Gay GB News Host Sparks Outrage with Criticism of Pride Month

[andy]

A gay GB News host has sparked outrage by suggesting that Pride month is actually doing more harm than good. Alex
Armstrong, the presenter of Gay GB News, made these comments during a heated debate segment on his show.

In a video clip shared on social media, Armstrong argued that Pride events often perpetuate negative stereotypes
and "turn people off" from accepting LGBTQ+ individuals. He expressed concern that some Pride celebrations feature
explicit content, which he claimed can be alienating for those who do not identify as gay.

"This is exactly the kind of thing that's driving a wedge between different sections of society," Armstrong said.
"If you're trying to promote acceptance and inclusivity, it's counterproductive to associate your cause with
something as provocative as public nudity or explicit displays."

Armstrong acknowledged that the LGBTQ+ community has faced a backlash in recent years but attributed this to the
influence of far-left institutions pushing for radical change. He argued that these groups have been instrumental
in driving the debate over issues like puberty blockers and forced integration into mainstream society.

View this post on Instagram

"The public is moving on from these issues," Armstrong said. "We're not as interested in having our sexuality
scrutinized as we used to be. The 'assimilation argument' has become tired and outdated."

Armstrong's comments sparked widespread condemnation, with many accusing him of perpetuating homophobia and
ignorance. His views are reminiscent of those held by GB News presenter Josh Howie, who earlier this year compared
all LGBTQ+ people to paedophiles in a misguided attempt at humour.

Howie later claimed that his comment was meant as a joke, but the damage had already been done. Armstrong's
comments serve as a reminder that there is still work to be done in promoting acceptance and understanding of the
LGBTQ+ community.

[JayS707]

I live in California, which many view as "ground zero" for all things LGBTQ. To a degree, that characterization is accurate, but I digress. I have no idea who this dude is, but these are my thoughts. 

First, as a 50-something-year-old white, professional gay man who runs a successful business, I sympathize with his views. However, I do so only a bit. Every year, California hosts some of the most well-attended Pride events anywhere in the world. These events feature people from all walks of life, all colors, religions, ethnicity, ages, sexual orientations, disabilities, and creeds. These events truly represent the concept of pride in one's uniqueness and not being ashamed of who you are, who you love, or who you fuck. That's a good thing for the U.S., including California, because we maintain some pretty ridiculous laws. For example, in California a young female who is at least 12 can consent to an abortion on her own, but she cannot consent to sexual intercourse until she turns 18. Cue the record scratch. That leaves many puzzled. Similarly, a boy and a girl, boy and a boy, girl and girl, or some variations in between can date while under 18, but the nanosecond one of them turns 18, if they have sexual relations, the 18 year old is guilty of statutory rape, a felony in the US that carries prison time and lifetime membership on the sexual predator list made public. Never mind the two fucked when both were 17 1/2. That was then. 

Some states have taken steps to cure this obvious injustice with laws that bookend the ages of the participants, usually to no more than a 5-year difference in age. This means the older person could be no more than 22. Still, right-wing conservatives decry such laws as promoting pedophilia. They do nothing of the sort. It's preposterous.

I sympathize with this guy's views because of cringy media coverage after Pride events occur. Every year, reporters predictably pick the most provocative or outrageous person, and they shove a microphone in their face. It is usually a flamboyant drag queen who is blakc, with a blonde wig, and standing about ten feet tall looking like she just beamed down from the mothership. She is ready for her close up, Mr. Demille, and she goes full-on, in your face when she realizes it is her chance to be on TV. Rarely, if ever, have I seen a reporter walk up to a dude-next-door type and his husband in polo shirts or two women dressed in feminine attire drinking their Starbuck's after the parade is over. 

This lopsided and, I daresay, misleading media coverage sends a message across the world that the people interviewed represent the entire LGBTQ communities. By the way, that's as far as I am going with the letters, and the politically correrct folks on the San Francisco Pride Committee can suck it. Furthermore, Q does not mean Questioning. The whole point of Pride is being okay with your sexuality, not wondering about it. It's ludicrous. Q means Queer. I was involved in the movement to take back that word, which had historically been the N-word for gay men, in the late 1980s . The movement rooted in college campuses all across the US, and it led to the addition of Q. In addition to liquidating any negative connotations the word had, queer was intended to encompass a broad spectrum of sexualities that did not fit neatly into lesbian, gay, bisexual - Trans was not a letter back then either. If you were a construction dude by day who like to get pegged in his wife's panties at night while her one-legged paramor stump fucked her ass (sorry, that's what it is called - I don't make these things up), then Q was meant for you. Still, that was not enough, but I digress again.

In fact, the people that get interviewed after the festivities, although they are noticeable and loud, represent but a small fraction of the LGBTQ communities. This is what is frustrating. This dude's message, however, is most assuredly not the solution. I part company with him for these reasons

1. He claims the fault lies with left-leaning extremists who want us to "assimilate" as part of the larger culture, and that this is a tired message. Ironcially, though, his solution involves attacking the very individuals who express our differences from straight culture and society most profoundly. This is, in fact, an argument for assimilation, not against it. Thus, from the standpoint of logic, his argument crumbles like an overcooked scone. It is the fallacy of the irrelevant conclusion;
   
2. Assimilation never works out for the group assimilated. Just ask the indigenous peoples of North America...if you could find any. Like the Borg from the Star Trek television franchise, the dominant power always benefits at the expense of the lesser ones. They perceive the lesser power as weak. A desire to assimilate only enhances this belief.
   
3. Since when did it become the LGBTQ communities job to please or pacify straights. I am guessing I am about 25 years this young man's senior, and while I hate to play the elder card, he could learn a thing or two from those of us who have blazed a trail for him to follow. Our communities have never achieved anything by denying ourselves or not fighting for equal rights. He mentions Stonewall as going too far. He has no idea how horrible the situation was even in New York City before a group of mostly drag queens said enough is enough. Their site of what was the Stonewall Inn is now a national monument in the US. Those queens did us proud, and this young man ought to revere them, not denigrate them;
   
4. If he thinks the backlash is bad now, it was far worse when AIDS first appeared. That was a crisis not dissimilar from COVID, except no one other than gay men took it seriously. I was 15 years old when AIDS became a thing. I had come out to my mom, and AIDS filled me with terror. No one who was straight cared, and a stigma attached to it that has not completely worn off even now. It was called a "gay plague." People claiming to be religious protested at funerals for men who had died from AIDS, even veterans who fought for freedom of speech and protest. Shameful! Those people were not charitable, kindly, or godly. They were venemous, hateful, and evil - they still are. It was not until a handful of sick, rag tag activists formed ACT Up! Taking a playbook from Stonewall, they said enough is enough and got militant that President Reagan acknowledged the crisis at all. Then, a young boy from Indiana contracted AIDS. Ryan White's unsuccessful struggle with AIDS captured media attention and broadened the issue. Before these events, coming out of the closet meant not only having to address what many considered to be sexual deviancy (26 states still criminalized sodomy back then), but you also had to suffer unbridled fear and condemnation as a potential carrier of an infectious disease.
   
5. Finally, the single most effective weapon straights have used to marginalize and criminalize gay men, in particular, is that we are a danger to children. People have died because of this belief. The last thing we need is some lily white, self-affected dude co-opting this weapon and using it to tear us down. He needs to study the history books a bit more.
   

In the meantime, I have a lot of questions. Why does he equate adult nudity with child molestation? There is no correlatione. The children who attend Pride events are likely growing up in homes not nearly wound as tight around issues of nudity as the home this guy probably grew up in. If nudity is the problem, what is his position on nude sunbathing. I understand Europeans love this immensely? Or, is it just nude gay men around children that we should be concerned about? That's not self-loathing at all. And here's a news flash...no one forces anyone to attend a Pride event. Keep your little ones at home if you are worried it may be bad for them. 

This guy's critique is not utterly off-base, but it is pointless and cruel to blame this on the very community that is denied rights and marginalized by a dominant culture. It is akin to blaming the rape victim for wearing provocative clothing. Instead, I implore this guy to focus on the way in which media outlets cover events in the LGBTQ communities and less time attacking our efforts to come out of the shadows. 

Incidentally, California banned any groups that promote pedophila from participating in Pride events as far back as 1993, so I don't know what is happening in the UK if that nonsense is allowed. Even still, this is looking for a monster under the wrong bed. You will find more pedophiles in the Catholic Church or at an Evangelical Summer Bible Study Camp than you will at Pride events. Plenty of preachers are busted every year for engaging in inappropriate sexual conduct with children. I do not know a single drag queen who wants to read to kids who has committed such acts. It is no accident that Utah (U.S. Mormon State) ranks highest or nearly highest in consumption of pornography, and not just any vids either...Look up the study PornHub does every year.