Gays and the St Patricks Day Parade

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Yea, why can't you just get in the closet for the afternoon.

-spence

Amazing. Do you ever get tired of being wrong? Unfortunately for you, no one here was asking gays to deny being gay, nor was anyone asking them to pretend to be heterosexual. Once again, when everyone knows you are badly losing the argument, instead of admitting the other side has a point, you descend to baseless accusations of hate. In this case, you are accusing someone openly supportive of gay marriage, of being a homophobe. It is a common liberal tactic, and we all know it reeks of desperation, it is a ploy of the thughtless when they are forced to conclude that they cannot defend their position.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Amazing. Do you ever get tired of being wrong? Unfortunately for you, no one here was asking gays to deny being gay, nor was anyone asking them to pretend to be heterosexual. Once again, when everyone knows you are badly losing the argument, instead of admitting the other side has a point, you descend to baseless accusations of hate. In this case, you are accusing someone openly supportive of gay marriage, of being a homophobe. It is a common liberal tactic, and we all know it reeks of desperation, it is a ploy of the thughtless when they are forced to conclude that they cannot defend their position.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is a very eloquent paragraph. It's bat#^&#^&#^&#^& crazy but a joy to read.

They wanted to march openly as gay Vets, they were told they couldn't. This isn't rocket science.

Also, there's a reason so many politicians and sponsors don't want to be associated with the parade, because they're in the wrong...

Likely one of the primary reasons you support gay marriage today Jim is because people over the years challenged the norm. Your position is quite hypocritical.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

This is a very eloquent paragraph. It's bat#^&#^&#^&#^& crazy but a joy to read.

They wanted to march openly as gay Vets, they were told they couldn't. This isn't rocket science.

Also, there's a reason so many politicians and sponsors don't want to be associated with the parade, because they're in the wrong...

Likely one of the primary reasons you support gay marriage today Jim is because people over the years challenged the norm. Your position is quite hypocritical.

-spence

The politicians don't march because they have no balls. They lack of moral standard.
It's the same reason the GOP allows Obama to get away with everything. Because he's black they are afraid of being called racist.
When we have a truly colorblind and sexually orientated blind society none of that will matter.
It seems that people that make the issue the most about race and sexual orientation are liberals.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

This is a very eloquent paragraph. It's bat#^&#^&#^&#^& crazy but a joy to read.

They wanted to march openly as gay Vets, they were told they couldn't. This isn't rocket science.

Also, there's a reason so many politicians and sponsors don't want to be associated with the parade, because they're in the wrong...

Likely one of the primary reasons you support gay marriage today Jim is because people over the years challenged the norm. Your position is quite hypocritical.

-spence

"there's a reason so many politicians and sponsors don't want to be associated with the parade, because they're in the wrong"

And one of the reasons is that they don't want to have to defend themselves against baseless accusations of intolerance, from the likes of you. That's precisely why you incessantly make these claims when losing an argument, in the hopes that it will shut some people up. It works, especially in the case of people seeking to win elections. That it doesn't have a shred of intellectual honesty, doesn't mean it's not effective.

"Your position is quite hypocritical."

It's not the least hypocritical. It would be hypocritical if I supported the right of heterosexual vets to march as such, but not homosexual vets.

Spence, I have asked this several times, and you keep dodging. I'll do it one more time, and I'll try to go slowly.

If everyone (not just homosexuals) is being asked to set aside sexual identity for an afternoon, how can that be considered to be discriminatory? If every group is being treated exactly the same, where is the discrimination?

You have fun trying to answer that. Hint..., screaming "HATE CRIME!" isn't really answering the question that I asked.

Here, I'll make it asy for you, all you need to do is fill in the blank.

"In this case, homosexuals and heterosexuals are being treated identically. All are welcome to march, and all are asked to leave sexuality out of it. I, Spence, think that's discriminatory because ______________".

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

If everyone (not just homosexuals) is being asked to set aside sexual identity for an afternoon, how can that be considered to be discriminatory? If every group is being treated exactly the same, where is the discrimination?

Why are Congressmen allowed to march with banners saying they are congressmen? Why don't they just march with some other group?

When you pick and choose the associations you allow to be displayed in your parade and those choices match an increasingly unpopular side of a hot button human rights issue, whether intentionally or not, you are inviting criticism.

If you looked back on the civil rights movements from the 60's I'm sure you could find a truck load of direct-line comparisons to race in public displays during that time. At the time they probably used the exact same defense, and nowadays history remembers those people as racists.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Ian

Why are Congressmen allowed to march with banners saying they are congressmen? Why don't they just march with some other group?

You have to understand that in our day and age congresspeople (be careful--congress(men) could be sexually discriminative now) are more equal than the rest of us. They are a part of the ruling class. They set the agenda and the rules by which we live and the rights that we have.

When you pick and choose the associations you allow to be displayed in your parade and those choices match an increasingly unpopular side of a hot button human rights issue, whether intentionally or not, you are inviting criticism.

Associations, are by definition, a matter of choice. Without choice, association is irrelevant--everyone and everything are all one, without distinction. "Association" without choice loses its distinctive quality and becomes a redundant, unnecessary word.

Human rights issues can be of two kinds: prescribed or unalienable. If they are prescribed, they cannot be denied by "association." On the other hand, if "association" is an unalienable right, it cannot be denied by a prescribed right. So there must be an accommodation between prescribed and unalienable rights. All manner of prescribed rights do not interfere with the unalienable right of association.

Rights of free association, also, must not encroach upon each other. "Gay" rights, insofar as they are unalienable, cannot distort heterosexual rights, whatever those are, insofar as they are unalienable. Gay right to free association must not distort heterosexual, or any other group, right to free association. Each is free to associate on their own terms.

All human rights issues, when they conflict with one another, are hot button issues. Whichever may currently be more "popular" may get better press, but is no less "hot" to the less popular "right." And the latter may very well get criticized, but it is no less a human right.

At least, that is how it used to be.


If you looked back on the civil rights movements from the 60's I'm sure you could find a truck load of direct-line comparisons to race in public displays during that time. At the time they probably used the exact same defense, and nowadays history remembers those people as racists.

The civil rights movements in the 1960's were about human rights. Not the unalienable rights to be black. No one was denying them the right to be black. What they wanted, initially, were the unalienable rights with which humans are endowed. Mostly those individual unalienable rights to free association, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom to possess property. And, as well, the prescribed right of equality before the law.

They weren't interested in joining other than racially defined parades by touting their blackness. If a parade didn't appeal to their values, there was no need to participate. They wanted to enjoy participation in their own parades which celebrated their own culture insofar as that was distinctive from the rest of society. And to join in other parades which celebrated similar values to their own.

Government was not used to promote, initially, specific "black" rights, but to promote equal rights.

A lot of that has changed. There are now set asides, entitlements, and privileges which are targeted to specific groups. This has fostered the notion that government can be used to do so. And this is used as leverage for various groups to get specific treatment at the expense of other groups.

This was accomplished by first blurring the lines of distinction through the rhetoric of equality and fairness. The old unalienable rights were possessed by individuals. Equality in the old system was merely before the law and "fairness" was trumped by individual ability. Unalienable rights stood in the way of "fairness" and equality of outcome. Unalienable rights had to be dissolved and replaced by prescribed rights. Those rights which government prescribed and granted. Only then could true "equality" and fairness be achieved. The lines of distinction were not only to be blurred, but to be obliterated. The great divisive distinctions in gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, etc., etc., would be of little to no importance and replaced with equality. And the great division in wealth would be ameliorated, eventually to be erased. Again, true equality and fairness would be achieved.

Of course, those goals are still a work in progress. That there are actually even greater distinctions of wealth now--but that is only in the top 1%--is merely a bump in the road (even though this has always existed in top down authoritarian systems). And, also, the distinctions among us are even more delineated now, but that is merely because groups have been given a voice to demand. Those who were victims of racism are now the most vocal racists. Those who were gender or sexuality oppressed are now the most vocal and active sexual agenda activists. And we can surely see how that is right and necessary--eventually, we will all be the same and those voices will no longer be necessary.

This all became possible through the centralization of power to the Federal Government at the expense of the power once inherent in the States and the People. And much was done exactly in order to transfer that power. And the rationale for that transformation is to eliminate those problems that were fostered by the supposedly fuzzy notions of unalienable rights, and create a far more supposedly efficient system of governance. Individual "rights" beyond the reach of government is a by-gone nostrum of outdated enlightenment era thinking. The only way to effective "rights" is to define and prescribe them by those experts who have gone beyond a sort of organic "enlightenment" and have been progressively educated in the solution and administration of human needs.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Ian

Why are Congressmen allowed to march with banners saying they are congressmen? Why don't they just march with some other group?

When you pick and choose the associations you allow to be displayed in your parade and those choices match an increasingly unpopular side of a hot button human rights issue, whether intentionally or not, you are inviting criticism.

If you looked back on the civil rights movements from the 60's I'm sure you could find a truck load of direct-line comparisons to race in public displays during that time. At the time they probably used the exact same defense, and nowadays history remembers those people as racists.

"Why are Congressmen allowed to march " For the same reason that vets are allowed to march...because that has nohting to do with sexuality. The fact that congressman can march, would only support your argument, if only heterosexual congressmen were allowed to march, and no one has made that claim.

As far as I can tell, anyone could march, they just wanted to leave sexuality out of it. A small, vocal minority took issue with that, and that's tough cookies for them. I can't park in a handicapped spot just because I like parking close to a building, we all have rules to follow sometimes, and sometimes that means having to set convenience aside.

"When you pick and choose the associations you allow to be displayed "

All associations were allowed to be displayed, as long as they weren't sexual in nature. That cannot be considered discriminatorynot as long as everyone was asked to put sexuality aside. Try as you might, and you are asking tough questions in a respectful way, you cannot make that wrong.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Ian

If you looked back on the civil rights movements from the 60's I'm sure you could find a truck load of direct-line comparisons to race in public displays during that time. At the time they probably used the exact same defense, and nowadays history remembers those people as racists.

Not even close. During the time of segregation, blacks were treated differently (different schools, tables at restaurants, seats on the bus, water fountains, etc). That is clearly discriminatory. In this case, from a sexual perspective, everyone was being treated exactly the same.

Some parents, myself included, like to be able to take a 6 year-old to a parade without any references to sexuality. I don't see why that's so much to ask. If someone wants to read "Heather Has Two Mommies" to their 6 year-old, that's their right. That doesn't mean I want to hear it read every single time I take my kids to the library. Do we need to have a reading of that book played over the loudspeakers, 24 hours a day, at the library? Or is it OK, once in a while, if sexuality can be left out of the equation.

You're looking for something sinister here, and it's not there. Gays were perfectly welcome to march, as long as they followed the same exact guidelines that heterosexuals were asked to follow. Despite what Spence thinks, saying "no" to a group of homosexuals, doesn't necessarily make you a hatemonger. And that's what is at play here, we have a group of people who simply don't want to hear the word "no". When my kids act like that, we call them spoiled brats. But we can't chastise homosexuals like that, because once a group has been anointed with "victim" status by the left, then from that point on, nothing is ever their fault, and anyone who criticizes them is a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, an Islamophob, a bigot, or some other kind of hatemonger.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Not even close. During the time of segregation, blacks were treated differently (different schools, tables at restaurants, seats on the bus, water fountains, etc). That is clearly discriminatory.

Were they forced to use different photographers and bakers?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Ian

Were they forced to use different photographers and bakers?

OK. So I assume you are saying that if a Christian photographer doesn't want to attend a gay wedding for religious beliefs, he is no better than a segregationist. If that's what you are suggesting, just say it. Why mince words?

Does it matter to you that the constitution explicitly states that people have the right to exercise their religious beliefs? And that the Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted that to mean that the government can't favor any one religion, nor can they denounce any one religion?

Constitution, shmonstitution, as long as we are fashionable and politically correct.

Many people, not you I guess, get nervous when the President is so comfortable with rejecting the parts of the constitution that he doesn't happen to like.

Like Spence, you cannot tell me what's discriminatory with treating everyone exactly the same, so when you have nohting left at all, cry racism. Very original.

If the government can force a Christian photographer to attend a gay wedding, then I presume you would be OK with a law saying that black painters cannot refuse to accommodate a customer who wants to paint a confederate flag on the roof of their house. Aftre all, what's the difference there? Last time I checked, "the South" is not characterized as a hate group. Would you, or would you not, allow a black painter to refuse such a request? And if you would allow him to refuse, please tell me why the Christian photographer doesn't have the same right. And good luck with that.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Ian

Were they forced to use different photographers and bakers?

"Forced" is a peculiar word to use in this context. The photographers and bakers didn't "force" them to use different ones. If there was any "force" in making the gay's decision, it was internally applied. The gays "forced" themselves to act in whatever way they acted. Nobody else "forced" them to do so.