OT: Is gay pride a right?

[WayOutWest]

IMO we don't need a seperate board for OT stuff since we're such a small community.  

Anyway, do you use violence to voice your opinion?  Doesn't seem like they have another choice.

Seems like this country, and others, have done a 180 in regards to homosexuality.  This country goes out of it's way for gay rights and I don't get it.  Why is homosexuality ok but things like poligamy or sodomy illegal in most states?  It just doesn't make sense where this country stands on sex.  Obviously minors are portected under the law from sexual abuse, unless it's a parent then this countries laws allow the abuse to continue.  Adults are not allowed to have sex with children and most laws seem to be geared toward protecting the kids but the other "sexual" laws just don't make sense.

Anyway, here is a story I found interesting, if someone in this country were to be part of the opposition they would be labeled an ignorant hater:


JERUSALEM (AP) -- Israel's attorney general refused to ban a gay pride parade in Jerusalem despite threats of violence from ultra-Orthodox Jews, instructing police and gay activists to try to work out a compromise, the police commander said Sunday.

A Justice Ministry statement said Attorney General Meni Mazuz ordered police to meet with gay activists "to work out a reasonable alternative proposal" for the march, set for Friday on a route through the middle of the city.

The meeting is to take place Monday, gay activists said, and a compromise was likely.

Ultra-Orthodox Jews have rioted in Jerusalem nearly every night over the past week, burning garbage cans, blocking roads and assaulting police officers in an attempt to get the authorities to call off the march, approved months ago by the Supreme Court. Many religious Jews, Muslims and Christians see homosexuality as a sin and the march as an affront to the sanctity of the holy city.

Police said Sunday that the danger of violence was too great to allow the march to proceed, but left the final decision to Mazuz.

"We understand that the potential danger to life and bloodshed is greater than that to free speech," said police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld.

Ella Canetti, one of the organizers of the gay pride march, said they would meet police on Monday and were willing to be flexible.

"We are prepared to alter the route of our march to meet police concerns," she told The Associated Press. "According to what we understand, a modest gay pride march will take place in Jerusalem."

After meeting Mazuz, Jerusalem police commander Ilan Franco said, "It may be that there will be a march and a closing event at place which both sides decide is reasonable and minimizes potential damage and danger."

But it was unclear whether such a compromise would satisfy the ultra-Orthodox Jewish opponents.

At last year's march, an ultra-Orthodox man stabbed and wounded three participants.

There was some dissent Sunday among gay activists. Saar Nathaniel, a gay member of Jerusalem's City Council and one of the march's planners, suggested Sunday that gay activists cancel the march in return for ultra-Orthodox members of parliament supporting gay rights legislation.

A gay columnist in the liberal Haaretz daily called on organizers to show sensitivity for Jerusalem's special status as a city holy to three faiths and move the march to the more permissive Tel Aviv.

Jerusalem police said six policemen have been hurt in the clashes over the past week and 60 rioters have been arrested. Over the weekend, the disturbances spread outside Jerusalem to the ultra-Orthodox city of Bnei Brak, near Tel Aviv, where rioters blocked one of Israel's main highways with burning tires.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

 

[westkoast]

To me it would be no different then having pride in your country, religion, or skin color.  Being able to express yourself freely is a right in this country.  I see no problem with someone having pride in being able to feel comfortable doing what they feel inside.  

  I don't see riots happening here in the US because of the makeup of the people here.  You can goto any major city and see Islamic, Christian, Jewish, Buddist, Catholic, Atheist, etc all in varying degrees from strict to barely practicing.  We just as not that strong of a religious country IMO.



 I agree about what you were saying about the various laws.  That seems confusing to me.  If one is okay then in turn the other should be okay right?

[rickortreat]

Free Speech is a right.  Gay pride is a choice.

But why is it necessary for Gay's to tell me how proud they are?  I don't have a parade to promote heterosexuality.

To me, it's sort of offensive.  I don't care if they're gay or not, that's they're business.  I'm not going to approve of their behavior no matter what they do.  To have a march in a city that holds special significance for a number of religions, is an affront to their beliefs, and highly inconsiderate of the gays.

Why can't they shut up about it?  Why do they have to tell the whole world what they do sexually?  

The laws are a different matter, and many of them are prejuidicial and based on subjective morals.  I don't think anyone should be prosecuted for being gay, and I'm open to the idea of giving them some sort of legal acknowledgement for monagamy just as society does for married couples.  But it shouldn't be called marriage, and religions shouldn't have to accomodate it if they don't want to.

For such a small percentage of the population they make a lot of noise, don't they?

[JoMal]

First off, how much real notice of offenses occur in this country, when you can reprint that article, even though it clearly states at the end of it:

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Hmmm. An interesting conundrum.

As for sexual laws, these have always been dictated by religious zealots in this country, have they not? What they 'perceive' as offenses in the eyes of their 'LORD', though I hate to point out, the words of their 'LORD' are most likely the words of some non-distinquished bishop from the fourth century. If the guy only knew how people 1600 years later quote his personnal opinion as if they are speaking God's own instead.

But since that is the case, we have an extremely vocal Christian Right in this country who have taken sexual preferences to heart....and the courtroom. Though it would appear that, "The Missionary Position" is an incongruity in and by itself, this is the one and only choice for these people who are forced to procreate at all. Anything else, to there way of thinking, is a sin against God. But then God went ahead and gave HIS PEOPLE free will and made a big mess of having  homogeneous sexual preferences, or opinions on religious interpretations of any kind, for that matter.

So....was God wrong in doing that? Apparently.

So by taking that free will a step further, violent riots to sway the opinions of the non-swayed has taken root in the minds of the fanatics who claim they and only they can tell you what God really wants or you'll get torched.

Only in America do we need to accompany our children on Halloween to be sure a pedophile does not abduct them. In Holland, mothers leave their baby carriages outside restaurants, on the sidewalks, while they enjoy a meal and so other patrons do not have to be bothered by the fussing of a baby. With no worries of losing the child. None. Try that in New York and you get arrested for child abuse, as a young mother visiting from the Netherlands was a few years ago.

In the United States, however, we HAVE to be careful. Our Religious Right has somehow created a society that breeds sex offenders like weeds, unlike the more liberal cultures of Europe, at least. And last time I looked, most Europeans had strong ties to the Church. But without the strange hangups we nurture in this country. They don't like child molesters any more then we do, but it is rare to find any, and when they do, as was recently the case, it makes headlines around the world. Here, we see it daily and it hardly ripples the newspaper. That is the real crime.

So should we be surprised that violence breeds contempt over gay rights? It galvanizes both sides to dig in tighter. But while one side is willing to compromise, the other feels it is God's opinion that drives them righteously to destroy the other. Even though it is simply impossible to go against God's free will thing.

Sort of like the whole Middle East thing itself. Neither side will ever win without the total annihilation of the other. It is just an exhausting waste of time.  

[westkoast]

Free Speech is a right.  Gay pride is a choice.

But why is it necessary for Gay's to tell me how proud they are?  I don't have a parade to promote heterosexuality.

To me, it's sort of offensive.  I don't care if they're gay or not, that's they're business.  I'm not going to approve of their behavior no matter what they do.  To have a march in a city that holds special significance for a number of religions, is an affront to their beliefs, and highly inconsiderate of the gays.

Why can't they shut up about it?  Why do they have to tell the whole world what they do sexually?  

The laws are a different matter, and many of them are prejuidicial and based on subjective morals.  I don't think anyone should be prosecuted for being gay, and I'm open to the idea of giving them some sort of legal acknowledgement for monagamy just as society does for married couples.  But it shouldn't be called marriage, and religions shouldn't have to accomodate it if they don't want to.

For such a small percentage of the population they make a lot of noise, don't they?

That is true but if you wanted to have a straight-parade you surely could do so.  It would not be illegal.  You may even run into the same people who are against gay parades complaining about it!  You know what I do when I don't like something that is not harming anyone



Since I am very young and stupid can someone explain to me how services for people in our country is big government but having the goverment pry into people's personal lives is not?  You know how us men in our 20s are.  We only know playstation 3, beer, and farting.

[rickortreat]

Since I am very young and stupid can someone explain to me how services for people in our country is big government but having the goverment pry into people's personal lives is not? You know how us men in our 20s are. We only know playstation 3, beer, and farting.

The governments role is defined by the Consitution.  It is suppossed to exist to serve us collectively as Citizens.  It is suppossed to be limited in what it restricts us from doing.

The only justified laws from our government, are the ones that regulate the various transactions that we can undertake with each other, and the various classes of parties involved in the transactions.

In areas regarding personal choice, as long as they have no adverse effect on others, the governmnet should NOT be able to legislate at all.  We decide what's appropriate.  That's what freedom is.

So....was God wrong in doing that? Apparently.

Blasphemer!  LOL!  :rofl:

So by taking that free will a step further, violent riots to sway the opinions of the non-swayed has taken root in the minds of the fanatics who claim they and only they can tell you what God really wants or you'll get torched.

Sort of like the government trying to tell you what you can do, isn't it!?

The whole point is freedom.  Freedom from listening to other people.  Freedom to make up your own mind and choose to life your life according to what you believe, not what someone else believes.  Freedom from someone impossing their views on you.

To the extent that Religion attempts to impose it's views upon outsiders. They are going against God's will!  But religion, like government is about power.  Never forget that.  God doesn't need religion, God gave you free will to make your own way.  What could be fairer than that?

Representative Government is a big step in the right direction, since now the law is based on legitmate need and not religious dogma.

The whole idea for this country was to find a place where people could practice their faith free of religious intoerance, yet as you can plainly see, the religious are STILL TRYING TO IMPOSE THIER VIEWS on you, and use the power of the government to do so.

What is truly right is a very subjective thing, unless you have a book that tells you.  But most of us have an inborne sense of what is right and the desire to act in consistency with that.  It is preferable for a society to be dynamic enough to choose what they believe to be right through the function of a legislature, and it would be helpful if the people involved in government chose to approach the idea of what is right from a more open perspective than a religious one.  

Religion is not the basis for law, but it is deeply ingrained in people as though it gives them some type of authority since it comes from God.  It does not come from God, and many of the laws are contrary to what is right.  

Right in the sense of the law should be based on outcomes.  In other words, the quality of our life is determined by the laws we live under.  If the laws are stupid or overly restrictive we suffer.  If they are too lenient, we are free to hurt each other, and thus suffer. Therefore it is logically in our best interest to change laws that aren't working and replace them with ones that might serve us better.  And, it is also logical to vote for people who think that way so as to improve our situatuion.

Note that no candidates for office ever talk this way or address the issues with a plan to change things.  It is very frustrating to have your choice taken away by the system.  A choice between two poor candidates is no choice at all.

 

[WayOutWest]

You know how us men in our 20s are.  We only know playstation 3, beer, and farting.

Typically you're not good at any of them!

In PS3 you're regularly DESSIMATED by pre-teens who's entire life is PS3 and guys in their mid to late 30's who temporarily escape their entire life in PS3.

With beer you chug down shyte like MGD, Bud and Coors-Lite aka Queer Beer instead of enjoying a true brew like Heff, Guiness (The Holy Black Stuff) and the like.

With farting you fall waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay short from a mature decaying digestive system of a 40 something.  You cannot match the erie sounds nor the stench of death eminating from a mid-lifer!

Stick to grooming yourself like a girl, that's about the only thing you can accomplish in this man's world you beyotch!

[Skandery]

I tend to be pretty 'Liberal' with pretty much my entire belief system...that's right, I SAID it!  

I'm liberal.

...but this whole "I'm Proud To Be A [[size=8]insert demographic here[/size]]" has never really made all that much sense to me.

I think Rick puts it nicely, nobody is going out there marching in a "Straight Pride Parade"....and I don't differentiate whether the demographic is in the minority or not.  

Gay Pride

Straight Pride

White Pride

Black Pride

...can't we all just come to a mutual understanding that we're all Proud of who we are.




...except Laker fans, of course, no one can be proud of that.


P.S. I'm holding a Tunisian Pride Parade this Saturday and non of you NON-Tunisian are invited! :angry:

[Guest]

You know how us men in our 20s are.  We only know playstation 3, beer, and farting.

Typically you're not good at any of them!

In PS3 you're regularly DESSIMATED by pre-teens who's entire life is PS3 and guys in their mid to late 30's who temporarily escape their entire life in PS3.

With beer you chug down shyte like MGD, Bud and Coors-Lite aka Queer Beer instead of enjoying a true brew like Heff, Guiness (The Holy Black Stuff) and the like.

With farting you fall waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay short from a mature decaying digestive system of a 40 something.  You cannot match the erie sounds nor the stench of death eminating from a mid-lifer!

Stick to grooming yourself like a girl, that's about the only thing you can accomplish in this man's world you beyotch!

Heh.....heh.

Heh, heh, heh, heh :rofl:  

[westkoast]

You know how us men in our 20s are.  We only know playstation 3, beer, and farting.

Typically you're not good at any of them!

In PS3 you're regularly DESSIMATED by pre-teens who's entire life is PS3 and guys in their mid to late 30's who temporarily escape their entire life in PS3.

With beer you chug down shyte like MGD, Bud and Coors-Lite aka Queer Beer instead of enjoying a true brew like Heff, Guiness (The Holy Black Stuff) and the like.

With farting you fall waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay short from a mature decaying digestive system of a 40 something.  You cannot match the erie sounds nor the stench of death eminating from a mid-lifer!

Stick to grooming yourself like a girl, that's about the only thing you can accomplish in this man's world you beyotch!

I am not sure who you mixed me up with but I don't touch MGD, Coors, or Bud Light.  In fact I drink all the beers you named!  Toss in some New Castle, some Blue Moon, an occasional Heineken here and there.  You must be mistaken with other 20-29 year old males you know who cannot afford the finer beverages because they still live with mom, work in a lower paying job, or blow all their cash at the strip club!

You guys still didn't tell me why one was considered big government and the other was not?  Is it because we gave it another cool title instead of big goverment?  We just labeled it big brother so it is a wayyyy different thing?

I don't care much for <insert group> pride myself but I am not against others for having pride in what they care about.  Certainly is not my deal...like other things I don't care for that don't harm others but I don't like personally......I IGNORE THEM!  Yes, I can change the channel, drive around that part of town, or just close my eyes and recite the blood code for Mortal Kombat on Sega till it goes away.

[Lurker]

Free Speech is a right.  Gay pride is a choice.

But why is it necessary for Gay's to tell me how proud they are?  I don't have a parade to promote heterosexuality.

Then you fully support their right to speak freely about their treatment as second class citizens in the form of a public parade.  That is very liberal minded of you Rick.  Personally I get sick of new parents telling how proud they are of their newborn.  Maybe they should be strung up and beaten for believing that the right of free speech means that I have to be subjected to their thoughts.  Sort of like feeling that those with different beliefs should not be allowed to publicly demonstrate.

Why can't they shut up about it?  Why do they have to tell the whole world what they do sexually? 

They aren't telling you or anyone else what they do sexually...and you probably wouldn't want to really know.  However they are exercising their rights to free speech and peaceful gathering.  If you don't want to hear what they have to say then be mature enough to just walk away.  IMO the problem is not with the gays but with the close-minded, insecure hypocrites who feel that it is THEIR right to impose their feelings on others.

For such a small percentage of the population they make a lot of noise, don't they?

And it never ceases to amaze me how such a small vocal coalition can have sooooo much control over our government.  Wait...you were talking about the Christian right weren't you?

[jn]

Just who is shoving what in who's face here?

Forms of proclaiming heterosexuality are omnipresent.  Whether it's a straight couple holding hands or kissing in public, advertising that assumes heterosexuality to sell products, or even the open selling of hetersoxuality itself, i.e. adds for dating services or "gentlemen's clubs"  it's taken for granted that this is acceptable.  When gay people do something like this they are asked to "just shut up about it."

In voice of Scotty from Star Trek.  "Captain! The hypocrisy meters can't take no more!"  


 

[rickortreat]

Then you fully support their right to speak freely about their treatment as second class citizens in the form of a public parade. That is very liberal minded of you Rick. Personally I get sick of new parents telling how proud they are of their newborn. Maybe they should be strung up and beaten for believing that the right of free speech means that I have to be subjected to their thoughts. Sort of like feeling that those with different beliefs should not be allowed to publicly demonstrate.

The appropriate venue for their grievances is in the legislatures and the courts.

They aren't telling you or anyone else what they do sexually...and you probably wouldn't want to really know. However they are exercising their rights to free speech and peaceful gathering. If you don't want to hear what they have to say then be mature enough to just walk away. IMO the problem is not with the gays but with the close-minded, insecure hypocrites who feel that it is THEIR right to impose their feelings on others.

That's fine, but what if they're marching in front of my home?  I should have the right to not hear them when I'm sitting in my livingroom.

They can be proud and they can demonstrate, just not on my sidewalk.

I think that if you asked the people of Jerusalem, that they would suggest they hold their Gay Pride march somewhere else.

And it never ceases to amaze me how such a small vocal coalition can have sooooo much control over our government. Wait...you were talking about the Christian right weren't you?

When it comes to the government and the existing laws, yes!  In effect the gays are being persecuted by the religious through the government.

Maybe if the laws weren't there, the gays wouldn't feel the need to parade.


 

[Lurker]

Then you fully support their right to speak freely about their treatment as second class citizens in the form of a public parade. That is very liberal minded of you Rick. Personally I get sick of new parents telling how proud they are of their newborn. Maybe they should be strung up and beaten for believing that the right of free speech means that I have to be subjected to their thoughts. Sort of like feeling that those with different beliefs should not be allowed to publicly demonstrate.

The appropriate venue for their grievances is in the legislatures and the courts.

I would suggest a more thorough reading of the history of America.  I believe that you will find it is filled with "people taking to the streets" for whatever their cause.  If it was all left to the legislatures & courts then women probably would still not vote, alcohol would not be available except on the black market, blacks would not be able to play professional sports, etc.

They aren't telling you or anyone else what they do sexually...and you probably wouldn't want to really know. However they are exercising their rights to free speech and peaceful gathering. If you don't want to hear what they have to say then be mature enough to just walk away. IMO the problem is not with the gays but with the close-minded, insecure hypocrites who feel that it is THEIR right to impose their feelings on others.

That's fine, but what if they're marching in front of my home?  I should have the right to not hear them when I'm sitting in my livingroom.

They can be proud and they can demonstrate, just not on my sidewalk.

Sure hope you support anti-sports fans who don't want victory parades in their "front yards".  Last time I checked the streets and sidewalks were PUBLIC spaces and accessible to every citizen.  Not just the citizens that have your approval.

When it comes to the government and the existing laws, yes!  In effect the gays are being persecuted by the religious through the government.

Maybe if the laws weren't there, the gays wouldn't feel the need to parade.

For someone who claims to be on top of things you sure know how to miss the truly relevant points, Rick.  They aren't arguing for "new" rights or to have "bad" laws eliminated or changed.  Gay rights activists are asking to have the same rights that are given to straight couples be given to gay couples.  You know to just be treated as equals under the law of the land.  I believe there is something in the Constitution to that effect, Rick.  Check it out.

[rickortreat]

I would suggest a more thorough reading of the history of America. I believe that you will find it is filled with "people taking to the streets" for whatever their cause. If it was all left to the legislatures & courts then women probably would still not vote, alcohol would not be available except on the black market, blacks would not be able to play professional sports, etc.

I don't recall people rioting to let Blacks play!  They were finally chosen to play once it became clear they were better players.

I won't dissagree that a good deal of political change starts with something that becomes publicized through protest, but this shouldn't be necessary.  Womens sufferage is a good example though, a group that is prevented from voting would have a tough time moving a politician any other way.  

Alchohol prohibition didn't end as a result of riots, it ended because it wasn't working, and organized crime was growing very powerful.  It seems Governments still don't get it, since they're now supporting gangs with the war on drugs!

Sure hope you support anti-sports fans who don't want victory parades in their "front yards". Last time I checked the streets and sidewalks were PUBLIC spaces and accessible to every citizen. Not just the citizens that have your approval.

Actually, demonstrations typically require a permit, and municipalities have a right to charge to offset costs, like additional police on duty.  Spur of the moment demonstrations like sports victory celebrations are permissable, but police can arrest people for illegal behavior, like noise violations or disturbing the peace.

It's not about my approval, it's about my right to peace and quiet.  What is so hard about this for you to understand?

For someone who claims to be on top of things you sure know how to miss the truly relevant points, Rick. They aren't arguing for "new" rights or to have "bad" laws eliminated or changed. Gay rights activists are asking to have the same rights that are given to straight couples be given to gay couples. You know to just be treated as equals under the law of the land. I believe there is something in the Constitution to that effect, Rick. Check it out.

To the contrary Lurker, they are asking for new rights, given the existing statutes.  Mariage has a specific meaning under the law and it is defnined as a joining between a man and a woman.  It's not reasonable in my opinion for them to ask for the same rights being given to straight couples.  Straight couples are the basis for new citizens and to a certain extent it is desireable for society to support procreation.  Gays do not procreate, so why should they get tax advantages?  In Gay couples, since neither one has to stay at home to care for offspring, why should they get a tax break?  Perhaps they should qualify for one if they are caring for children, although I'm not sure it's in societies' interest to underwrite gay parents.

There's a big difference between the Constituion and the existing laws on the books, you should understand that.  In my opinion there are laws which are unconstitutional and in force today.  It would make a lot more sense to me for people to riot to abolish the Fed.  That's more relevant to everyone than the rights of gay couples.  

Currently it is illegal to be a homosexual, as certain sexual acts are illegal in many states.  Check out the laws, Lurker!  Gays could be prosecuted under the law, but the government does not enforce those laws in general.