[Agamemnon]

As much as I'm usually the left winger socialist, who is quick to jump to the defence of gays and other minorities, I'm gonna have to agree with Clarky on this one.

That's too bad. Clarkey's argument follows the typical right-wing trend of 'they can be gay, just don't be it around me or in public'.

I think gays should be proud of who they are, but these parades portray gays as sleezy and sluty which is not a positive image for any group to have. They come off as being overtly sexual without any regard for safety or dignity. It only furthers a devide between relatively normal gay people and a population of straight people who believe all gays are freaks because they've seen these parades.

Well, the Red Mile, as pointed out earlier, was rife with topless women. Are they a disgrace to heterosexuality? They came off as overtly sexual and overtly heterosexual to me, I'm not sure about the rest of you. What's the difference? A straight chick is allowed to bear it all, no problems, but gay/lesbians doing the same is wrong? It's cool if it's for the Flames, but not if it's for a personal cause?

I think people would be alot more excepting of gays, if these parades showcased the positive things that gay people have done. Instead of a guy in leather, why not show a succesful University professor who happens to be gay, or a CEO, or a doctor.

Fair enough. I think if people were more accepting of gays, these parades wouldn't exist. I highly doubt they're looking to corner and dominate the parade scene. I think the parades MAY be linked to the lack of acceptance of homosexuality in heterosexual circles. Maybe not.

The difference is that the red mile was not an event aimed at bringing attention to the heterosexual community. It was not representative of heterosexuals, homosexuals or anything in between. The gay pride on the other hand is designed and intended to bring positive attention to the gay community.

I think this is a poor point. The 'heterosexual community' is a LARGE portion of society. Having a heterosexual parade would be equivalent to having a White Parade. Dumb idea, and no need for it, whites do just fine, as do heterosexuals.

If you don't think chicks bearing their T**s on the Red Mile has heterosexual connotations, then I guess we differ on this point. I know quite a few guys that went to 17th specifically looking for breasts, as well as a pretty popular website focusing on the same.

I think a more fair comparison would be, to have a straight pride parade full of strippers, hookers and pimps. And then we could say it is a bad representation of heterosexuals.

If that's how you saw the people in the Gay Parade, that's how you saw them. A bunch of strippers, hookers, and pimps are they're heterosexual equivalent (apparently). Fair enough, I definitely did not see those people as 'strippers, hookers, and pimps'.

If people ignore it, it had failed in its mission. The event is organized to draw attention and awareness of the gay community. People ignoring it, is almost as bad as people turned off by it. The goal should be to get people to accept it, enjoy it, and maybe open up some close minds.

Yep. Sometimes they succeed in this goal, and other times, as exemplified in this thread, they fail. Win some Lose some.