Cav's Place

I’m writing this today because this is when the “diversity march” is taking place in Romania. That’d be how they decided to call the gay march around here, and I’m calling it a march because, save for a few admittedly annoying drag queens, the appearance and behavior of the other participants has always been quite far from what you’re used to seeing in those gay parades that are famous around the world. Which is a good thing, and it’d be even better if they’d get rid of those few as well so the media would no longer be able to portray a wrong image by focusing just on them, as they’re bound to do.

As you can see, I don’t exactly have a good opinion of turning events during which minorities should raise awareness about themselves and demand equal rights into carnivals, at least not in places where said minorities still need to demand those equal rights. (Actually, I don’t have a good opinion of carnivals in general, but that’s not the point here.) In places where equal rights are already offered to the minorities in question, such events can simply be turned into entertainment and I guess anything goes, but elsewhere it’s quite counterproductive to create a potentially shocking display, or to give the media any excuse to make your demonstration appear shocking, when your very existence is bizarre, shocking or even outrageous for a significant part of the population and you’re trying to prove that such a perception is wrong.
At first it may appear strange to see something like this from a person who usually advocates direct action when something needs to be done and shocking displays when awareness needs to be raised. But in fact there’s nothing odd about it. When unfortunately there are still very few parts of the world where non-heterosexual behavior is readily accepted and where non-heterosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals, the point is not to raise awareness about the existence of different sexual orientations but to prove that all are essentially the same regardless of their sexual orientation.
One way to do that is by organizing such marches, but only as long as the appearance and attitude of the participants sends a message along the lines of “unless you’d follow us around to see who we’re having relationships with, you probably wouldn’t even know we’re different if we wouldn’t tell you”. That doesn’t mean participants should only be those renowned in their fields, as somebody was suggesting, because the point is to prove similarity, not superiority. It means the participants could be from all walks of life, but with emphasis on those who are pretty much average. And those who come with their partners could and likely also should do the nice things that loving couples can do in public, such as holding hands, hugging and kissing, as that would further prove that they’re no different from heterosexuals, but all must do their best to avoid anyone and anything (else) that may be shocking. As I said before, any shock value under these circumstances is highly counterproductive and the media likes nothing more than to portray such events as shocking, so even a single “bad apple” among hundreds of “proper” participants could be enough to spoil the whole message.

Now that I tackled the wrong image that a small number of participants project, I should move on to the significant part of the general population who insist on having a wrong perception about such events. I’m talking about those who claim that such demonstrations are attempts to proselytize, to somehow draw others who would otherwise be heterosexual to these different sexual orientations. Which, of course, is something like saying that you can proselytize being left handed or having green eyes. More to the point, it’s like proselytizing asexuality or heterosexuality.
Oh, wait. That’s exactly what those I’m now talking about are doing: Proselytizing heterosexuality at all times and sometimes also asexuality until marriage. They are, after all, saying that “normal” relationships, not to mention marriages, should always be between one man and one woman, and often that those who are different in this aspect are somehow sick or perhaps influenced by some unholy forces and should either somehow be “cured” or at least keep to themselves and not reveal their orientation among “normal” people. That’s what proselytism looks like: Trying to convert others to a certain belief or way or life by persuading them that it’s the correct or “right” one and that all others are wrong or somehow harmful. Which means that pointing out the differences between what goes on during a gay march or even a gay parade and the actions and attitudes of those who oppose the very concept is enough to prove that the march or parade couldn’t possibly be taken as proselytism.

It’s all too obvious which of the two groups is the most harmful. A proper march of non-heterosexuals could perhaps cause a small number of people to question their own sexuality, but that can only be a good thing, as making an informed decision regarding this important issue, whatever that decision may be, is likely to make them feel better and more confident inside their own bodies than simply assuming they have to be heterosexual because they never thought they could be anything else. As for the few who take part in such a march but look and act as if they were in a parade, those only harm their own cause and nothing else. On the other hand, those who try to force heterosexuality on all and claim that those who have a different orientation are somehow flawed, sick or tainted put a significant amount of negative pressure on those people, potentially making them feel unsafe or insecure and likely even pushing some of them, perhaps even a large part of them, towards somehow forcing themselves into a sham of heterosexuality despite their bodies screaming at them that it’s not what they need, which couldn’t possibly end well.
Still, as I have pointed out, there are some mistakes made by a few of those who march as well and they should be corrected so they’ll no longer give their opponents any arguably acceptable reasons to oppose them. Once that will be done, it should be easier to expose the flawed arguments used against them for what they are. Not that the attitudes of their opponents are likely to change even then, but at least it should help with those whose stance isn’t yet so firm, which most notably includes the future generations.

I’d also like to take this opportunity to point out a good thing, a bad thing and a call to action on the topic of gay rights. The good news is that Portugal will allow gay marriage. The bad news is that two gay men from Malawi have been sentenced to 14 years of hard labor for, well, being in love. And that bad news is also what the call to action is about.