Why Straight Pride is very offensive
Monday, August 12th, 2013 | Religion & Politics, Thoughts
Straight Pride UK promotes the idea of having a straight pride, alongside a gay pride. Fine, no problem with that. Not sure I see the point, as situations where I feel discriminated against as a heterosexual are reasonably infrequent, but each to their own.
In fact, their wording starts off quite nicely.
There is nothing right with being homosexual, there is nothing right with being bisexual, and there is nothing wrong with being heterosexual
But then it says this.
being proud to be of natural orientation
To me, that implies that being homosexual is not a natural orientation. Which is where I start to take issue with it. Any sexual orientation you are born with is a natural orientation.
And if it is natural, why should we be proud of it? Sure, it’s great being straight. The majority of people in our society are straight and this being straight gives me a large selection of potential partners (ideally I would be bisexual but you can’t choose how you’re born), but surely something I have no control over, and was given randomly at birth is not something I should be proud of?
Their Twitter strap line is worse.
A voice for those practising traditional lifestyles & relationships. Those who want to celebrate being of natural born orientation & traditional family values.
To call the homophobia experienced in the twentieth century traditional relationships does a rather large disservice to extensive periods of history. And what are these traditional family values they speak of? Presumably a time before martial rape was criminalised because I can’t think what else is different between a loving couple marrying and adopting today to one of fifty years ago.
Then, as you reach their aims page, you begin to suspect the entire thing might be a troll.
Heterosexuals do not have equality, homosexuals have more rights then any sector of society. They have the right to take over city streets, dress ridiculously, and parade with danger and contempt, invade hotels and B&B’s run and owned by people who object to homosexuality, and then sue them when refusal is given.
Surely it must be, because no intelligent person could believe this, could they?
Straight Pride UK promotes the idea of having a straight pride, alongside a gay pride. Fine, no problem with that. Not sure I see the point, as situations where I feel discriminated against as a heterosexual are reasonably infrequent, but each to their own.
In fact, their wording starts off quite nicely.
There is nothing right with being homosexual, there is nothing right with being bisexual, and there is nothing wrong with being heterosexual
But then it says this.
being proud to be of natural orientation
To me, that implies that being homosexual is not a natural orientation. Which is where I start to take issue with it. Any sexual orientation you are born with is a natural orientation.
And if it is natural, why should we be proud of it? Sure, it’s great being straight. The majority of people in our society are straight and this being straight gives me a large selection of potential partners (ideally I would be bisexual but you can’t choose how you’re born), but surely something I have no control over, and was given randomly at birth is not something I should be proud of?
Their Twitter strap line is worse.
A voice for those practising traditional lifestyles & relationships. Those who want to celebrate being of natural born orientation & traditional family values.
To call the homophobia experienced in the twentieth century traditional relationships does a rather large disservice to extensive periods of history. And what are these traditional family values they speak of? Presumably a time before martial rape was criminalised because I can’t think what else is different between a loving couple marrying and adopting today to one of fifty years ago.
Then, as you reach their aims page, you begin to suspect the entire thing might be a troll.
Heterosexuals do not have equality, homosexuals have more rights then any sector of society. They have the right to take over city streets, dress ridiculously, and parade with danger and contempt, invade hotels and B&B’s run and owned by people who object to homosexuality, and then sue them when refusal is given.
Surely it must be, because no intelligent person could believe this, could they?