Gay Pride, "Sex Parade"?

Well, isn't it? Is that not precisely what the Gay Pride Parade indulges in? Very obvious sexual cavorting; more than innuendo, more than innocent posturing, but in-your-face, blatant sex. Amusing to many no doubt, but equally without doubt, rather offensive to many more. An extravaganza of excess, with rude gesturing and ruder implications.

Those who find it objectionable have the option of absenting themselves from the gayness of it all.

Those who delight in a colourful show of delinquent morals and the public vision of what should be kept decently private, seeing in it a celebration of alter-lifestyles have the option of attending and revelling in the freedom of it all. So be it. As long as the public in general accepts that this display of vulgarity is also an expression of freedom to confront life as a socially indulged alt-gendered adolescent with behavioural issues, that's that.

Well, that isn't quite that for some; for strait-laced and judgemental evangelicals for whom the entire event represents an assault on their sensibilities, their values and social-religious imperatives. They too have the right, however, to speak their minds. To a degree. That degree was over-extended, evidently, by Christian broadcaster Crossroads Television System. And they have been summarily disciplined, found in violation of broadcasting codes.

Evangelical minister and broadcaster Charles McVety, it would appear, implied a "malevolent, insidious and conspiratorial purpose" within the gay community. That implication is of course questionable, and also veers toward hate-mongering. Little surprising, since it's clear that Mr. McVety does hate everything revolving around the Gay Revolution and the very public exhibitionism that it has engendered.

But that's his opinion and he has a right to it, in a free and democratic society. It is offensive, actually, when displays that go against the grain of perceived normalcy are flaunted. After all, normative sexual behaviour is kept nicely behind closed doors, why should gay activities be seen as public displays so many conceive as distasteful? But Rev. McVety is said to have violated the clause that calls for "full, fair and proper representation" in broadcasting.

In his view, obviously, his incendiary remarks do indeed reveal "full, fair and proper representation", as he sees them. The broadcasting council, however, felt that in describing Gay Pride as a "sex parade", Rev. McVety was indulging in a "disparaging tone". Gulp. No! He wouldn't? And, on top of that, it was evident he felt skeptical about the parade's popularity. He also wasn't quite thrilled with the City of Toronto's tourism slogan.

"As gay as it gets" is kind of cute isn't it? But when, added to that there is this: "On any given day, hot boys and hot girls fill Church Street with energy, passion and opportunity", you've got a recipe for a kind of disgusting suggestibility. Representing as fairly repugnant to many, in fact. Obviously including Rev. McVety, but most certainly not exclusively. That kind of stupid messaging would offend many within the greater community.

But Charles McVety most certainly did require his knuckles to be rapped. When he stated: "We send little Johnny and little Jane to school, not to learn to be homosexuals and lesbians. We send them there to learn reading, writing and arithmetic and history and all these wonderful things, but unfortunately there is an activist group that is afoot that wants to change our curriculum. Why? Because unfortunately they have an insatiable appetite for sex, especially with young people. And there are not enough of them, so they want to proselytize your children and mine, our grandchildren and turn them into homosexuals", he crossed the red line.

Looks like there's an atmosphere redolent of stupidity all around, actually, fairly well balanced on both sides; the outrageously public gay community and the outraged public evangelical community.