the rally after some furor by one of the county commissioners. This was after the event had pretty much had the same atmosphere for the previous 12 or so years.

[Doug Loudenback]

It's hard to know where to begin, and I'm ignoring Thunder's comments in that regard. Sorry, Thunder, you can easily ignore me, too.

King183, you said

Come on, Doug. That's ridiculous. Someone's sexuality is none of your business as long as it does't impact you (and it doesn't). You and USG getting together to "compare notes" on what public figure is gay seems a bit pathetic and high schoolish.

You can talk about gay public policy issues all you want, but you have absolutely no business discussing someone else's sexual orientation if that person has chosen not to have that type of information public. The idea of getting together with someone else to gossip about it is outrageous. For many, such actions are a source of unnecessary hurt.

Al McAffrey and Jim Roth are two public figures who discuss it openly and publicly often. That's their choice. Good for them. You have no business making the choice for someone else, even if it is "just to compare notes."

King, I already said what I said about public figures, and any mayor is such a thing, and any information about them has historic value. As a historic piece of information, it is fair and is not out of line to explore whatever there is to explore, and I say that as one who is sympathetic with OKC Pride. As far me privately comparing notes with USG60, well, that's none of your business either, is it.

King183, why are you trying to control what other people have to say (me, at least), or even communicate privately by PM, in this thread? I don't get it. What I have to say is my right and business, and I would add my legitimate business, and what you have to say is yours, and neither you nor I have the legitimate business of trying to gag the other.

To make my position clear, I'm 100% aligned with the LGTB activities and agenda. At the same time, I'm also interested in discovering any historical information that is available which might be relevant to OKC historical political or business or other prominent figures as part of the city's history.

If that's not good with you, deal with it. If you think that you can do more than I have done to support the LGBT agenda, that's all good. Go for it and do it and quit talking smack.

PennyQuilts, I'm not sure from your comment where you're at on this. Are you saying that OKC Pride has done or allowed to be done anything along the lines that you mentioned? I'm a bit surprised by your comment, and, based upon what I already know of you first hand, I'm confused. Care to clarify?

MikeOkc, you said, "You know, I'm just guessing, but maybe there's some concern about "outing" someone without their consent." In the main, I'd agree. But when public figures are involved, I disagree.

[Thunder]

What do you mean, Doug, about my comments?

[Doug Loudenback]

Thunder, I really don't want to be rude to you, and I apologize for being exactly that. I saw nothing in your comments that I felt a need to reply to. I'll just leave that as a shortcoming of mine.

[Thunder]

Okay. Have you been to those parade before? I dunno if I should go or not. Who on here is planning to go?

[king183]

It's hard to know where to begin, and I'm ignoring Thunder's comments in that regard. Sorry, Thunder, you can easily ignore me, too.

King183, you said

King, I already said what I said about public figures, and any mayor is such a thing, and any information about them has historic value. As a historic piece of information, it is fair and is not out of line to explore whatever there is to explore, and I say that as one who is sympathetic with OKC Pride. As far me privately comparing notes with USG60, well, that's none of your business either, is it.

King183, why are you trying to control what other people have to say (me, at least), or even communicate privately by PM, in this thread? I don't get it. What I have to say is my right and business, and I would add my legitimate business, and what you have to say is yours, and neither you nor I have the legitimate business of trying to gag the other.

To make my position clear, I'm 100% aligned with the LGTB activities and agenda. At the same time, I'm also interested in discovering any historical information that is available which might be relevant to OKC historical political or business or other prominent figures as part of the city's history.

If that's not good with you, deal with it. If you think that you can do more than I have done to support the LGBT agenda, that's all good. Go for it and do it and quit talking smack.

Doug, I'm not trying to control what you discuss--I have no means or rights to control it. I will, however, express my disagreement and ridicule of those who gossip about people's sexual orientation without their consent. It's none of your business--and your attempt to say it's for historical purposes is quite lame.

That doesn't mean I'm going to try to stop you from doing it. Go ahead. It's your right to do so. Whether you're an ally of LGBT's or not, is irrelevant. That logic reminds me of people who say racist things, but say, "Don't worry--I'm friends with a lot of black people, so it's okay."

[PennyQuilts]

I guess that you haven't been to some of the larger biker rallies...."adult spring break" is what comes to mind. In fact a year or two ago the fairgrounds where the Republic of Texas (ROT) Rally is held became 18 and over during the rally after some furor by one of the county commissioners. This was after the event had pretty much had the same atmosphere for the previous 12 or so years.

My feeling is that if they want to just break out, go to Mardi Gras with the heteros. I don't know about you, but hedonism is not the way I define/see being gay. Gay is just a same sex lifestyle - they have families, children, they love each other, they work, pay the rent, etc. I guess it comes down to how people want to celebrate their gayness, I guess. I just think the sexual part of it is not the biggest thing and it doesan't help to highlight that, particularly in a hedonistic way unless that is the way they want to be defined, I suppose.

[Steve]

To defend on Doug on one point: in doing research for one of my books, I encountered very credible archival material that does give very strong evidence that yes, one very beloved Oklahoma City mayor was almost certainly gay. I agree with Doug - there is historical significance to this matter. But I'll leave my contribution to this discussion limited to this one point and say no more.

[HOT ROD]

Penny - I do see Pride Parades in the same lights as Mardi Gras: they are pushing the envelope with entertainment while also spreading the message that OKC (and other cities with pride parades) has a significant glbt population that people otherwise wouldn't realize. Sure I disagree with some of the acts that some people do during the events, but I think it is really all in honest fun and perhaps they are making fun of the stereotypes (counter-culture) or the fact that they have to hide because of the 'fear' of the sexuality itself. But people DONT have to hide during the pride festivities.

If I can recommend, take it all as entertainment. There is always something to learn and hopefully OKC's glbt community will do a better job with their festivities given the 'somewhat conservative' nature that exists in OKC. I think OKC's pride parade should be more on the lines of educational and community building than a counter-culture show.

GLBT does add a positive contribution to OKC and is a part of OKC's diversity. Sure, it would be nice if business owners in the 39th district spruced up the neighbourhood and it became upscale similar to other gayhoods around the world. But most would be surprised that there are many gay run businesses all around the city, they just chose not to posterize their sexuality with business.

I dont see the pride festivities as the catalyst of developing 39th street, I see it as an opportunity for the glbt community of OKC to openly celebrate and have a day of Mardi Gras celebration their own way. Nothing wrong with that IMO and I am happy that OKC has a Pride event and even more happy to see OKC residents embracing it (even if there are still some 'questions' about what the event really is).

[soonerguru]

I have a lot of friends and family who are gay. That doesn't mean I want to see them acting ridiculous in public - any more than I would want heterosexual people acting that way. When people see a celebration of "gayness" and it amounts to public "lewdness," it supports a stereotype that is unfair to the vast majority of gay people. Last I checked, there isn't a celebration of heterosexuality that involves getting out on floats and behaving in a manner that would make ANYONE who was sober uncomfortable.

You can't equate it to what happens at Mardi Gras. Mardi Gras in intended to push the boundaries beyond what is acceptable. That is the whole point. It is people doing things they wouldn't normally do just before lent. When you see gay folks celebrating their sexuality in the same manner as heterosexuals do when they are deliberately pushing the limit (as in Mardi Gras), it leads to a belief by many that this sort of depravity is what defines gay people. If you know gays, you know that isn't true. But if you don't, this suggests that to be gay is to act like a pervert in public. You may not like what I am saying, but think about it. It is one thing for gay folks to walk hand in hand, wave, give each other kisses and hugs, hold signs, etc. It is another to behave in such a hedonistic manner that even gay parents don't want to bring their kids to the parade. If they want to celebrate their gayness by acting like out of control heteros at Mardi Gras, that is one thing. And they are free to do that. But pretending it doesn't support an inaccurate stereotype is unrealistic.

I disagree. While I agree with your central premise -- that publicly outrageous and sexually suggestive behavior is not necessarily synonymous with being gay -- it is a part of gay culture, and a part that straight people shouldn't be so uptight about, frankly. Why? Because it's fun and entertaining and celebratory. I often hear this argument: "Why do they have to wear their sexuality on their sleeve?" This question belies an understanding of the point of a gay pride parade.

Make no mistake: being gay in Oklahoma is still a challenge for many people, particularly in this repressive political and religious climate.

The Mardi-Gras-esque celebration is at once a celebration of the uniqueness and humor of gay culture and a repudiation of this repressive cultural undertone permeating so much of our public discourse.

[Larry OKC]

We aren't talking about Sturgis, Mardi Gras, or San Francisco. We are talking about OKC.

I guess my question would be: if similar activities/attire were engaged by others in an otherwise "straight" parade, would that be acceptable? For instance, if the folks from the various adult "gentleman clubs" in the metro area had a float or floats, wearing their "work" attire and the like, do you that would be ok to have on a public street, where access is not controlled or limited by age etc? In recent years there have been children's activities at the Pride parade. Is that ok?

When an "adult" event is held, it needs to be limited to those of legal age on private property with controlled access. No matter the sexual orientation of the participants.