Forums | MacLife

robco wrote:

Right here.

Too bad it's such a transparent troll. Guy just couldn't resist being the funnyman. It would have been great to play it completely straight and tried to get conservatives on board.

robco wrote:

Yeah, no. We should be able to be who we are. People need to stop being so concerned about what other people do and how they live their lives. I have news for you, the "other" queer event that causes consternation - Folsom Street Fair (leather) - is becoming much less queer. There are quite a few twisted heteros who are joining in on the fun. The same could also be said for Gay Pride. There has been some pressure to tone down Pride a little bit since GLBT families do bring their kiddies now, but most festivals have a family area now.

Yes we should focus on the fact that most days of the year most of us lead the same boring lives everyone else does and has the same mundane concerns. But I really don't think we should give into the Puritans. I really don't want others to feel sorry for me and I really don't want to play the victim card. I'd rather others respect my right to think and believe differently and make my own choices. It's not just the GLBT community they'll be going after, anything out of their idea of "mainstream" will be fair game. These people will not stop until they've legislated every facet of life to reflect their interpretation of the good book.

Civil rights would have been a hard sell if it were led by the Black Panthers. MLK and Malcolm played off each other and used "the lesser evil" ploy to gain support for the movement too. No doubt people should be able to be who they are, but a movement usually aims to go beyond issues of what individuals do for a "greater good."

robco wrote:

Yeah, no. We should be able to be who we are.

That is absolutely true.
But you need to think in terms of running a political campaign where you always lead with your strong suit. Without making a value judgment, the more flamboyant elements of the gay/TG are NOT the best representatives of the gay community.
They are a tiny subset within the larger gay community and they scare the bejesus out of the dull normals.
From a campaign point of view the gay community has done a lousy job of getting the faces of "regular people" gays to the front of the movement. Which is where they should be because "People like you and me" are the vast majority of gays.
Public relations 101.

Jebus.  How many here have actually been to a big city gay pride event?  The "flamboyant" attendees are a very small portion of parade attendees, but it's the straight people with the TV cameras that insist on only showing that to the rest of you.  It doesn't matter if there are 1000, 100 or 10 of them -- they'll find them. 

Of course, the proposals by the "concerned straight" people here are not practical at any rate.  This is a dumb suggestion.  Homophobes will always find something to be outraged about with homosexuals.  I mean, this outrage pre-dates gay pride events.  Duh.  Get back to me on Truman Capote's rear dust jacket picture for his first book.

bedstuy wrote:

Jebus.  How many here have actually been to a big city gay pride event?  The "flamboyant" attendees are a very small portion of parade attendees, but it's the straight people with the TV cameras that insist on only showing that to the rest of you.  It doesn't matter if there are 1000, 100 or 10 of them -- they'll find them. 

Of course, the proposals by the "concerned straight" people here are not practical at any rate.  This is a dumb suggestion.  Homophobes will always find something to be outraged about with homosexuals.  I mean, this outrage pre-dates gay pride events.  Duh.  Get back to me on Truman Capote's rear dust jacket picture for his first book.

You are right fr the most part.
Please believe me that my comments are meant as constructive criticism.
I strongly support gay rights and I have reasons that make the struggle very personal to me. I have had good friends of mine really suffer because of the status quo.
Truth be told, the gay right issue is one of the few I have been motivated to violence about, so much have I had it up to my eyebrows with the anti-gay types. Sometimes I swear that if I have just one more ignorant cracker make some comment about gays I'd just go ahead and slit their throats with my Buck knife.
In reality I won't.
But it is a trial living down here in the middle of the the most racist, homophobic and ass backwards states in the country.

The whole "southern hospitality" thing is just a veneer to cover some of the ugliest, most brutal and sick beliefs on the continent.

But they do offer their services to those outside their own membership.

Personally I do not think they should unless they going to do so in a non biased way, but they do, and thus they probably would be challenged at some point - making their fear very real (and not a lie as bedstuy suggested).

Is that a valid reason to oppose gay marriage?
Probably not.

So they're not just liars, they're money grubbin' liars.  Got it.

Yeah, whatever.  They're also probably smoking meth and hiring male hustlers in between the money grubbing and lies.

bedstuy wrote:

Yeah, whatever.  They're also probably smoking meth and hiring male hustlers in between the money grubbing and lies.

Isn't that what happened in Slumdog Millionare?

MysticCow wrote:

resedit wrote:

D'Eyncourt wrote:

The opponents were slinging accusations like gay marriages were going to be forced upon churches that do not support them (false)

There are some real concerns because some Churches do not provide marriage only to their members but advertise their services to perform marriage to anyone, and they provide the marriage regardless of the religious beliefs of the couple.

It therefore can be argued that what they are providing is actually a legal civil service and not a religious service, and therefore it is not a separation of church and state issue.

And yes, sooner or later that case would be made, probably in the jurisdiction of the 9th circuit.

Not really.  Think of the churches like the Boy Scouts--a private little club that can exclude whoever the hell they want.  Even if a case made its way to the courts, the church would argue that what is presented is just like the Boy Scouts.

And you know how much the Boy Scouts love teh gayz

I was a Scout myself. I would know.

They do the former, but not the latter. It was a damn shame to see the best kid in the troop far and away (became an eagle scout at 16) get booted out when the scoutmaster found out he had a boyfriend.

Last edited by c_norris1 (2009-11-07 10:51 pm)

user wrote:

resedit wrote:

The boy scouts can discriminate who joins them.

Actually they can't because they receive Federal funding.

But it seems like they have some sort of special favored status with the legislators so they get away with it.

In part that is because those legislators have a soft spot for the organization (having been Eagle Scouts in their own time), not fully realizing that the current organization has largely been taken over (at least in many positions of power, especially at the national level) by the Mormons. This is the reason why I cannot support the Boy Scouts of America today in good conscience.

user wrote:

resedit wrote:

The boy scouts can discriminate who joins them.

Actually they can't because they receive Federal funding.

But it seems like they have some sort of special favored status with the legislators so they get away with it.

What federal funding do they receive, and what is it for?

For example, many churches receive federal funding to run soup kitchens. They can't force prayer etc. but the .gov has no say in how the church itself is run.