Talk:Gay pride

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class.

Why did this get moved away from the Slogan title? "Gay pride" and the SLOGAN "Gay Pride" are two different things. -- Zoe

Is it ever used merely as a slogan? I think separating them is absurd. It is one of those terms that is so intimately linked that it is pointless to categorise it separately as a slogan. STÓD/ÉÍRE 02:58 Mar 21, 2003 (UTC)

The initial sentence of this article says Gay pride is a slogan of the gay rights movement. The article should discuss the Gay pride culture, not the slogan. -- Zoe

From a friendly user: The history section is great, but I looked up this article hoping to find something about current pride days. Hoping someone reading this knows enough to add a section on current pride days, with info like "Pride day is usually celebrated on...." and "The largest Pride Day celebrations are in....." Thanks, Dan

Contents

[edit] Opposition (wording)

re: "Within the gay community, some reject the notion of gay pride, perceiving therein an undue emphasis on sexual preference and a lack of discretion..."

This (the empahsized wording) was why I reverted everything, instead of just removing the bit about the gay lions - which was odd in and of itself.

The word "preference" used in this mannor only furthers the impression that sexuality is a choice, a lifestyle into which people enter of their own free will. This is most certainly not the case, and as such, the term "sexual preference" is typically only used by individuals rallying against homosexuality, for whatever reason. It's been largely agreed that "sexual orientaion" is the term that is the most correct - and in the case of Wikipedia, the most NPOV.

Personally, I would have kept "men and women" in the passage as well, otherwise you are left with the problem of "some what? Communities? People? Gays?" etc. Arcuras 05:00, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, I guess that makes sense. I changed it from 'sex' since that either means intercourse or gender, neither of which is necessarily relevant to the gender of one's partner. --SPUI (talk) 06:59, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jovancevic

Removed "Jovancevic" info. Who is this "Jovancevic" person? If someone puts it back in, please cite the source. --Bindingtheory 15:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George W. Bush Poll

Sorry to delve a bit off topic, but I would like to bring your attention to an active poll in the George W. Bush talk page.

  • Talk:George W. Bush#Sentence Poll - Poll/survey on whether or not the fact that Bush is the "first Republican to appoint an openly gay man" to his administration is appropriate for his article. Pro says it is a relevant fact that shows Bush is making strides toward inclusiveness, con says given the hundreds, even thousands of appointments a president makes, one is insignificant. Lengthy discussion is above the poll.

If you have an opinion on this matter, please feel free voice it by voting. Thanks! Sdauson 15:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] See also section

I am concerned about the wikilink to "Straight pride" being on this page in the See also section. I feel it should be removed until the Straight pride article is cleaned up to be less hateful and offensive. For example, there's a sentence in it that says "Most supporters of Straight pride feel that homosexuals are inferior in some way to heterosexuals." Unsourced and untrue! Gay pride certainly does not make any such absurd assertions. Gilliamjf 21:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

If the Straight pride article has unsourced and untrue content, the best solution is to remove it :-) . The wikilink from here is valid, though, as gay pride and straight pride are related topics. I myself am unfamiliar with a straight pride movement, but I would not be too surprised if one of its positions was that heterosexuality is superior. Offensiveness of a movement's positions should not prevent an encyclopedic article from referencing them. The Rod 22:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Just to be clear, you misquoted the sentence regarding inferiority. It actually says that they believe that homosexuality is inferior in some manner to heterosexuality. Not homosexuals to heterosexuals. I don't see anything hateful in the Straight pride article. It is factual and it contains a list of citations backing up its statements. You're comparing the motivations behind "Straight Pride" to those behind "Gay Pride," and they're simply not analagous. You're right that Gay Pride makes no such assertions of superiority/inferiority. (quite the opposite, in fact. Gay Pride asserts equality) But Straight Pride does. What about White Pride? Don't you think that people who identify with the White Pride movement believe that non-white people are inferior? Straight Pride is anti-gay, as supported by a list of citations from reputable sources spanning 15 years. You can't not-like something or be anti-something without believing it to be inferior in some respect. -Bindingtheory 22:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)



[edit] Mannequis

I've removed following section added by anon. Seems too unimportant to me. -- tasc talkdeeds 05:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Homosexual" mannequins

A Macy's East store in Boston MA on 6/6/2006 touched off a national public relations firestorm when it bowed to pressure from a local anti-gay group and removed two "homosexual mannequins" from a window display promoting Boston's Annual Pride Celebration.[1]

Boston's Mayor Thomas Menino called the decision by Macy’s to alter the window in response to complaints "unfortunate." "I’m very surprised that Macy’s would bend to that type of pressure," said Menino.[2] “Macy’s was celebrating a part of our community, gay Pride, and they should be proud of the gay community, and I’m proud of the gay community and gay Pride. Once again it’s the radical right wing that’s doing this. They don’t represent the people. Their motto is, we’ve had enough of 'them'." [3]

A spokeperson for the groups stated to the press: "Basically, here you have two apparently homosexual men touching each other, both of them with big breasts that are unlike any mannequin anyone’s ever seen. A number of people are getting a little tired of having homosexuality pushed in their faces".[citation needed]

The mannequins used in the window display clearly were designed to look like young athletic males with developed pectoral muscles - not breasts.

Macy's further upset the gay community by removing from the display the website address for a local Aids Action Committee. AIDS prevention continues to be a major theme of the Boston Pride celebration.

The Boston Pride Committee, which organizes Gay Pride Week, serves the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) communities by promoting tolerance and awareness. Linda DeMarco, president of Boston Pride, told reporters she was disappointed by Macy’s decision, though she praised them for not taking the exhibit down entirely. "I’m disappointed because I thought Macy’s was a little stronger than that. I give them credit for not breaking down completely, but I would at least have appreciated them calling the Pride committee or going to the Web site and seeing that it is not a threat and certainly seeing that the AIDS Action Web site was not a threat." [citation needed]

ACLU of Massachusetts spokeswoman Sarah Wunsch criticized Macy's for "succumbing to the bigotry" of what she said was a fringe anti-gay group.[1][2]

The group involved is opposed to same-sex marriage (in a state where the democratic judicial system made same-sex marriage legal in 2004) and gay-straight alliance clubs in public schools and are known to seek out gay visibility and signs of acceptance to protest.

The Macy’s display window was in step with Boston's community standard of diversity and was just one of several public displays and advertisements marking Boston Pride June 10. Boston City Hall had raised the Pride Flag on June 2, Faneuil Hall Marketplace held a Pride event June 3, and signs advertising Pride are up on street lights around Boston Common which host the Pride Festival also on June 10. Mayor Menino said a small but vocal group have called City Hall to complain about the Pride flag raising, but he has no intention of bowing to pressure. "They call, but I treat them like they’re a piece of wet paper", said Menino. "They’ll disappear eventually. I don’t take them very seriously." [3]

Macy's community public relations misstep gained national attention after the story was included on a lead story on The Drudge Report website on 6/7/06.

A national boycott campaign has begun calling for consumers - straight or gay - offended by Macy's decision to appease bigotry to cut up and return their credits to Macy's with a request to cancel their accounts.

The boycott is calling for offended consumers not to shop at any Federated Department store until Macy's offers a public apology to the citizens of Boston, takes the mannequins "out of the closet" and back into the store window.[citation needed]

  1. ^ a b "Macy's Removes Gay Pride Display", Chicago Tribune, June 7, 2006.
  2. ^ a b "Pride and prejudice: Macy’s yanks gay display, blasted by both sides", Boston Herald, June 7, 2006.
  3. ^ a b "Now you see 'em, now you don't", Bay Windows, 2006-06-07.


[edit] Concerns

Should the stonewall riot be reffered to as a rebellion? I sympathize with the sentiment but is that appropriate strictly speaking for an encyclopedic website? --ConeyIslandBoy 16:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Names in the article

This is less about the article than vandalism. I just removed "Gay Pride Organization founded by ..." from the article. Moving back through the history, I found it had been there with various names for a while. I don't think there ever was some centralized original "Gay Pride Organization". It seems obvious it was a vandal but it's something to watch out for: new names being added without any sourcing or verification. An article like this is obviously ripe for such high school type vandalism. Just a note. --Pigman 18:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)