A Straight Pride Parade was Inevitable
Updated: Feb 18
The idea was not original.
The concept of Straight Pride floated around the Internet years before it eventuated into something tangible. In the end, the only surprising thing about the parade was its location – Boston (not exactly a city known for its political stances).
The response from far-left groups was predictable. Masked, black-clad protesters descended on the city, some carrying signs that read, “straight pride is hate pride.” Police in their hundreds flanked the march, keeping snarling protesters at bay while hundreds of bystanders observed from the sidewalk.
What followed was equally predictable – a barrage of negative articles that conflated straight pride with white supremacy and toxic masculinity.
Left-wing politicians like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) praised the efforts of anti-straight-pride “activists” and their heroic attempts to defend homosexuality against hate.
But even as the media space was suffocated with claims that a straight pride march was homophobic, unnecessary and cruel, it seems that almost everyone missed the point here.
The concept of straight pride was not created to rival or erase the LGBTQ community. It is, rather, a reaction to the militant, negative attitudes and radical progression of the movement.
Until recently, the concept of straight pride seemed silly. Not because there is a prevailing, inherent belief that pride is reserved for specific groups of people, but because the animosity harbored against heterosexuality wasn’t obvious, and if it was, it wasn’t mainstream.
That is no longer the case.
Progressive rhetoric on sexuality has become hard to ignore. It views heterosexuality as the oppressive hand that undermined homosexuality for decades, resulting in murder, suicide, social and familial isolation, prohibited marriages and other devastating consequences for gay and lesbian people.
For many, straight pride seems absurd. Who would be proud to be part of a system of subjugation, right? And, more importantly, since heterosexuals rarely faced injustice because of their sexual orientation, why should they be entitled to celebrate their identity now?
In a sense, this isn’t wrong.
Heterosexuals did not battle for acceptance. And, historically, straight people have felt no sense of community based on sexual orientation alone. For the majority, it is the least important part of their identity.
But the very nature of this perspective is virulent. And it begs the question: why must someone have a history of marginalization to celebrate who they are?
Besides denying straight people pride based on an absence of historical suffering, progressive rhetoric places the injustice against the LGBTQ community squarely on the shoulders of their straight counterparts. Heterosexuality seems to be, at the very least, a roadblock between progression and the gay movement.
But imposing the baggage of discrimination onto straight people doesn’t ameliorate the problem. It exacerbates it.
At first, heterosexuals were asked to sit back and allow homosexuality to be seen and accepted without facing the inequality with which it was accustomed. This was reasonable. It was necessary. As the general attitude towards the LGBTQ community softened, the acceptance and tolerance it sought was certain.
Suddenly, homosexuality was no longer perceived as something to be ostracized and frowned upon. It had made its way into the mainstream thanks, in part, to the efforts of activists, academia and celebrities. And while some hostility remained, the community made great strides forward. Heterosexuality, unfazed, stood alongside it.
Then the tenor changed.
What had started as asking for acceptance and visibility, flanked by an increasingly supportive heterosexual population, devolved into something unrecognizable.
Laws designed to protect sexual orientation suddenly became a weapon to force mandatory recognition and approval on others. Rejection of this resulted in frivolous lawsuits, job loss, threats and public shaming – as America saw exemplified by the Colorado baker who was sued when he refused, on religious grounds, to make a gay wedding cake.
Then, we were progressively introduced to louder, wilder and grander pride celebrations. The month of June recently and formally became the LGBTQ community’s pride month, which has become the unofficial rainbow marketing period for businesses. Pride parades that were originally designed to celebrate the community’s visibility and achievements are now characterized by over-sexualization, nudity, fetishism and the promotion of child drag-queens.
Gradually, LGBTQ curriculum has been forced into classrooms. Parents have lost the ability to govern their own children in the face of radical transgender recognition initiatives, as states across America and Canada have demonstrated. Governments and corporations have institutionalized training to combat “homophobia” and “transphobia” in an effort to stamp out prejudice and discrimination.
State legislation has been passed in Australia, Canada and the United States mandating the recognition and use of an individual’s preferred pronouns, in addition to allowing the change of sex on birth certificates and official identification without any medical gender reassignment or therapy.
Sexual orientation is now heralded as a core tenet of an individual’s identity – one that must be validated at all costs.
That is, of course, unless you’re heterosexual.
Each step the LGBTQ community takes in this radical direction, the more its hard-earned acceptance suffers.
And the more it resists this new direction, the more heterosexuality comes under fire. Recently, an opinion piece by NBC News described heterosexuality as the “bedrock of global oppression.” The writer, Marcie Bianco, says that heterosexuality is “just not working” and women are opting out to escape its negative impacts.
The more heterosexuality is blamed and shamed, the more some heterosexuals will feel a sense of tribalism. This tribalism won’t result in societal cohesion, encouraging straight people to feel allied with the gay community. Rather, it breeds resentment towards being the only community not celebrated or given special treatment for its sexual orientation.
To make matters worse, the historical injustices faced by homosexuals in the past mean legitimate criticism of the LGBTQ movement is labelled “homophobic” or “bigotry” and is quickly tossed aside.
All these factors considered together result in one, perhaps unintended, attack on heterosexuality. And, in time, the need to defend the orientation.
The truth is, nobody can speak for the organizers of Boston’s straight pride event or their motivations. But those who are confused or angered by straight pride would be wise to take a calculated step back and consider the climate in which it has evolved.
As the LGBTQ movement hurtles along a progressively radical course, it strays further away from its original intention – acceptance and visibility. It muddies the waters and confuses its message, and in doing so, the rift between heterosexuality and homosexuality grows bigger.
Straight pride does not threaten the progress of the LGBTQ movement. It never has. It merely asks that heterosexuals are given the same respect that the gay community has rightfully demanded itself.