Throwing A Public Party

What if they threw a garish, disturbingly loud - blatantly obscene in its too-obvious and -objectionable focus on squalid sex complete with bared bodies and more-than-suggestive gyrations - party and no one showed up because it offended general sensibilities? Well, people did show up, those very people for whom such public displays are appealing, amusing, exciting. The others, those Victorian-minded, sex-shy others, simply stayed away. To each their own.

Except that public figures are expected to turn out. As a sign of respect and acceptance for the juvenile antics of the gay/transgendered community. Of course it could be ventured that the gay/transgendered community are offering offense to the heterosexual community by their public displays of over-the-top sexuality. Offense in the sense of disrespect for those who prefer their private lives be kept private, and who see no need for the private lives of others to be publicly revealed.

And if public figures feel squeamish and up-tight about appearing at such venues as Gay Pride parades, and having to behave as though they find the outlandish and absurdly childish prancing about in fanciful costumes enjoyable, they're being forced to be hypocrites. On the other hand, if they politely decline attendance and send their best regards instead, they're accused of being homophobic.

One could be supportive of gay rights, be sympathetic toward the right to equality in all aspects of civil life for gays, but not wish to publicly subscribe to the manifestations of raffish gayness, preferring to be supportive at a remove, so to speak. Which would qualify one in these circumstances, despite one's goodwill, to be regarded with suspicion; another homophobic.

Choice is not freely given. Which is something that Professor Shinder Purewal, a former citizenship judge, professor of political science at Kwantien Polytechnic University has discovered. He's been labelled by Vancouver's Gay Pride Parade supporters as homophobic and insensitive because he finds the public display of overt sexuality distasteful and a public affront.

Flagrant displays of sexuality, as far as Professor Purewal is concerned, have no place in public. Heterosexuals, were they to cavort as shamelessly as do gays, would be taken as corrupted perverts. Evidently Professor Purewal made a public declaration to the effect that this type of blatant displays of sexual union should be forbidden.

That sentiment appears to have completely negated his public support of same-sex marriage as far as the gay community is concerned.

"Sexuality is what you do within the four walls of your home and that's your business. Openly in streets, we don't normally do that. Heterosexuals, we don't display that. If someone says we're making a parade by the gay community, it already sends the message that this is put on by people with different sexual orientations."

Right on, Prof.!