we still remember mitch hedberg

A severed foot is the ultimate stocking stuffer.

Jul 30th 2003

in a heated debate, we give it to you straight

metafilter users have some interesting opinions about “straight pride.” check out the discussion and make sure you follow the links in the original post, too. clicking proves quite fruitful. i clicked, and read about a recent straight pride march in a press release posted on portland’s indymedia site, of all places.

and commenting was open. [cue ominous music]

now, i know the liberal indymedia readers think they are being open-minded on this issue, but i’ve never read such hateful anti-family, anti-christian speach in my life. they sound just as biased as the extremist wackos on the conservative side of the issue.

the liberals feel the straight-priders are acting arrogantly and haughtily. news flash, idiots: that is the same way straight people feel about gay pride marches.

the liberals are concerned the straight-priders are there marching to get them to change their views. news flash again: that’s what gay pride parades are about, too–getting the other side to change. but neither the straight or gay pride marches can be reduced to this one thing. they’re both about a lot of different things.

there are probably many people who identify themselves as gay, lesbian, bi- or transexual who participate in gay pride marches to feel dignity and self-respect. but with all the distain for traditional families that is coming from liberal america lately, you can’t criticize heterosexuals for organizing a straight pride march in order to restore their own proper sense of dignity and value.

[thanks to benson for the link]

[update: please vote in our new poll.]

but wait! there’s more! [click here for commentary on government-supported segregation of gays and straights]

also recommended: the straight pride website.

8 Responses to “in a heated debate, we give it to you straight”

  1. Carolyn

    This debate reflects the problems with our post-modern, relative society. ‘Anything’ is accepted…as long as you are a relative thinker. The minute you take a position opposed to relativism, in this instance advocating the importance of the traditional family, you’re attacked.

    I have to throw in something we discussed in History 490 today. I’ve often been irked by the relativistic stance so many take. Today, we discussed Ludmilla Jordanova’s book, “History in Practice,” where she deals with the question of moral judgements in historical writing. Her comments are great. First she explains how today we are encouraged to respect some types of interested history…women’s history, black history, history of the poor, and the history of other less-privileged groups. In general, the aim is to write history without value judgements. However, in these, “Committed [interested] history puts one particular perspective and may not be terribly sympathetic to other, competing ones. This, rather different, form of relativism, sanctions value judgements, usually so long as they are on the ‘right’ side.” (Just to clarify, the ‘right’ side that Jordanova is referring to is the politically correct side, not conservative right.)

    So, why am I excited about what Jordanova has to say? Well, she points out that post-modernism relativism, though it pretends to have no hierarchy and anything goes…does sanction value judgements…so long as they are politically correct judgements. With the pressure to be ‘politically correct’ so strong, other commonly held beliefs may be oppressed. This is dangerous. For as Keith Jenkins, a post-modernists, points out, the ideological center is really set by the discourse between left and right. If one side stays silent, the center will actually shift. (In this case if we don’t have straight pride marches, what is acceptable will move more towards the left.)

    So, now for my comment: Go straight pride marchers!

    And, p.s., for all of you American spellers, judgements, is the British spelling. (Just in case anyone was close to comparing me to a former U.S. VP.)

  2. julie

    I’m not so much offended by the idea of a staight pride march, as I am by the idea that this is somehow neccessary. Because heterosexuals have no other outlet or way to support themselves? Hello! The whole world is a Straight Pride parade!

    And I also question the whole “distain for traditional families that is coming from liberal america lately” comment. What distain is that exactly? Because many of us feel that the simple human right of marrying the person you love should be awarded freely? Because some of us can allow our minds to open just enough to allow the tiny possiblity that homosexals aren’t trying to destroy anyone’s family, but just have one of their own? Boy,watch out for us crazy liberals,we’re gonna take the traditional family down!!!!

    It seems to me that what is more of a threat to the “holy union that can only occur between a man and a woman” is tv shows like “Married by America” and “Cupid” and a million others like them. these shows use marriage like it is prize money, or something to be taken lighly. They cheapen and demoralize marriage more than homosexuals (who simply want to solidify their commitment like any other normal person) ever could.Why is no one complaining about that? Do we have to add “thou shalt not watch reality television” to the bible for anyone to speak out about it? Or are we all just too entertained by “the bachelor”?

    so, my comment? The straight pride marchers are wasting their breath. It’s redundant and unneccessary.

  3. although i have never blogged it, i do feel that “married by america” is a disgusting affront to the sacred institution of marriage. i will never watch that show, and i hope that the reality show binge that america is currently on dies out soon.

    and on the issue of protesting: i would never do it. it seems like a lot of work where a civilly-crafted letter would do about as much (although greg graffin would disagree badreligion/essays/essays.jsp?rec_num=6). i guess i just don’t see what either side’s protests are going to accomplish. so to me it seems they are both unnecessary. and if we count a heterosexual’s very existence as a celebration of his straightness, i suppose his marching about it is redundant, yes.

  4. i never said it was wrong for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered people to have marches. that’s fine. but to address the question of where i’m getting the idea that there is disdain for people who believe in the traditional family and christianity, let’s look at some comments made by people offended by the idea of a straight pride march (i got them here:

    your mission is evil.
    you people just don’t get it.
    you just aren’t good enough to love.
    you are twisted and wrong.

    and under the heading “christian family values”:

    It would be so easy to dismiss as being insane those people who choose to pattern their lives after some selective interpretation of this self-contradictory, superstitious, plagiarized work of fiction known as the bible, if only there weren’t so damn many of them! Not that it makes them any less insane, just harder to ignore…

    and from someone who knows christian doctrine better than a christian (doug, do you have anything to add to this one?):

    realize that God’s love is unconditional, without restriction or qualification. There will be no damnation in the afterlife for anyone, regardless of their beliefs.

    the most interesting thing to me is people who’ve never read any works of scripture besides “dianetics” and try to tell christians what christ would do, or what god thinks. i’m not saying the born agains are right, of course, but i am saying that its funny that they’re being instructed about a book they read every day by people who’ve never read it, but get their opinions from the excoriating anti-bible commentaries written by UC-berkeley professors.

    more comments, including some about the woman who posted the press release:

    She’s a ridiculous neo-Nazi.
    [She’s] going to continue to screw up our society by believing that mythology is history.
    Stop pushing your ways down out throats.
    Is there a way to love ill-intentioned “Christains” off the planet?

    there’s disdain there. i know that these debates get heated, and personal, and that’s probably part of it. but there are two sides, and few are doing a good job of straddling the line.

  5. Carolyn

    So, I feel like I need to clarify my position and say a little bit more.

    First, of all, Julie, I like your comment about the tv shows, “Marrried in America” and “Cupid.” I agree.

    Next, I am not bothered by gay rights marches nor straight marches. Both are using an avenue available to advocate their position. And marches do have an appropriate place if done correctly. Think about the accomplishments that were made during the civil rights movement.

    But, I disagree about the issue of disdain. For example, let us take a look at part of your response, Julie, on the issue:

    “Because many of us feel that the simple human right of marrying the person you love should be awarded freely? Because some of us can allow our minds to open just enough to allow the tiny possiblity that homosexals aren’t trying to destroy anyone’s family, but just have one of their own?”

    I sense some disdain.

    My point is that in debates of this nature so many people hide under the pretense of ‘open-mindedness.’ My argument is that people need to drop this front and recognize that open-mindedness is just as much of an ideological position as any other. At the same time, I am not saying that open-mindedness is a wrong position. I would just like it to be acknowledged.

    And finally, to the question of whether the straight pride march was unnecessary. I still feel the same. It is necessary. By marching the group is simply adding their voice to a heated debate. (And I have quite a bit of respect for those marchers because they are doing something that is not politically correct, and therefore they get a lot more heat for their actions than do the gay marchers.) So what does it accomplish? It causes all of us to think critically about the issue at hand and to realize that there are multiple viewpoints.

  6. ashley

    travis, greg would certinly disagree.

  7. julie

    I suppose that our difference of opinion makes it hard to define the “disdain for traditional families.” I can see how one would sense disdain or contempt from my comments. But I don’t feel disdain for the tradtional family. I come from a traditional family, I totally support the union of a man and a woman. But I also totally support the union of a man and a man or a woman and a woman. It isn’t my right to tell anyone else who they can and cannnot marry. I support any kind of family that is about love and support. When people try to exclude others, or deny them the rights that they deserve, that is when I feel disdain.
    so, in my opinion, the endorsement of homosexual marriage doesn’t mean that liberals want to take down the traditonal american family, we just want equal rights for all americans.

  8. Good stuf. Keep it coming!