SO, NOW when you see the word pride, you should automatically think it pertains
to the gay sets overballyhooed parade. Pride is much too grand a word to be dragged
down to that connotation. Let me see now; even the Sesame-set should be able to
see the obvious when I ask "Which one of these things doesn't belong:"
I've worked hard, raised a family and never asked for a dime. Of that I'm proud.
I practised like mad to become a semi-pro harmonicist. Of that I'm proud. Born in
Denmark, I'm now a Canadian citizen. Of that I'm proud. I delight in piercing my
testicles, ears, nose, navel and tongue and parading naked in front of little children
flaunting aforementioned body parts. Of that I'm proud. Can you see which one doesn't
belong?
Ingo Andersen
(Why would anyone take little kids to the Pride Parade?)
MR. RICHARDSON, I share your opinion (Letters, Sun, July 30) that the Lesbian
and Gay Pride Day Parade can be somewhat bizarre. I have never understood the need
for S/M demonstrations or the need to celebrate the day nude. However, as a gay
male living in Toronto, I have seen many things I would consider outrageous both
on and off Church St. and as long as it's not hurting me, who am I to judge? I do
feel it is important though to have Lesbian and Gay Pride Day. Everyday is "straight
day" when you're gay. Heterosexuals don't fear verbal or physical abuse because
of their sexual orientation. So if we have one week a year where we can publicly
show our pride outside of Church St. would you take that away from us?
Steve Burnell
Toronto
(Many people would)
SO THE Metro Police have their hands tied when it comes to bondage and nudity
at the Gay Parade. To act might label our poor beleaguered police force as homophobic.
You've just made it very clear that the homosexuals hold the city of Toronto at
ransom for one day a year. My 13-year-old daughter was sickened and revolted by
the five seconds that she saw of the parade on the 11 p.m. news. (I scrambled to
change the channel.) As I was comforting her she went on to say that she was glad
her parents were normal and safe.
Brenda Walsh
Peterboro
(You can teach her not to fear people who are different)
I AM appalled and depressed over the reactions to Rachel Giese's June 30 column.
Am I the only heterosexual who found the column funny? Rachel's column was a wonderful
example of brilliant satire. It made me laugh and it also made me think. The homophobic
reactions of several readers who obviously do not understand satire or the point
Rachel was trying to make, were disgusting and saddening. Don't those people have
a sense of humor? I sincerely hope that the backlash that the Sun has received will
not deter the paper from printing more of Ms. Giese's columns. She is a funny, intelligent
and insightful writer.
Michael Martin
Oakville
(You're not; they don't; it won't and she is)
I FIND your editorial comment to Mark Richardson (Letters, July 16) totally
inconsistent with your usual stance on freedom of speech (his July letter in reponse
to Rachel Giese's column "Straight people are dangerous," Sun, June 30).
The Sun regularly defends a person's right to make intelligent race-related observations
without fear of being branded a racist. Can't a reader make a comment on gay and
lesbian behavior without being deemed homophobic, as your comment "if the shoe
fits" implies? The problem I have with Giese's column is that it advocates
a world where the responsibility of propagating the species would fall into the
hands of big business. If heterosexuality disappeared, children would have to be
conceived in laboratories, with lesbian couples purchasing sperm from gay donors
and gay couples paying to rent wombs from surrogate lesbian mothers. Yes, gay and
lesbian couples are capable of providing a loving, nuturing environment to a growing
child. In Giese's world, however, children would become nothing more than commodities
to be bought and sold.
David DeRocco
St. Catharines
(Where did Giese say children were commodities?)