'Gays For Trump' Banned From Charlotte Pride Parade - Polidicks

[QUOTE=sgman91;52329966]My point is that the purpose of the parade is not to have pride in being gay. These 'Gays for Trump' people have pride in that just like everyone else at the parade. The purpose of the parade seems more to be a political event pushing democrat policy. That's fine, they are totally allowed to do that, but they shouldn't pretend that it's just about having gay pride.[/QUOTE] This is ridiculous. The Trump supporters are still welcome to attend, they're just not being allowed to march in the parade because the man they're promoting and the party he leads is actively fighting what the parade is designed to promote. If the parade is about fighting for equal rights and freedom of expression, why would you allow a float that says "hey, vote for this guy and his party so we can make things harder on ourselves!" That's just basic consistency. You wouldn't want oil companies advertising fossil fuels at an environmentalist event, or white supremacists politicking at BLM rallies and so on.

[QUOTE]exercising my right as an American to choose my leader without judgment is hypocritical[/QUOTE] It's your right to choose to support whoever you want but that doesn't exempt you from criticism regardless if you're gay or not trying to participate in an event. Bullshitters. Always and forever.

[QUOTE=froztshock;52330011] They had a political purpose: Advertise Trump to those in attendance. Their mission had nothing to do with gay pride, and honestly I don't really think they give a fuck about the gay community in general at all considering the people they support. And since I don't play identity politics, I'd say that the fact that they're gay themselves makes their opinion on the matter no better than any other random asshole on the street. I honestly think they're morons for voting against their own self interest, and I can't conceive as to why they'd make the choices they've made.[/QUOTE] So let's say gay people are always voting against their self-interest when voting republican as you claim. Even though people can prioritize their self-interests differently, or simply don't make the same assumptions as another person on the future behavior of the person they vote for. Why would the growth of a gay contingent of the Republican party be a bad thing? Surely it would be better to at least tolerate these guys so that your political opponent would progress socially by more acceptance of gays. Or is the Republican party suppose to always be the "Homophobic" party? Even if you really hate the Republicans, it still would change mainstream opinion for this to happen. Mind you this is a legitimate question considering that for a long time people never conceived of the Democratic party changing its attitudes towards racism.

It's not that they're "supposed to be the homophobic party forever," more that they have expressed no interest in changing that as of yet.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52330041]So let's say gay people are always voting against their self-interest when voting republican as you claim. Even though people can prioritize their self-interests differently, or simply don't make the same assumptions as another person on the future behavior of the person they vote for. Why would the growth of a gay contingent of the Republican party be a bad thing? Surely it would be better to at least tolerate these guys so that your political opponent would progress socially by more acceptance of gays. Or is the Republican party suppose to always be the "Homophobic" party? Mind you this is a legitimate question considering that for a long time people never conceived of the Democratic party changing its attitudes towards racism.[/QUOTE] It would be different if this were "Conservative Gays for LGBT Progress" or something along those lines, but so long as they're supporting sitting candidates who are actively stymieing LGBT rights, it's counterproductive.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52330041]Surely it would be better to at least tolerate these guys so that your political opponent would progress socially by more acceptance of gays.[/QUOTE] Well, it sure hasn't moved the needle on Trump/Pence so I'm not sure of the point you're making. Roger Severino is the director of the civil rights office at HHS. If you honestly think this is a sign of our political opponents "progressing" then I don't know what to tell you. Voting for that kind of progress is a direct conflict of interest for LGBT.

this is good, actually.

[QUOTE=FlakTheMighty;52330059]It's not that they're "supposed to be the homophobic party forever," more that they have expressed no interest in changing that as of yet.[/QUOTE] This is where I see both your points here. the conservative right doesn't seem to be too keen on letting gays have a damn thing, especially now that they're in total control. That being said. the inclusion of "gays for trump" within the LGBTQ+allies community would strengthen the lgbt side of things and also maybe soften up the hard right when they see support from such groups. Idk though. What I can't understand is how people here can't percieve the feeling of betrayal that's felt in these communities by the existence of GFT when the conservative right seem to have been working against their very existence since the beginning of America's sexual awakening.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52330041]So let's say gay people are always voting against their self-interest when voting republican as you claim. Even though people can prioritize their self-interests differently, or simply don't make the same assumptions as another person on the future behavior of the person they vote for. Why would the growth of a gay contingent of the Republican party be a bad thing? Surely it would be better to at least tolerate these guys so that your political opponent would progress socially by more acceptance of gays. Or is the Republican party suppose to always be the "Homophobic" party? Mind you this is a legitimate question considering that for a long time people never conceived of the Democratic party changing its attitudes towards racism.[/QUOTE] It wouldn't be a bad thing, but that's not what we're seeing here. We're seeing a bunch of gay people who apparently voted for: [quote]Trump is anti LGBT and this is reflected by his cabinet and if you happen to be LGBT and voted for Trump you 100% deserve to be judged for it because it was a stupid fucking decision Mike Pence is the VP and I think we're all well aware of his stance on the LGBT community. Betsy DeVos' family has given something like 150 million dollars to the National Organization for Marriage and other 'family values' groups with not-so-thinly veiled anti LGBT stances, and DeVos herself has quipped that old line "We support marriage between one man and one woman because that is the way God set it up”. Her Family is also responsible for the Heritage foundation, and speaking of, Roger Serevino, the man appointed to head the Civil Rights office, happened to be a director there Ben Carson also holds some pretty clear cut anti LGBT views, calling transgendered individuals 'the height of absurdity' And that's just off the top of my head[/quote] It doesn't seem that the politics of the republican party have improved at all on this front, and there's a small contingent of people who have either held their nose and voted for him anyways in spite of how shite his cabinet is on that front, or simply have no idea just how poor the records of these individuals are. If they prioritize the stance of the republican party on issues other than LGBT issues that's fine and dandy as far as I'm concerned, but then this parade isn't about those issues. It's about LGBT issues, and the Trump administration has a pretty damn shit track record on those issues. I think that the republican party becoming more open to LGBT issues would be great, but I don't really think that's what's happening here. We have a small contingent of LGBT people voting for republican candidates who have made no real pledge to change their stances on those issues and I don't think that's going to really result in any long term change because it's basically rewarding poor behavior with cake and icecream.

[QUOTE=FlakTheMighty;52330059]It's not that they're "supposed to be the homophobic party forever," more that they have expressed no interest in changing that as of yet.[/QUOTE] You don't think the growth of the Log Cabin Republicans a change? Or when openly-gay Peter Thiel made a speech at the RNC and was met with applause? Hell, both of the videos I posted show people who do want to create change and aren't ostracized by the Republicans for that even. Or that acceptance for Same-sex marriage is rising amongst Republicans? [url]http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/03/10/61-of-young-republicans-favor-same-sex-marriage/[/url] Things are changing, you may not like the rate of it, but it is changing and there are less Hard-line Christian Republicans making faith-based calls.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52330120]You don't think the growth of the Log Cabin Republicans a change? Or when openly-gay Peter Thiel made a speech at the RNC and was met with applause? Or that acceptance for Same-sex marriage is rising amongst Republicans? [url]http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/03/10/61-of-young-republicans-favor-same-sex-marriage/[/url] Things are changing, you may not like the rate of it, but it is changing and there are less Hard-line Christian Republicans making faith-based calls.[/QUOTE] You can't ignore the appointments being made to key legislative positions because Trump held a rainbow flag at the RNC. They're literally saying one thing and doing another, that isn't progress. [editline]8th June 2017[/editline] Hell, that might even be worse than hardline being against LGBT rights. At least they're honest.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52330041]So let's say gay people are always voting against their self-interest when voting republican as you claim. Even though people can prioritize their self-interests differently, or simply don't make the same assumptions as another person on the future behavior of the person they vote for. Why would the growth of a gay contingent of the Republican party be a bad thing? Surely it would be better to at least tolerate these guys so that your political opponent would progress socially by more acceptance of gays. Or is the Republican party suppose to always be the "Homophobic" party? Mind you this is a legitimate question considering that for a long time people never conceived of the Democratic party changing its members opinions on racism.[/QUOTE] I'd love to see the Republican party change. I'd love to see more general open mindedness and tolerance towards the changing world Literally nobody is saying more gays in the Republican party would be a bad thing, except maybe the party itself The perception of the Republican party is directly shaped by the stances they adopt. The Republican party isn't 'suppose to always be the homophobic party', the party is cast as the homophobic party because they constantly adopt homophobic stances and constantly elevate homophobic people to positions of authority where they push out homophobic and discriminatory legislation. Just about every major anti LGBT group in the United States being funded either directly or indirectly by big time Republicans Regardless of how people prioritize their own self interests, being LGBT and wholeheartedly supporting the Republican party for whatever nebulous reason is still voting against your own interests on some level. Not to say people should never vote Republican ever, because otherwise there's no hope for a positive change, but at the same time, there's no hope for a positive change if people keep voting in people like Trump and the people he's appointed to his cabinet These are the same people who give the Republican party its tarnished reputation in the here and now, and supporting them just because they're on the same team is naive at best

[QUOTE=FlakTheMighty;52330005]A pride parade isn't about being proud of something? If someone believes something [I]against you[/I] why would you support them? It's guilt by association like Pascall said, the Charlotte Pride Parade people don't want to be associated with a group that voted against their best interests.[/QUOTE] So the out and proud gay people in the 'Gays for Trump' group are against themselves? That sounds like internalized misogyny (internalized homophobia?).

[QUOTE=sgman91;52330195]So the out and proud gay people in the 'Gays for Trump' group are against themselves? That sounds like internalized misogyny (internalized homophobia?).[/QUOTE] Yes? That was kind of the entire point of "guilt by association" there. "These guys hate us, so we'll support them hating us!"

[QUOTE=sgman91;52330195]So the out and proud gay people in the 'Gays for Trump' group are against themselves? That sounds like internalized misogyny (internalized homophobia?).[/QUOTE] Trump's administration has done nothing of substance to advance LGBT causes since taking office, and has appointed a number of people throughout his administration who are known to be very hardline against LGBT causes. So you tell me.

[QUOTE=rilez;52330244]Trump's administration has done nothing of substance to advance LGBT causes since taking office, and has appointed a number of people throughout his administration who are known to be very hardline against LGBT causes. So you tell me.[/QUOTE] I fundamentally disagree with the entire idea of internalized X. I let people decide what is best for themselves.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52330251]I fundamentally disagree with the entire idea of internalized X. I let people decide what is best for themselves.[/QUOTE] I do too but the fact of the matter is that these people have voted for an administration which is specifically against what the parade itself stands for. This isn't a matter of opinion, the political histories of these people is recorded and available. I'm sure gays for Trump have a lot of reasons for choosing to support who they do, but "He will support gay people" is not one of them in any demonstrable fashion.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52330251]I fundamentally disagree with the entire idea of internalized X. I let people decide what is best for themselves.[/QUOTE] You're free to believe whatever you want. They're more than welcome to support Trump. But the claim "Trump is good for LGBT" is just wrong no matter how you spin it. Look at Severino. Look at DeVos. Look at Tom Price. Look at our VP. The list practically never ends.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52330251]I fundamentally disagree with the entire idea of internalized X. I let people decide what is best for themselves.[/QUOTE] Oh I doubt they're guilt of any kind of internalised homophobia. Much more likely they're just dense.

Gays for Trump is so satirical sounding that Filthy Frank made a song with the title. Reality is strange these days.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52330195]So the out and proud gay people in the 'Gays for Trump' group are against themselves? That sounds like internalized misogyny (internalized homophobia?).[/QUOTE] just like how there are black people who support the kkk/white supremacy. Not to say all republicans are necessarily on the same level when it comes to being anti-gay, but plenty are.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52329966]My point is that the purpose of the parade is not to have pride in being gay. These 'Gays for Trump' people have pride in that just like everyone else at the parade. The purpose of the parade seems more to be a political event pushing democrat policy. That's fine, they are totally allowed to do that, but they shouldn't pretend that it's just about having gay pride.[/QUOTE] I don't get how these "gays for trump" have any pride in being gay at all when they've voted for someone who doesn't really care about them, and everyone that person has appointed has in the past, been vindictive towards the LGBT community. So, as a fellow member of the "LGBT" banner, yeah, I totally understand why they're banned, and it's because they're not part of the group looking for a solution to the problems that the LGBT banner has been fighting against for years. They're part of the group that's been oppressing them. You can say "BUT THEY'RE GAY TOO" and that's true but that doesn't mean they're not acting against the interests of the group at large. [editline]8th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;52330251]I fundamentally disagree with the entire idea of internalized X. I let people decide what is best for themselves.[/QUOTE] This isn't about internalized hatred, or whatever other term you want to use dude. This is about advancement and progress and if we had just relied on the likes of "Gays for Trump" for the last 40 years, we would be nowhere. [editline]8th June 2017[/editline] You have a group of people. We'll call them Group Y. They claim to be part of Group X. Group X's majority says "Nah dude, all the things you want are actions that counteract what we want, and you support people who don't support our basic requirements" Group Y replies "But of course we're part of your group we share Characteristic A!" Group X replies "Sure, you share that with us, but you fail to see how your other actions impact Characteristic A, so we can't just be okay with that". Group Y "You have to be or we'll sue you". I can't see why you'd defend group Y.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52329966]My point is that the purpose of the parade is not to have pride in being gay. These 'Gays for Trump' people have pride in that just like everyone else at the parade. The purpose of the parade seems more to be a political event pushing democrat policy. That's fine, they are totally allowed to do that, but they shouldn't pretend that it's just about having gay pride.[/QUOTE] It's only "pushing democrat policy" because it's literally seen as a big liberal agenda to treat LGBT individuals as equal people, and oppressing them is American republican ideology. I'm not saying republicans are as bad as the KKK and are trying to "lynch the queers," but this is about logical as having a "Blacks for the KKK!" float at a Black Pride parade. [editline]8th June 2017[/editline] [I]Anything[/I] that's "for Trump" is literally pushing against LGBT rights, plain and simple. I'm actually quite certain that they're banned from attending as "Gays for Trump," but are absolutely welcome to attend to celebrate being queer along with others.

I honestly wouldn't want people that supported tactics and laws that specifically oppressed me, my friends, and my family at an event that was supposed to be a relaxing and happy relief from the world at large. The first pride was literally a riot against unjust treatment, how said people can support this treatment I will never fully understand.

I am seeing a lot of stuff that basically boils down to "you [B]gay people[/B] can't/shouldn't be able to participate in [B]gay pride[/B] because you have the wrong [B]political views[/B]" There's a certain amount of hypocrisy in this, I think. You're the wrong kind of gay so you can't hang around these other gays.

[QUOTE=KingofBeast;52331126]I am seeing a lot of stuff that basically boils down to "you [B]gay people[/B] can't/shouldn't be able to participate in [B]gay pride[/B] because you have the wrong [B]political views[/B]" There's a certain amount of hypocrisy in this, I think. You're the wrong kind of gay so you can't hang around these other gays.[/QUOTE] they can participate in the parade though, just not under the flag of gays for trump, which sends the wrong message to the community. Similar to how a bunch of black people going to a black lives maters event with a 'blacks for kkk' would get denied. As a whole, the republican party is very much anti-gay, and these people are sending the wrong message.

[QUOTE=KingofBeast;52331126]I am seeing a lot of stuff that basically boils down to "you [B]gay people[/B] can't/shouldn't be able to participate in [B]gay pride[/B] because you have the wrong [B]political views[/B]" There's a certain amount of hypocrisy in this, I think. You're the wrong kind of gay so you can't hang around these other gays.[/QUOTE] Nope, they're entirely allowed to participate and attend. I'm sorry the organizers don't want a Trump float in their parade, but it's hard to argue they don't have good reason or the right to make that decision. I'm sorry you're so hung up on identity politics here, I really don't think the fact that they're gay means they've got an inalienable right to decide what floats they get to put in the parade, especially if other gay people don't really want it and they're the ones who put in the effort to set up and organize the parade.

[QUOTE=KingofBeast;52331126]I am seeing a lot of stuff that basically boils down to "you [B]gay people[/B] can't/shouldn't be able to participate in [B]gay pride[/B] because you have the wrong [B]political views[/B]" There's a certain amount of hypocrisy in this, I think. You're the wrong kind of gay so you can't hang around these other gays.[/QUOTE] No. they're gay, and they're part of a group that wants to deprive gay people of their rights. The fuck is so hard about this

[QUOTE=froztshock;52329917]Like if I went up to CPAC organizers and said "Man I tooootally want to run a climate change booth at your conference, can I?" And then I got denied and cried here about it would you agree with me that they're shitty people or would I just get a shrug and a 'tough luck buddy what'd you expect lol'. Because the latter is kinda' how I feel about this, heh.[/QUOTE] It'd be like you wanting a booth at the World Wildlife Fund conference representing the coal burner's union and acting offended when your application is denied.

[QUOTE=KingofBeast;52331126]I am seeing a lot of stuff that basically boils down to "you [B]gay people[/B] can't/shouldn't be able to participate in [B]gay pride[/B] because you have the wrong [B]political views[/B]" There's a certain amount of hypocrisy in this, I think. You're the wrong kind of gay so you can't hang around these other gays.[/QUOTE] They're free to hold on to those political views. They're free to attend the gay pride event. The only thing they're being barred from doing is attending it as an official part of the group This "wrong kind of gay" thing is coming [b]ENTIRELY[/b] from your end. The only thing the Charlotte Pride Parade doesn't want to do is officialize support for an anti-LGBT figure, which is perfectly logical and reasonable