Gay couple asked to reverse "marriage is so gay" shirt at Dollywood

Carrie M. said:
I think it was best said in the other closed thread that the irony may not be clear for everyone. For example, I would imagine many wouldn't have realized the person wearing it is a lesbian.

On top of that, I also don't think being ironic or gay or ironically gay frees you from the rules.

Like Jeff said, the problem comes when representatives use the 'family friendly' terminology.

Just say it goes against park policy (because it does) and leave it at that.

Unfortunately, you need to do stuff across the board to keep yourself free of accusations.

If they won't let a teenage boy wear a shirt that says "Twilight is so gay" then this shouldn't be allowed, either.

Policy, understood. Explanation, lame.

(As a side note, "Twilight sucks" is acceptable.)

^I was just about to post exactly what he said (except with something other than Twilight).

Bird, I meant that Dollywood would give in to thier demands and be politically correct in not to offend due to thier groups thin skin.

^^^I meant that, but didn't say it as well.

I think we are all in agreement that the PR rep/park screwed up with it's explanation... It's their park, they can do what they want.

As a person of a GLBT background, I find the ad campaign distasteful IMHO, but I'm rather semi old school.

That said, I would like to know what "Dolly" thinks - if it even matters to her?

Also - my lack of enthusiasm on this subject is partly due to the fact, i think the GLBT movement skipped a step in their rights movement - Marriage is nice and all, but to be honest most GLBT folks can be fired for just "Being" gay in many municipalities - I think employment protection should have been done first... just sayin.

I agree with Jay. Honestly, I don't think marriage should be defined as either/or - I think everyone should have equal rights (to be miserable, haha I kid, I kid).

Me, from the *other* thread: ...calling anything "gay" is a bad plan...nothing good comes from using ANY term in a derogatory fashion...

Carrie M. said:
I think people would be offended by any term when it's offered in a derogatory or malicious way. The question is whether the intent of this shirt was clear enough not to be offensive by anyone reading it at the park. I'm not sure it was.

I think it was best said in the other closed thread that the irony may not be clear for everyone. For example, I would imagine many wouldn't have realized the person wearing it is a lesbian.

So unlike the faux pas earlier this week at a Gertrude Stein exhibit in San Francisco, when a (self-identified) lesbian couple was told to stop holding hands?!!? Seriously, people need to come to grips with gay-ness. And other people need to stop *anticipating* being offended. And I need to come to grips with the fact that there are WAY too many closed-minded people in America (or is it just "The Dirty South")? No, I think not...

JOz99 said:
"Marriage is so gay" is a statement that one may need to think about for a second to understand it's true meaning. At face value, it can easily be misinterpreted as gay being a derogatory term, similar to "you're so gay".

I would take that exactly as irony; that's probably the purpose of the tee shirt she is wearing.

For example, I sometimes say (as a joke) "I don't mind straight people, as long as they act gay" or "I don't have the right to marriage b/c I am not heterosexual." It's a way of reversing stuff, to make people think a bit.

Edited to explain I am responding to Gator:

Uh, what? I just meant that people might not get it. And in the absence of getting it, it appears like a derogatory use of the term "so gay" and an insult against marriage for that matter.

Did I offend you? Or am I just not getting it now?

I really don't think the shirt or the request to reverse it had anything to do with the wearer being gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. Except that if you didn't know they were, then you were less likely to get the point of the shirt.

But if we are told that "so gay" is offensive, then how is it being use in this manner not offensive, or at the very least sending a mixed message?

Perhaps a good analogy was the public message Wanda Sykes made a while back - she sums up my and many other folks thoughts...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWS0GVOQPs0

I wonder if the shirt seems anti-gay to the Dollywood rule; perhaps that's why they were asked to turn it inside-out. Now that makes sense.

Dollywood is ... seems like it would be a very gay-friendly place. I mean, sure there are lots of "religious and conservative" folk, but perhaps the more informed and inclusive type. Plus, it's Dolly-wood. Dolly is pretty much a huge gay icon.

Carrie J. said:
Edited to explain I am responding to Gator:

Did I offend you? Or am I just not getting it now?

Oh, no, not a BIT -as I've said for years, if you're going to offend me, you're going to have to put in way more effort than it's worth! :~P

Now I'm the one who feels like I didn't explain myself very well (still new to English, LOL). I thought I was agreeing with you... :)

I was trying to point out that context provides a lot of the information *not* presented in the text....not unlike a mesage board with limited emoticons. For instance, at a Gertrude Stein exhibit, it's infinitely more likely that those women in attendance holding hands MIGHT be gay... but then again, maybe not, so... ;)

The shortest I can think of saying it: "Don't judge, don't pre-judge, and everyone will be OK in the end..." :)

I cannot believe all the press on this already, it's on Yahoo's news ticker as one of the top stories for the day.

CoasterDemon said: I wonder if the shirt seems anti-gay to the Dollywood rule; perhaps that's why they were asked to turn it inside-out. Now that makes sense.

Yes. That's what I was trying to get at and you said it way better than I, CoasterDemon.

Last post on the subject before getting back to my regularly-assigned duties...the words (and art?) on a T-shirt are the only thing an employee has to go on. Intent, subtext, sarcasm, all are going to be lost on someone whose job is to prevent anyone inside the park from being offended by anything another guest is wearing....and I'm glad that job isn't mine! :)

^Exactly! Well said.

I don't think the point is whether is was anti- or pro- gay, but rather that it touched the subject at all. My guess is anything considered 'controversial' would be best left outside the gate.

EDIT - Kinda what Gator was getting at. Helps if I read through the thread before I reply. :)

DaveStroem said:
But if we are told that "so gay" is offensive, then how is it being use in this manner not offensive, or at the very least sending a mixed message?

If you really feel you have to compartmentalize everything into offensive and non-offensive, and refuse to see the irony in this particular shirt, you're never going to get it.

And as for context... really? I'm not fond of stereotypes, but the woman wearing the shirt certainly doesn't do anything to challenge the lesbian stereotype.

Again, it still goes back to the way it was handled. If the park worker simply said, "Your shirt may be deemed offensive by some of our guests," instead of, "That's not family friendly," there would be no issue here.