Amsterdam Pro Gay-Idiots

[The Flying Dutchman]

From here (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/081221/world/netherlands_gay_christmas)

Amsterdam hosted a Christmas celebration for its gay community Sunday featuring a nativity tableau with a male Mary in drag ...
A male entertainer known as Wendy Mills posed as Mary in a blond wig and high-heeled black boots and holding a plastic doll. Another man played Joseph in black leather trunks and a silver shawl.

Why would they do such a thing

Organizers said the event was meant to raise Amsterdam's profile as a gay capital at a time when homosexuals feel threatened....
Frank van Dalen, chairman of Pro Gay, which organized the event, said gays were not satisfied with being tolerated, but wanted to be "socially accepted as an indivisible part of society."

Oh sure ! That's going to help :rolleyes:

[neutron star]

I'm going to start spitting in people's faces, then asking them to be my friends. Seems logical.

[Ethilrist]

Well, sure it'll help, because all gays are into leather and drag, so now the people of Amsterdam are more educated on the subject.

Or, you know, not.

[Olentzero]

I defy you to justify equating what they did with actually spitting in someone's face.

[Swallowed My Cellphone]

Oh, big whoop. I've seen just as offensive lampoonish stuff from the straight community.

[The Flying Dutchman]

Oh, big whoop. I've seen just as offensive lampoonish stuff from the straight community.

That's not the point. Is it going to help the gay community ?

[neutron star]

I defy you to justify equating what they did with actually spitting in someone's face.People get pretty worked up about their religious mythology.

ETA: and Jesus Christ, some people nitpick the dumbest shit.

[Equipoise]

Well, I thought it was funny. But then, I'm a pro-gay atheist so I'm probably not the best person to judge.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I think maybe the Christian offenderati need to lighten up.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

That's not the point. Is it going to help the gay community ?
Sure, why not? It advertises Amsterdam as a gay capital and facilitates a feeling of solidarity. The only people who are going to be offended are those who are unreachable homophobes anyway.

[The Flying Dutchman]

I think maybe the Christian offenderati need to lighten up.

Okay, bit will this event help ?

[Liberal]

Dumbasses. Fucking idiots.

[The Flying Dutchman]

Sure, why not? It advertises Amsterdam as a gay capital and facilitates a feeling of solidarity. The only people who are going to be offended are those who are unreachable homophobes anyway.

Well, I'm offended because all this is going to do is stir up shit and raise the level of homophobia.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Okay, bit will this event help ?
Like I said, I don't see why not. I don't think it will hurt. Does it affect your own opinion about gay rights? Do you think it proves anything about gay people? What moron would?

[Snarky_Kong]

Well, I'm offended because all this is going to do is stir up shit and raise the level of homophobia.

You're offended because people will be offended?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Well, I'm offended because all this is going to do is stir up shit and raise the level of homophobia.
I honestly don't think it creates more homophobes.

[The Flying Dutchman]

You're offended because people will be offended?

Look, gay rights is not the issue in Amsterdam. But gays want to be socially accepted without reservation. Good and all, but you don't get there by deliberately offending people.

[Jackmannii]

Good and all, but you don't get there by deliberately offending people.Well, it works for PETA.

Or not.

[Uvula Donor]

Well, I'm offended because all this is going to do is stir up shit and raise the level of homophobia.

Thanks for clearing that up. I thought maybe you were offended because it was making some aspect of your "Canadian culture" butthurt.

[Grumman]

If they wanted a gay Mary and Joseph, wouldn't it have made more sense for them both to be women, rather than both being men?

[Guinastasia]

If they wanted a gay Mary and Joseph, wouldn't it have made more sense for them both to be women, rather than both being men?

Mary and Josephine?

[Vinyl Turnip]

You're offended because people will be offended?

And people will be offended because it's offensive. I'm neither homophobe nor Christian, but I can see that it's offensive and meant to offend Christians. To pretend otherwise is silly.

I hope they get their fun from it, because it clearly won't benefit their ostensible purpose.

[El_Kabong]

Gotta say the whole thing seemed rather juvenile and poorly thought-out. If this wasn't just some exercise in flipping the bird toward people who get a bit queasy about gay males and drag/leather cultures, I'm afraid I don't get the point.

Now, if they had worked out some way to communicate the idea of, say, a gay Jesus, that might be worth discussing. This, not so much.

[Grumman]

Mary and Josephine?
Something like that. Just from a physiological viewpoint, if a father is not required because of divinely-inspired parthenogenesis, it doesn't matter if Mary is straight or gay. But assuming that Jesus wasn't an Alien-style chestburster, a male Mary doesn't really work.

[Bag of Mostly Water]

Obligatory Onion link (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28491).

[MOIDALIZE]

I just want to say that I am totally against gay idiots.

[Miller]

Only one group is mentioned as being upset: "Christians for Truth." Is this a particularly large or influential organization in Holland? Is it even a Dutch organization? I can see this being a really stupid idea in the US, where people take their religion a lot more seriously, but my understanding is that in most of Europe, people just don't get as upset about things like this. If no one of any note is getting angry about this in their home nation, I don't see any particular reason to call these people "idiots." I wouldn't be surprised to see some homophobe outfit over here (or up in Canada) pick this up and run with it, but I don't think it's fair to expect gays in Amsterdam to be concerned with how their actions play on the other side of the planet.

Something like that. Just from a physiological viewpoint, if a father is not required because of divinely-inspired parthenogenesis, it doesn't matter if Mary is straight or gay. But assuming that Jesus wasn't an Alien-style chestburster, a male Mary doesn't really work.

On the other hand, if you want to talk miracle births, you can't get much more miraculous than having the Holy Mother be a dude.

[The Flying Dutchman]

Obligatory Onion link (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28491).

Hmm.

I wondered why Californians, normally regarded as the avante garde of the left supported Proposition 8. I rest my case.

[elucidator]

There is no group or category of persons that does not contain some obnoxious ass-wipes. Now, get out there and shop, like the Good Lord intended!

[elucidator]

...I rest my case.

Oh, thank you!

[Miller]

I rest my case.

What "case?"

[5-HT]

And people will be offended because it's offensive. I'm neither homophobe nor Christian, but I can see that it's offensive and meant to offend Christians. To pretend otherwise is silly.

I hope they get their fun from it, because it clearly won't benefit their ostensible purpose.

Yeah, I'd have to agree with you there. I wouldn't say it negatively effects my view of gay people, since its pretty silly to have a general viewpoint on all gay people. It certainly earns these particular gay people a big :rolleyes: however.

[Reverse]

Alright, so what I gather from the article is that a bunch of gay people organized some sort of Christmas nativity event where the part of Mary was being played by a drag queen and Joseph wore a silver shawl, and passerbys were encouraged to take their photo with these guys. However, the silly person who wrote that article seems to have forgotten to include the horribly offensive thing that everyone is getting their panties in a twist about.

Edit: Oh, it's the leather trunks, I guess.

[Olentzero]

Well, I'm offended because all this is going to do is stir up shit and raise the level of homophobia.Among whom? Those already homophobic, or tolerance-minded Dutch? Is this event - staged in the courtyard of a nightclub in the gay district - going to convince tolerant heterosexuals to think "Gosh, those homosexuals are a danger to society! I'd never seen how much of a threat they are!"

And again, look at the location where it was held:the Pink Market... on a downtown street known for its gay nightlife and popular restaurants.Which do you think is going to offend homophobes more? The brief staging of a tableau on one day or a district where the gay lifestyle is openly lived and celebrated 365 days a year?

Honestly: save your condescending pity for the poor oppressed gays. They don't need you telling them what or what not to do in order to gain acceptance.

[The Flying Dutchman]

Honestly: save your condescending pity for the poor oppressed gays. They don't need you telling them what or what not to do in order to gain acceptance.

Fine, if that's the way you want it.

[5-HT]

Among whom? Those already homophobic, or tolerance-minded Dutch? Is this event - staged in the courtyard of a nightclub in the gay district - going to convince tolerant heterosexuals to think "Gosh, those homosexuals are a danger to society! I'd never seen how much of a threat they are!"

And again, look at the location where it was held:Which do you think is going to offend homophobes more? The brief staging of a tableau on one day or a district where the gay lifestyle is openly lived and celebrated 365 days a year?

Honestly: save your condescending pity for the poor oppressed gays. They don't need you telling them what or what not to do in order to gain acceptance.

I admit it, I missed the location when I first glanced at it. It still earns a rolleyes for the general lameness, it still seems like an attempt to say "OMG everyone look how edgy and cool we are". I wouldn't say its offensive though.

[Cat Fight]

But Jesus is still Caucasian, right? Right?

[Guinastasia]

Obligatory Onion link (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28491).

Hmm.

I wondered why Californians, normally regarded as the avante garde of the left supported Proposition 8. I rest my case.


Oh dear sweet gay Jesus. You're serious, right?

:rolleyes:

[panache45]

That kind of performance, even a lame one like that, has a long, long history in gay culture. It's part of the meaning of the word "gay" itself, in the sense of not-to-be-taken-seriously. It's what drag queens are all about. It's what dressing up for Halloween is all about. It's what gay pride parades are all about. It's even part of what BDSM is all about. It's rude and crude and in-your-face and frankly offensive, and it's a part of what we are.

So the question is: Why should I have to become just like you in order to secure my rights? Why should my outlandish behavior be a barrier to equal treatment? Why should we be required to buy our freedom by selling out our identity? There are people who are offended by some black people being "too black" and by some Jewish people being "too Jewish," and by some gay people being "too gay." But what's so wrong about celebrating the uniqueness of one's culture? This is one of the things gay people have always done, and if we stop doing, the bigots have won.

[Freudian Slit]

That kind of performance, even a lame one like that, has a long, long history in gay culture. It's part of the meaning of the word "gay" itself, in the sense of not-to-be-taken-seriously. It's what drag queens are all about. It's what dressing up for Halloween is all about. It's what gay pride parades are all about. It's even part of what BDSM is all about. It's rude and crude and in-your-face and frankly offensive, and it's a part of what we are.

That's my thought as well.

Would the performance cited in the OP be okay if the people involved were straight? It just seems unfair that gay people have to be held to this higher standard if they want people to take them seriously. Maybe some of them would rather just be themselves.

[Telemark]

As long as they wished everyone a "Merry Christmas" all is right in the world.

[levdrakon]

So basically, gays try to get married and are hit with "nuh-uh, not for you! You must be different!"

Then gays goof off and do something different it's, "you'll never get rights that way! Be more like us!"

Screw it. Gays are fucked. Might as well have fun while you're getting fucked.

[BrightNShiny]

The British TV shows I've watched make a lot of fun of religion, in ways that I don't think you could get away with in the US, without causing a firestorm of controversy. I always had the impression that the Dutch were equally laid back about this sort of thing, but maybe I'm wrong. Do the Dutch not make fun of religion?

[alexandra]

It's Amsterdam. Do they need to care about looking good to Christians?

[Merkwurdigliebe]

This is one of the things gay people have always done, and if we stop doing, the bigots have won.

Maybe insulting other people's beliefs and cultures isn't the best way to win people over? I'm also neither Christian nor homophobic, but I can tell you that this kind of stuff is doing gay people no favors.

There's nothing about being "too Jewish" that would require one to ridicule other people's religion. If being gay means mocking other's beliefs and traditions don't be surprised when people don't like it. You may be born gay, but you aren't born an asshole. Either you want to integrate with the status quo or you want to be respected as your own culture. Being an asshole doesn't help either of those things.

I think that there shouldn't be any restriction on gay rights in this country and look forward to the day when that is the case, but I also don't think that this kind of shit is a good idea either. I been on the other end of gay folks' ridicule for various reasons, and it isn't particularly it's just assholish. If being gay means being a disrespectful asshole then I have a problem with gays. Luckily it doesn't, and I know plenty of gay people who simply want to lead normal lives.

[Vox Imperatoris]

Exactly. The Jewish community wouldn't exactly have gotten far by constantly yelling to everyone about how much of a liar (or crazy, or exaggerated, or non-existent figure) Christ was, even if they wouldn't have a problem with it in a perfect world.

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

[Olentzero]

Fine, if that's the way you want it.It is. Thank you and happy holidays.

So the question is: Why should I have to become just like you in order to secure my rights? Why should my outlandish behavior be a barrier to equal treatment? Why should we be required to buy our freedom by selling out our identity?Hear, hear!

[Miller]

Maybe insulting other people's beliefs and cultures isn't the best way to win people over?

Does everything a gay person does need to be weighed in terms of wether it makes people more or less sympathetic towards gay rights?

I think that there shouldn't be any restriction on gay rights in this country and look forward to the day when that is the case, but I also don't think that this kind of shit is a good idea either.

Again, this didn't happen in this country. It happened in Holland, and it should probably be judged by the standards of that country. To what extent was this pageant preceived as insulting or demeaning by the Dutch? So far, there's only one agency making any noise over this, and we have no indication if they're mainstream Christian advocates, or a fringe group of nutters.

For that matter, it's worth pointing out that having Mary be a drag queen is not necessarily insulting. Within the gay community, drag is considered a form of respect. You don't have drag queens dressing up like Cher because they hate her, for example. There is a good chance that this was done as a deliberate "fuck you" to Christians, of course, but it could just as easily have been meant as good natured irreverence, or even an act of devotion in and of itself. I'd be interested to learn the religious leanings of the participants - if the people involved are, themselves, Christians, can this performance genuinely be called insulting to the Christian faith?

[5-HT]

You don't have drag queens dressing up like Cher because they hate her, for example.


yeah, well liking Cher isn't exactly helping things either! ;)

[gonzomax]

You want to win, ignore them. No reaction they will go away. They will jingle your prayer beads if you let them. Don't let them.

[Miller]

yeah, well liking Cher isn't exactly helping things either! ;)

I admit, if ever there's been a valid reason for legal discrimination against a minority, "Believe" is that reason.

[levdrakon]

Maybe insulting other people's beliefs and cultures isn't the best way to win people over? I'm also neither Christian nor homophobic, but I can tell you that this kind of stuff is doing gay people no favors.Well, in a way it's not "other people's beliefs and cultures." Gays are raised in the same religions and cultures as everyone else, and they kinda do have the right to make fun of their own religion and culture, if they want. Believe it or not, gays don't come from other planets.

[panache45]

. . . I know plenty of gay people who simply want to lead normal lives.

We all want to lead normal lives, but you don't get to define "normal" for us. Not if "normal" means lacking a sense of humor.

[Vox Imperatoris]

Well, in a way it's not "other people's beliefs and cultures." Gays are raised in the same religions and cultures as everyone else, and they kinda do have the right to make fun of their own religion and culture, if they want. Believe it or not, gays don't come from other planets.

No, you don't have any more right to make fun of your "own" culture than any other.

ETA: In a serious way, not in jest, obviously.

[Frylock]

It's rude and crude and in-your-face and frankly offensive, and it's a part of what we are.


Being rude, crude and frankly offensive is not part of who you qua gay are.

If you are fighting for the right to be rude, crude and offensive, you are not fighting for the right to be gay.

-FrL-

[Freudian Slit]

But why is it that everything gay people do or that a gay person does reflects upon them? If a bunch of straight people made fun of Christianity, would we be bemoaning heterosexual culture?

[panache45]

Being rude, crude and frankly offensive is not part of who you qua gay are.

If you are fighting for the right to be rude, crude and offensive, you are not fighting for the right to be gay.

-FrL-

Oh please, get a sense of humor already. Nobody takes the shit we do seriously, especially in a place like Amsterdam, where they've seen it all before and laughed along with it. And maybe some straight people need to loosen up a little and have some fun.

[Vox Imperatoris]

But why is it that everything gay people do or that a gay person does reflects upon them? If a bunch of straight people made fun of Christianity, would we be bemoaning heterosexual culture?

It would depend on whether they were united in a cause as heterosexuals, not just as people who don't like Christianity.

[Starving Artist]

Only one group is mentioned as being upset: "Christians for Truth."So what? It doesn't mean plenty of other people aren't put off.

It's long been my belief that the outrageous, in-your-face gay-rights parades in San Francisco circo 1980 did more to set back the issue of gay rights than any other thing (and coincidentally was responsible for much of the hatred gays suffered once AIDS reared its ugly head). They also created the impression of a specific type of a certain type of "gay lifestyle" that is continuing to cost gays voter support today that they would very much like to have shen it comes to issues such as gay marriage, etc.

You don't win friends, supporters and advocates among the oppostition by deliberately pissing people off. Look at how civil rights advocates acted in the sixties. They were well-dressed, polite, non-violent and ultimately symathetic. People came to realize that blacks were no different than anyone else, and began to change their perception accordingly. Many times around here I've seen it wished that people would just view gays as normal people who are just like everyone else, and behaving in deliberately outrageous and offensive ways is not the way to achieve that realization.

Personally, I think it's just a rebellious, feel-good gesture on the part of gays in order to publicly rub their opponent's faces in images and behavior they find disgusting, and it's stupid beyond measure.

The best way to achieve gay rights is to illustrate the basic humanity that they and we all share, and that aside from this one issue gays are no different than anyone else.

[levdrakon]

With all due respect, that's bullshit. Gays behaving is just another way to make us and our issues go away. Yeah, we know what the closet is. Works great if you're into ignoring us.

No more closets, thanks.

[ambushed]

Oh, heavens! Not on the street but rather in the private courtyard of a gay club some guys dress up in Christmas drag? What's the world coming to!

How dare they not show proper respect for a ridiculous mythology attached to a faith which oppressed them horribly for centuries! Have they no shame? No shame at all?

[Merkwurdigliebe]

With all due respect, that's bullshit. Gays behaving is just another way to make us and our issues go away. Yeah, we know what the closet is. Works great if you're into ignoring us.

No more closets, thanks.

I don't think I ever asked gays to "behave," whatever that means. I just ask that they don't be assholes and do insulting things. I don't care about gay pride events. That is all fine and good. I just feel that if you want to be respected you ought not go around disrespecting others. I can understand the desire to lash out at Christians and others who are responsible for oppressing gays. But I generally abide by the rule that you should respect others lives and beliefs. And I don't appreciate it when any particular group shows disrespect of others. I don't like it when athiests (like myself) ridicule Christians either. That's just the way I feel about things, and I don't think it's a bad thing.

[Freudian Slit]

I don't think this was an "activist" activity. It was just a bunch of people having fun, doing something funny. I'm not even sure how it's news. I'm sure I've seen way more offensive things than this.

[ambushed]

Dumbasses. Fucking idiots.In these days of uncertainty, complexity, and confusion, it's more valuable than ever to have a completely reliable bellwether such as Liberal to guide us. Yea, one must only turn to him and learn his views...

... and then do or think the exact opposite.


You are our inverted loadstar, Liberal, and I praise you for your constancy.

[panache45]

Look at how civil rights advocates acted in the sixties. They were well-dressed, polite, non-violent and ultimately symathetic.
I was around in the sixties. I don't know which sixties you're referring to . . . perhaps the 1860s?

Many times around here I've seen it wished that people would just view gays as normal people who are just like everyone else, and behaving in deliberately outrageous and offensive ways is not the way to achieve that realization.
Do you even know any gay people? Many of us are not "just like everyone else." And ya know what? Plenty of straight people aren't "just like everyone else" either.

[levdrakon]

No, you don't have any more right to make fun of your "own" culture than any other.Yes, I do. I was baptized and raised Catholic. I didn't come from some off-world colony. If I want to give my own faith some shit, it's my right as a baptized & raised Catholic. The Pope can give me a call if he wants. I'll gladly talk.

[Vox Imperatoris]

Yes, I do. I was baptized and raised Catholic. I didn't come from some off-world colony. If I want to give my own faith some shit, it's my right as a baptized & raised Catholic. The Pope can give me a call if he wants. I'll gladly talk.

Well, sure you do. You can also give all you want to the Jews, the Sunni Muslims, or the Wiccan community (provided you actually understand what you're mocking). Just don't be surprised when they get a little angry at you.

[Starving Artist]

I was around in the sixties. I don't know which sixties you're referring to . . . perhaps the 1860s?

1960s (http://www.mahablog.com/wp-content/uploads/correttaking.jpg)


Do you even know any gay people?Yep. Chauffered a couple of 'em around (and I do mean a couple; they live together) along with my sister and another friend from her office last weekend. I was pressed into service as the designated driver. They were cool guys. Raunchy (language) when drunk, but not in public. Slipped me $100 for my trouble, showed me around their house, invited me for breakfast the next day.

And this week they invited me to a New Year's Eve party at their house.

And I've known quite a few gays over the years. Worked with some, and some were friends of friends or family.

None, however, were beligerent about it.

Many of us are not "just like everyone else." And ya know what? Plenty of straight people aren't "just like everyone else" either. That's right. No one is like everyone else. That's why there are standards of behavior, so everyone can get along despite the fact that they're not like everyone else. It's a primary reason why I don't scream and yell and flip people off in traffic or when they're clogging aisles at the grocery store.

And if I thought it would benefit me in getting them to get the hell out of my way, I doubt that deciding to scream and yell and flip them off would avail me much sympathy or cooperation.

Which is why I don't do it no matter how justified I might feel.

[levdrakon]

Well, sure you do. You can also give all you want to the Jews, the Sunni Muslims, or the Wiccan community (provided you actually understand what you're mocking). Just don't be surprised when they get a little angry at you.I'm not Jewish or Muslim. I guess I'm a little Wiccan mostly because a close friend is Wiccan and kinda slathered it on me and I didn't resist.

I am Catholic. You can't take it away from me, nor tell me I can't question it or give it shit. "They" can be angry at me all they want, but I'm them. Gays can't let people call them "them." Gays are you, and you have to deal with those of us who are you.

[Miller]

So what? It doesn't mean plenty of other people aren't put off.

I didn't say they weren't. All I said was, we only have evidence for this one organization that's complained, and we have no idea exactly what this organization is or how many people belong to it. It could be that this has shocked and disturbed people throughout Holland and Northern Europe. Or it could be that the sum total of the upset is five little old ladies with a mimeograph machine in Dordrecht.

I've no doubt that, once the story gets circulated, it's going to piss of a whole lot of people in the US and Canada. But I'm not sure that a bunch of Dutch homos should be overly concerned with how their action play on a different continent.

It's long been my belief that the outrageous, in-your-face gay-rights parades in San Francisco circa 1980 did more to set back the issue of gay rights than any other thing (and coincidentally was responsible for much of the hatred gays suffered once AIDS reared its ugly head). They also created the impression of a specific type of a certain type of "gay lifestyle" that is continuing to cost gays voter support today that they would very much like to have when it comes to issues such as gay marriage, etc.

I'd say that the entrenched homophobia of the American public has actually done the most damage to gay rights. These are the people, after all, who attack us for not acting straight enough, and then when we try to do something mainstream, like get married, attack us for daring to pretend like we're straight. We can't win with these people, because they don't actually hate us for what we're doing. They hate us for what we are, and they don't care how we dress it up. So, we might as well do what we want, and worry more about attacking the source of that hatred, then trying to meet a standard of acceptable behavior that is going to constantly shift away from us the harder we try to achieve it.

You don't win friends, supporters and advocates among the oppostition by deliberately pissing people off.

Are you still talking about gay pride parades? Because the point of those is not to deliberately piss people off. That's simply an unavoidable side-effect of not being in the closet.

Look at how civil rights advocates acted in the sixties. They were well-dressed, polite, non-violent and ultimately symathetic. People came to realize that blacks were no different than anyone else, and began to change their perception accordingly. Many times around here I've seen it wished that people would just view gays as normal people who are just like everyone else, and behaving in deliberately outrageous and offensive ways is not the way to achieve that realization.

Yes, those Black Panthers were such nice, friendly, clean cut young men, weren't they?

Personally, I think it's just a rebellious, feel-good gesture on the part of gays in order to publicly rub their opponent's faces in images and behavior they find disgusting, and it's stupid beyond measure.

You know, during a gay pride parade, how straight people feel is just about the last thing on the mind of the people participating. Amazing as it might seem, gay pride parades are not, in fact, about straight people.

The best way to achieve gay rights is to illustrate the basic humanity that they and we all share, and that aside from this one issue gays are no different than anyone else.

I'll be sure to mention your excellent advice at the next Global Queer Conspiracy meeting.

[Vox Imperatoris]

Miller, name one good thing the Black Panthers did for civil rights.

It seems to me that all they did was perpetuate stereotypes by "proving the racists right". Sound familiar?

[Miller]

Miller, name one good thing the Black Panthers did for civil rights.

It seems to me that all they did was perpetuate stereotypes by "proving the racists right". Sound familiar?

Boy, did you ever miss the point.

[ignoramus]

"By portraying Joseph and Mary as homosexuals, a twisted human fantasy is being added to the history of the Bible," Christians for Truth said in a statement ahead of the event.
Oh the irony...

[Sublight]

Just how many of the offended here were demanding that that Danish cartoonist a few years back apologize for his hurtful and insulting remarks toward Islam?

[BrightNShiny]

Let's see...

In the fifties, when gays were acting prim and proper and hiding everything they do, if they got discovered, they'd been thrown in jail or a mental institution. Today, when gays are having their pride parades and putting up nativity scenes, they don't have to worry about being locked up.

Today, in the institution where gays have to act all prim and proper--the military, gays have to constantly worry about losing their jobs. But all those civilians running around in the San Francisco pride parade don't have to worry about losing their jobs because of California's civil rights protection for sexual orientation.

If I was a correlation=causation kind of guy prone to simplistic narratives, I'd say the evidence is clear. Party hard, gay people!

[Olentzero]

Party hard, gay people!And let me know where it is. I haven't been to a good party in ages.

[yojimbo]

If I was gay I wouldn't be trying to get respect. I'd be fucking angry and disapointed with a lot of the world. You want gay people to show respect as it doesn't help their cause to do something like this in a private club? Fuck that! They are in a lose/lose situation almost all the time. Your argument seems a lot like you just telling them to sit down and shut up and keep their ways to themsleves.

That hasn't helped them in the past.

Gay people are not given the same rights as straight people in a lot of the western world. Respect would be the last thing I'd be thinking off.

[Mikkel]

They were cool guys. Raunchy (language) when drunk, but not in public.

Wasn't this in private? I'll admit that a gay nightclub IS a public place, but how many straight devout Christians would see anything to disturb them?

[yojimbo]

Wasn't this in private? I'll admit that a gay nightclub IS a public place, but how many straight devout Christians would see anything to disturb them?Yeah you wouldn't want to do or say anything in public that pisses of or disturbs Christians Speaking on Monday, Pope Benedict said that saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behaviour was as important as protecting the environment.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7797269.stm

Respect? Yeah, right.

[Olentzero]

And I've known quite a few gays over the years. Worked with some, and some were friends of friends or family.So... some of your best friends are gay?

I have, in my hand, a list of the non-snarky opponents of this gay-themed Nativity scene in Amsterdam:

The Flying Dutchman
neutron star
ethilrist
Vinyl Turnip
Merkwurdigliebe
Vox Imperatoris
Starving Artist

Two questions for you all:

Are you now, or have you ever been, gay?
Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of a gay rights organization?

If the answer to either the second question, or both questions, is 'no' - where do you get the right to criticize what gays and lesbians, or any oppressed group for that matter, do? If you're not out there alongside them in support of their fight for acceptance, you're armchair quarterbacking at best.

[Mikkel]

Yeah you wouldn't want to do or say anything in public that pisses of or disturbs Christians
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7797269.stm

Respect? Yeah, right.

Well, I wouldn't deliberately piss off anybody because of their sexual orientation or faith.
Still, this happened in a place where it probably didn't piss off anybody, UNLESS they get angry just by the knowledge that it's happening. Nobody would just pass by and see.

[Frylock]

Oh please, get a sense of humor already. Nobody takes the shit we do seriously, especially in a place like Amsterdam, where they've seen it all before and laughed along with it. And maybe some straight people need to loosen up a little and have some fun.

I don't understand what my having a sense of humor or not has to do with this. I'm not talking about whether the nativity scene thing is funny or not. I'm talking about your statement that "being rude, crude and frankly offensive is part of who we are." Are you saying that was just a joke?

-FrL-

[Olentzero]

Not to speak for panache, but when some people think your sexual preference is frankly offensive, it becomes part of who you are whether you like it or not.

[Revenant Threshold]

Are you now, or have you ever been, gay?
Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of a gay rights organization?

If the answer to either the second question, or both questions, is 'no' - where do you get the right to criticize what gays and lesbians, or any oppressed group for that matter, do? If you're not out there alongside them in support of their fight for acceptance, you're armchair quarterbacking at best. This argument is bollocks. By the same logic, me not being a Neo-Nazi means I have no right to criticize them, which I hope is sufficiently stupid enough to make my point. The only thing that gives the "right" to criticize what other people do is the ability to do so. You aren't obliged to accept that criticism as accurate, but by no means does not being part of a group mean you have no right to give an opinion on it. Besides, by that logic, if you yourself are gay or part of a gay rights organisation, then you are not part of the group of non-gay or non-gay-rights-organisation-members, and therefore have no right to criticize those people. If you aren't, then again you have no right to your criticism or otherwise. IOW, your argument means you have no right to voice your argument.

[Boyo Jim]

It makes total sense to me that Mary and Joseph were gay.

Mary was of course the most famous virgin in history. One possible reason... she had no interest in men.

One would think Joseph would have some MAJOR issues about Mary's ongoing virginity. But apparently not. I don't think I missed a chapter in the bible about the two blue balls of Bethlehem. So maybe Joseph had other rows to hoe, as it were.

[Grumman]

One would think Joseph would have some MAJOR issues about Mary's ongoing virginity. But apparently not.
Joseph: the original "Nice Guy"?

[Freudian Slit]

Joseph: the original "Nice Guy"?

"Joseph, I've been chosen to bear a new incarnation of the Lord!"
"But he doesn't RESPECT you like I do!"

[Shodan]

Yes, those Black Panthers were such nice, friendly, clean cut young men, weren't they?Not really, but these folks (http://www.archives.state.al.us/teacher/rights/lesson1/doc7.html) were.

And they managed to desegregate the buses just fine. How's that gay marriage thing working out for y'all so far?

Regards,
Shodan

[levdrakon]

And they managed to desegregate the buses just fine. How's that gay marriage thing working out for y'all so far?

Regards,
ShodanGosh good golly there Batman, gay marriage in the Netherlands is doing just fine. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_Netherlands)

[Shodan]

Gosh good golly there Batman, gay marriage in the Netherlands is doing just fine. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_Netherlands)That's nice. How is it doing in California?

[Olentzero]

This argument is bollocks. By the same logic, me not being a Neo-Nazi means I have no right to criticize them, which I hope is sufficiently stupid enough to make my point.There's a world of difference between criticizing something and opposing something. I don't look at neo-Nazis and think "Y'know, if they weren't so demonstrative about their anti-Semitism they'd be all right by me". Same thing applies here - nobody in this thread is opposing gay rights, they're just criticizing: "They shouldn't stage drag Nativity scenes if they want other people to think they're OK". The problem is that this criticism is being raised from completely outside the gay rights movement by people who, I presume, aren't even gay. Do you like being told how to do your job by someone who clearly hasn't the first clue about it?

Notice, also, how Dutchman conveniently shields himself from getting personally called out by passing the buck. He himself isn't anti-gay, oh no, he's just worried about how other people might react to it. Even though it's pretty clear he doesn't approve of it himself.

[Olentzero]

That's nice. How is [gay marriage] doing in California?Lousy, but that's because the leading gay rights organizations did exactly what some have suggested doing in here - sit down, shut up, and don't make waves.

[levdrakon]

That's nice. How is it doing in California?Oh, it kinda sucks. But then again, our governor is an Austrian body-builder who can kick your governor's ass, so you never know how it's going to go.

You don't really think gay pride parades led to the passage of prop 8 do you? I could just as easily argue gay pride parades led to its passing by a smaller margin.

[alexandra]

That's nice. How is it doing in California?

Not Dutch people's responsibility or problem, something which no-one in this thread has really addressed.

[The Flying Dutchman]

Notice, also, how Dutchman conveniently shields himself from getting personally called out by passing the buck. He himself isn't anti-gay, oh no, he's just worried about how other people might react to it. Even though it's pretty clear he doesn't approve of it himself.

Sigh.

I acceded to your wish to refrain from advocating on this issue.

Then you reply with an insincere Christmas greeting, all the more aggregious as a result what was discussed in the Christmas Offended thread that we both participated in.

But that's not enough for you. Now you have to insinuate I'm a homophobe.

Why did you feel the need to pick on me after I acceded to you.

Its the same question I have to ask Pro Gay in the Netherlands. They have attained every possible right, they've won the battle and yet that is not enough. They even secured 15,000 euro from the Amsterdam tax payer to hold this gay event and that is not enough. They just have to insult some of the people who payed for this event.

Guys like you don't want to win. Guys like you relish being victims with an opposition to fight with. You know, there are some people you just can not please.

[Miller]

Not really, but these folks were.

And they managed to desegregate the buses just fine.

And it only took them just under a century to do it, too!

How's that gay marriage thing working out for y'all so far?

Well, we seem to making progress a lot faster than those nice, clean-cut gentlemen in the black civil rights movement did.

[Terrifel]

Man, those Dutch gays better get their act together and learn how to behave, or they'll never achieve the same freedom and recognition that California offers.

"We are deeply offended at the representation of the Virgin Mary as an adult homosexual man, rather than the beloved image of a prepubescent rape victim as depicted in Christmas pageants everywhere."

Really, when you get right down to it, how is an eight-year-old girl wearing a bathrobe any more intrinsically respectful to Christianity than a gay man in a wig? If someone had tried to put on a traditional Nativity play in 10th century Europe, with little kids representing Joseph and Mary and a toy doll standing in for the Christ Child, they probably would have been burned at the stake so fast that the kindling would have ignited from sheer air friction.

[The Flying Dutchman]

And it only took them just under a century to do it, too!

Try about a year.

The campaign was initiated by Rosa Parks refusal to move in Decenber 1955, resulting in a supreme court decision banning segregation on buses one year later. Fast work I'd say.

I'd shudder to think what would have happened to the civil rights movement if it was led by Jeremiah Wright.

[BrightNShiny]

Try about a year.

The campaign was initiated by Rosa Parks refusal to move in Decenber 1955, resulting in a supreme court decision banning segregation on buses one year later. Fast work I'd say.

I'd shudder to think what would have happened to the civil rights movement if it was led by Jeremiah Wright.

You are only looking at one aspect of the civil rights movement. The movement actually starts right after the end of the civil war and continues right up to and far past Rosa Parks. The NAACP, for example, was formed in 1909, and it spent the ensuing years engaging in similar types of activities to the SCLC (which I think formed around the bus boycott you are referring to). Civil rights for African Americans was a long, slow, drawn out process.

Interestingly, though, that raises the question of why, when people had been fighting for so long, did civil rights start moving astonishingly quickly during the 50s and 60s? One theory I favor is that rapid societal change happens when there is a convergence of societal interests. In the 40s and 50s, you have dramatic shifts in labor requirements, which provided economic incentives to integrate. There's also the effects of WWII and the horrors of the Holocaust, which created a big push internationally for the protection of human rights generally. I'd also say that the Indian independence movement, which was widely publicized in the West, contributed to changing people's attitudes towards race relations. And finally, you have the Cold War, which provided a big incentive on the Federal level for integration. The US was trying to gain 3rd-world allies, and it had to deal with both the Soviets and the Non-Aligned movement who were pointing at segregation as a reason to not ally with the US. If you look at the Federal court case briefs submitted by the Federal government during this period, you find a lot of arguments centering around these lines. You should check out the book Cold War Civil Rights (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/6924.html) for a further discussion of this aspect.

Boiling civil rights movements down to simplistic narratives is pretty futile.

[Revenant Threshold]

There's a world of difference between criticizing something and opposing something. I don't look at neo-Nazis and think "Y'know, if they weren't so demonstrative about their anti-Semitism they'd be all right by me". Same thing applies here - nobody in this thread is opposing gay rights, they're just criticizing: "They shouldn't stage drag Nativity scenes if they want other people to think they're OK". The problem is that this criticism is being raised from completely outside the gay rights movement by people who, I presume, aren't even gay. Do you like being told how to do your job by someone who clearly hasn't the first clue about it? But they do have the first clue about it, because any kind of political movement has two interactive parts; the organisation itself, and everyone else. The people who are the target of attempts to convince. And it just makes sense to take the advice of the people who you're trying to convince if you're trying to convince them. Saying that they have no right to criticize because they're not involved is like saying an audience has no right to criticize a play they're watching. The whole point of the play is to try and get the audience to like it, to sympathise, to evoke some particular reaction. So it's quite reasonable to see what kind of response people give to a movement or event, because it is precisely that response that is important.

Beyond even that, when we're talking the gay rights movement, "gay" is just one word within the phrase. People may not be gay themselves, may not be experts on that subject, but may very well have experience or advice to offer on the subject of gaining rights, or of organising a successful movement or event. Take Starving Artist upthread; his criticism was based around how a movement in general should work if it wants to be effective. TFD's initial OP was likewise based on the effects he thought this particular event we have. Notice, also, how Dutchman conveniently shields himself from getting personally called out by passing the buck. He himself isn't anti-gay, oh no, he's just worried about how other people might react to it. Even though it's pretty clear he doesn't approve of it himself. Somewhat veiled suggestions, I would suggest also, are probably not the most effective way of convincing someone towards your viewpoint.

[clairobscur]

Oh dear sweet gay Jesus. You're serious, right?

:rolleyes:


Actually, I think that this onion piece comes so close to the truth that one could comment seriously on it.


A typical TV broadcast of a gay pride certainly isn't going to result in people realizing their preconceived opinions about gays were misguided or in changing their views about a gay marriage being a laughable parody.

[Freudian Slit]

Actually, I think that this onion piece comes so close to the truth that one could comment seriously on it.


A typical TV broadcast of a gay pride certainly isn't going to result in people realizing their preconceived opinions about gays were misguided or in changing their views about a gay marriage being a laughable parody.

Yeah, but if someone is willing to tolerate gay people only if they're quiet and nonthreatening, how open minded are they really being?

[clairobscur]

The problem is that this criticism is being raised from completely outside the gay rights movement by people who, I presume, aren't even gay. Do you like being told how to do your job by someone who clearly hasn't the first clue about it?



Yesterday, a pollster came knocking on my door and asked me what I thought about some ads, despite me not having the first clue about advertising as a job.


Presumably, those people are trying to convince non-gays. So, it seems to me that how non-gays perceive the PR operation has some relevance.

[The Flying Dutchman]

Man, those Dutch gays better get their act together and learn how to behave, or they'll never achieve the same freedom and recognition that California offers.

You may have a point.

According to this report the organizer (http://www.odt.co.nz/news/world/37053/christian-groups-slam-gay-nativity-with-mary-drag") of the event had this to say

Van Dalen said gays were feeling increasingly uncomfortable in public in recent years, and that they perceived Dutch society as more assertive about "classical values."

[levdrakon]

Yesterday, a pollster came knocking on my door and asked me what I thought about some ads, despite me not having the first clue about advertising as a job.


Presumably, those people are trying to convince non-gays. So, it seems to me that how non-gays perceive the PR operation has some relevance.Heh, heh. That reminds of something that happened to me the other day. This politician came to my house and asked me how much I want to spend on NASA. Then he asked me how much I'd like to spend on Iraq. It was great! Then we talked about whether we should spend a trillion bailing out big business. That was Awesome! I couldn't believe how important my views were!

Then I woke up.

[clairobscur]

Then I woke up.



Woke up in a world where the opinion of 2% of the population who has no clue about NASA, Iraq, big business or gays can change drastically the policies regarding these issues in your country.

[levdrakon]

Woke up in a world where the opinion of 2% of the population who has no clue about NASA, Iraq, big business or gays can change drastically the policies regarding these issues in your country.Basically, I'd like to see civil rights elevated to the level of "don't let the stupid people decide."

[Starving Artist]

Interestingly, though, that raises the question of why, when people had been fighting for so long, did civil rights start moving astonishingly quickly during the 50s and 60s?Television.

Frankly, most people in this country pre-1964 didn't give blacks much thought. They were little seen, and their plight, even if it came to mind, seemed abstract and unchangeable. Television brought home their dignity and humanity (in large part because of the peaceful, dignified and non-violent way they comported themselves, even in the face of violence themselves) and made everyone aware for the first time just how badly blacks were being treated in this country and what they were having to endure in their efforts to correct it.

Thus millions and millions of Americans who theretofore had been ignorant of how blacks were having to live and how heavily it weighed upon them, became sypathetic to their plight and began to support civil rights, both legislatively and societally.

And RT, thanks for the accurate reading of my intent. :)

[clairobscur]

Basically, I'd like to see civil rights elevated to the level of "don't let the stupid people decide."


And to achieve this goal, you'll still have to convince people, however stupid, that it's a civil right issue or to pray for a benevolent dictator.

[BrightNShiny]

Television.

Television certainly was a contributing factor, but it's not the sole factor here. The statistics I've seen indicate that by 1954 (which is the year of the landmark desegregation ruling), only around 30% of the population had a television set. You can keep peddling these simplistic narratives, but there's no particular reason to believe them.

[Vox Imperatoris]

Yeah, but if someone is willing to tolerate gay people only if they're quiet and nonthreatening, how open minded are they really being?

I wouldn't approve of straight people acting like this either, and if that's what being "open-minded" means, no thanks.

[levdrakon]

I wouldn't approve of straight people acting like this either, and if that's what being "open-minded" means, no thanks.Like Mardi Gras or something? I'm pretty sure the straight revelers would tell you to fuck yourself, and you'd have no choice but to self-fuck.

[Vox Imperatoris]

Like Mardi Gras or something? I'm pretty sure the straight revelers would tell you to fuck yourself, and you'd have no choice but to self-fuck.

I hate Mardi Gras, the mindset behind Mardi Gras, and the original purpose of Mardi Gras. (Ooh, let's sin all we can before we have to give stuff up for Lent!)

[Starving Artist]

Television certainly was a contributing factor, but it's not the sole factor here. Did I say it was the sole factor?

The statistics I've seen indicate that by 1954 (which is the year of the landmark desegregation ruling), only around 30% of the population had a television set.So, the battle was over by 1954?

And besides, 30% of the population having access to certain information can have a huge ripple effect. Look at the influence Playboy had on society in its early days and it was in nowhere near 30% of American homes.

You can keep peddling these simplistic narratives, but there's no particular reason to believe them. You asked why the civil rights movement took off in the fifties and sixties. I submitted my take on it, a take which has also been used to describe the sudden popularity and widespread embracing of rock music, the British Invasion, Carnaby Street fashion and its morphing into hippie modes of dress, and hippiedom itself. Television is also what brought Vietnam and civil rights marches into the homes and living rooms of everyday Americans across the country.

In no previous generation had there been such a widespread and instantaneous cohesiveness and acceptance of experience among such large segments of the population.

Prior to that time, styles, fads and issues moved slowly across the country, often taking three years for styles and attitudes to move from, say, the west coast to middle America, and even then they often arrived in a watered down or altered state.

So, when you get huge numbers of the population adopting certain views and attitudes all at once, major change can happen quite quickly.

Sorry, but I'm really not able to complex it up for you much more than that.

[frankzafka]

we had an inkling you were sick. now we're sure. and you all wonder why prop 8 passed.

[Starving Artist]

Yeah, but if someone is willing to tolerate gay people only if they're quiet and nonthreatening, how open minded are they really being?It's not that gay people should be quiet and non-threatening; it's that they shouldn't be loud, obnoxious and deliberately threatening (if they want votes, acceptance and to be treated the same as everyone else by the populace at large, that is).

When you go shopping or out to a movie, could your behavior more likely be described as civil, polite and respectful of others...or quiet and non-threatening?

There's a difference between behaving civilly and behaving meekly.

[Vox Imperatoris]

we had an inkling you were sick. now we're sure. and you all wonder why prop 8 passed.

Why does someone like you always have to come in after people make perfectly reasonable conservative arguments?

[BrightNShiny]

Did I say it was the sole factor?

There's nothing in your post to indicate you thought it was an additional factor. Your flat statement reads to me like you thought it was the major factor. If you didn't, then I appreciate the clarification.

So, the battle was over by 1954?

I, however, in my first post clearly indicated that the civil rights movement extended well past the bus boycott which occurs slightly after this time.

[Starving Artist]

Why does someone like you always have to come in after people make perfectly reasonable conservative arguments?

It's the bell curve effect. He's sort of (but not quite) our version of what Der Drihs is to the left.

[Starving Artist]

There's nothing in your post to indicate you thought it was an additional factor. Your flat statement reads to me like you thought it was the major factor. If you didn't, then I appreciate the clarification.I do think it was a (or maybe even the) major factor in the civil rights movement taking off like it did.

That's not to say that there weren't important events or movements preceeding it.

[Miller]

It's not that gay people should be quiet and non-threatening; it's that they shouldn't be loud, obnoxious and deliberately threatening (if they want votes, acceptance and to be treated the same as everyone else by the populace at large, that is).

What the fuck? Dude, read your post again. You contradict yourself completely twice in one sentence. That's got to be a record, even for you.

When you go shopping or out to a movie, could your behavior more likely be described as civil, polite and respectful of others...or quiet and non-threatening?

There's a difference between behaving civilly and behaving meekly.

Sure, and there's a difference in my behavior when I'm at Safeway then when I'm out at a club. You seem to be arguing that, if gays aren't using "Safeway" behavior under all circumstances, then they're never going to get their rights, and you're using examples of gays acting "outrageously" in contexts that are meant only for the consumption of other gays to prove your point. If we are never, under any circumstances, allowed to do anything that would upset straight people, why the fuck are we fighting for our rights in the first place? We might as well give up and climb back into our closets.

[matt_mcl]

Just how many of the offended here were demanding that that Danish cartoonist a few years back apologize for his hurtful and insulting remarks toward Islam?

Quoted for truth. For heaven's sake, people, afaict this wasn't even meant as out-and-out provocation, just the campy union of two traditions (drag and nativity scenes).

I really can't see a little drag nativity scene as being as... intense... as drawing Muhammad with a bomb in his turban, and it certainly isn't as intense as asserting in all seriousness that homosexuality and transgender are as bad as the destruction of the rainforest (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7797269.stm).

ETA:

Sure, and there's a difference in my behavior when I'm at Safeway then when I'm out at a club. You seem to be arguing that, if gays aren't using "Safeway" behavior under all circumstances, then they're never going to get their rights, and you're using examples of gays acting "outrageously" in contexts that are meant only for the consumption of other gays to prove your point. If we are never, under any circumstances, allowed to do anything that would upset straight people, why the fuck are we fighting for our rights in the first place? We might as well give up and climb back into our closets.

Also QFT.

[Olentzero]

All right, to set the record straight: I am not accusing Dutchman of homophobia. When I said "He doesn't approve of it" I was referring specifically to the Nativity scene and not the gay rights movement as a whole. The following quotes are the ones on which I base my assertion of passing the buck:Why would they do such a thing... Oh sure ! That's going to help :rolleyes:Well, I'm offended because all this is going to do is stir up shit and raise the level of homophobia.Now to a separate point:And it just makes sense to take the advice of the people who you're trying to convince if you're trying to convince them.The same people who, to one degree or another, harbor backwards, uninformed, or bigoted ideas about the segment of the population in question? Why should the gay rights movement take advice from someone like Jesse Helms, or Pat Robertson, or Bill O'Reilly?

[Starving Artist]

Sure, and there's a difference in my behavior when I'm at Safeway then when I'm out at a club. You seem to be arguing that, if gays aren't using "Safeway" behavior under all circumstances, then they're never going to get their rights...No, I'm saying that it would behoove gays to engage in 'club' behavior when they're in a club, and 'Safeway' behavior when out in public.

This is just basic stuff. There are millions of people in this country, teenagers and adults, doing things in the back seat of their cars or in the privacy of their bedrooms, that they would never dream of doing in public. Are they being deprived of their right to be who they are?

...and you're using examples of gays acting "outrageously" in contexts that are meant only for the consumption of other gays to prove your point. I'm using the context of public marches and demonstrations that have been deliberately contrived to be as offensive and in-your-face as possible to the public at large.

I know that I certainly would not be allowed to pick up a woman at a bar, strip both of us naked, and go to work on her with Astroglide, a butt plug and an 18" penile extension on a public sidewalk or city park, and then when the cops come, claim "Hey, I do this in sex clubs, why can't I do it here? You're depriving me of my right to be what I am!"

Furthermore, anyone put off by and/or made angry by my flaunting what they consider to be obscene behavior, would be perfectly within their rights to do so. They have a right to their own values just like I do, and I invaded their (the public's) space; they didn't invade mine.

If we are never, under any circumstances, allowed to do anything that would upset straight people, why the fuck are we fighting for our rights in the first place?Well, I don't know.

I also don't know why you're asking me because that's not what I've suggested.

Look, let's face it. Some people are gonna be upset merely because you and another guy are a couple out in public. That's their problem. It's also a problem that is lessening more and more as time goes by.

But if you want to behave outrageously in a public venue and make a spectacle of yourself and publically rub peoples' noses in behavior that you already know they are gonna find disgusting, you are only gonna create determined enemies who have become energized to fight you tooth and nail.

You may choose to believe that these people were assholes already or they wouldn't think that way, but you would be wrong. People need time to come to terms with changes in societal behavior that they've always viewed for whatever reason to be wrong. There's a sort of sliding scale in terms of peoples' progression on issues such as this, with zero equating to total and complete opposition that will never change and ten equals complete and wholehearted acceptance, and people move back and for depending on a varity of factors, but mostly with time and societal support, they more away from zero and toward ten. What you are gonna do by engaging in outrageous public behavior, even if it's intended only for the gay community, is to piss off and alienate many of the threes, fours, fives, sixes and sevens, and either delay their progress up the scale or send them back the other way.

And so you've alienated or pissed off a good many people who weren't assholes to begin with and who may very well have been moving the way you wanted them to on gay rights, but now they either aren't so sure or they have become totally turned off to the idea and become a strident, determined opponent.

Now, this helps you how?

Just how many of the offended here were demanding that that Danish cartoonist a few years back apologize for his hurtful and insulting remarks toward Islam?Not me.

But then, there was no reason to because they're not the same thing. You guys are struggling for certain rights, in terms both legal and societal, and basically, whether you want to admit it or not, you want acceptance. It's the key to everything else you want and frankly, without it you are very unlikely to get where you're wanting to go.

The Muslim cartoons on the other hand, were intended to lampoon and satirize certain aspects of the Muslim faith. And they were most certainly not intended to further the cause of Islam in the Netherlands.

And you saw the reaction they created among those who were offended by them.

So why doesn't this tell you that getting in someone's face and deliberately offending them is not the way to get them to vote for your rights?

[Olentzero]

Why does someone like you always have to come in after people make perfectly reasonable conservative arguments?Just because your arguments appear reasonable by comparison doesn't mean they actually are.

[Olentzero]

No, I'm saying that it would behoove gays to engage in 'club' behavior when they're in a club, and 'Safeway' behavior when out in public.You, uh... did read the article (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/081221/world/netherlands_gay_christmas), right? Especially the part where they said the Nativity scene was enactedoff the street, in the courtyard of a nightclubOr was that still too out in the open for you? Should they just be right... oh, back there, in the dark corner? Still too out in the open? Maybe we could just close that door there - ooh, we can't risk anyone wandering in by accident! Let's just lock that up tight then... maybe hang up this sign on the door so people won't think it's open.

My eyesight's a little bad, though... could you tell me if that last letter is a 'd' or a 't'? There's a good fellow.

[Starving Artist]

You, uh... did read the article (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/081221/world/netherlands_gay_christmas), right? I read the OP, wihch stated the event was held by the city of Amsterdam, in Amsterdam, with the intent of promoting Amsterdam as a haven of gay rights and acceptance.

Sounds like a public forum to me.

My eyesight's a little bad, though... could you tell me if that last letter is a 'd' or a 't'?No, I couldn't. I see lots of last letters. Do you mean one at the end of a word, the end of a sentence, or the end of a paragraph...and if so, which letter, word or paragraph?

Putz! :D

[Heffalump and Roo]

If we are never, under any circumstances, allowed to do anything that would upset straight people, why the fuck are we fighting for our rights in the first place? We might as well give up and climb back into our closets.
I don't get what this means. Are you trying to upset straight people? For what purpose?

Did you mean not upset any straight person? Because I don't think that's the standard. And I doubt you do either.

Or was that still too out in the open for you? Should they just be right... oh, back there, in the dark corner? Still too out in the open? Maybe we could just close that door there - ooh, we can't risk anyone wandering in by accident! Let's just lock that up tight then... maybe hang up this sign on the door so people won't think it's open.
But this was done by the city.
Amsterdam hosted a Christmas celebration for its gay community Sunday . . .

Christians for Truth, an independent religious group, had asked the city council to cancel the "Pink Christmas," event, saying it made a mockery of Christian tenets. The city did not comment.
bold added

When the city hosts an event, it's still a public event even if it's held indoors.

On preview: Beat by Starving Artist but I'll leave it anyway.

[Miller]

No, I'm saying that it would behoove gays to engage in 'club' behavior when they're in a club, and 'Safeway' behavior when out in public.

Sure. What you have yet to do is provide an example of gays exhibiting club behavior in a Safeway environment.

I'm using the context of public marches and demonstrations that have been deliberately contrived to be as offensive and in-your-face as possible to the public at large.

Except that that's not the motivation behind gay pride parades. Gay pride parades are not about the straight community. They are not created with the motivation of provoking any particular reaction from the straight community at all. They are created by gay people, for other gay people. How the straight community feels about it is, 99% of the time, not a consideration.

I know that I certainly would not be allowed to pick up a woman at a bar, strip both of us naked, and go to work on her with Astroglide, a butt plug and an 18" penile extension on a public sidewalk or city park, and then when the cops come, claim "Hey, I do this in sex clubs, why can't I do it here? You're depriving me of my right to be what I am!"

I'm fairly certain that there are no mainstream gay rights organizations that are demanding the freedom to perform explicit sex acts in public as part of the gay rights platform. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be happy to see it.

But if you want to behave outrageously in a public venue and make a spectacle of yourself and publically rub peoples' noses in behavior that you already know they are gonna find disgusting, you are only gonna create determined enemies who have become energized to fight you tooth and nail.

But what, in your view, is the cutoff for what sort of "outrageous" public behavior is acceptable? You've used the example of explicit sex acts - but no one is arguing that that should be acceptable behavior. The example in the OP didn't include any sort of sex acts at all - it was merely irreverent towards religion, in a country that is already overwhelmingly secular, so the potential for offense is already reduced before you factor in the fact that the performance took place on the property of a gay nightclub, in an area of a town well known as being a gay neighborhood. So far, your argument is that gays shouldn't be supporting things that gays are already not supporting. Which is to say, your argument is non-existent.

[Olentzero]

I read the OP, wihch stated the event was held by the city of Amsterdam, in Amsterdam, with the intent of promoting Amsterdam as a haven of gay rights and acceptance.

Sounds like a public forum to me.And the City of Amsterdam clearly had no problem with what they were doing, else they wouldn't have sponsored it.No, I couldn't. I see lots of last letters. Do you mean one at the end of a word, the end of a sentence, or the end of a paragraph...and if so, which letter, word or paragraph?

Putz! :DI hate explaining jokes, farkakte schmuck. Keep trying, you might actually get it sooner or later.

[Miller]

I don't get what this means. Are you trying to upset straight people? For what purpose?

Did you mean not upset any straight person? Because I don't think that's the standard. And I doubt you do either.

No, I'm not trying to upset straight people. What I'm saying is that expecting me to live my life while avoiding anything that might upset straight people under any circumstance is an unfair standard. I mean, Jesus, people keep saying, "Don't do that, you'll just alienate straight people." "If you want your rights, don't act weird." If the only goal of the gay rights movement was avoiding any sort of oppression, the easiest way to do that would be to stop being openly gay. If gays were invisible again, there would be no anti-gay prejudice, because nobody could see us to oppress us, right?

Except that's not what we want. What we want is to get people to accept that what we are is okay. The point of the gay rights movement is not to change ourselves until we're acceptable to mainstream America. The point is to change mainstream American until it accepts us. If the sight of a dude in gold lame biker shorts and feather boa is so traumatic to heterosexual sensibilities that it sets the gay rights movement back twenty years, then we're just going to have to work on this for another two decades.

[Heffalump and Roo]

If the sight of a dude in gold lame biker shorts and feather boa is so traumatic to heterosexual sensibilities that it sets the gay rights movement back twenty years, then we're just going to have to work on this for another two decades.
But this is a far cry from the example in the OP where it's done to be mocking, not to be expressing individuality.

Are you equating those two situations?

[The Flying Dutchman]

You, uh... did read the article, right? Especially the part where they said the Nativity scene was enacted

off the street, in the courtyard of a nightclub

Or was that still too out in the open for you?

Given that you accept the venue is pertinent , You should realize that Safeway is off the street and like Safeway, The Pink Market sells goods to the public .

This was no in house event. This particular event even got a 15,000 euro grant from the city for the benefit of all Amsterdamers.

Which has me thinking.



What would the ACLU have to say if this nativity scene was paid for and shown in a town hall square in America.

[BrightNShiny]

What would the ACLU have to say if this nativity scene was paid for and shown in a town hall square in America.

The ACLU would request the town to also allow other denominations, religions and non-religions to display as well.

[levdrakon]

But this is a far cry from the example in the OP where it's done to be mocking, not to be expressing individuality.

Are you equating those two situations?As has been stated, gays have a right to mock that which they own. If Christians don't want gays mocking them, they should stop giving birth to us.

[Miller]

But this is a far cry from the example in the OP where it's done to be mocking, not to be expressing individuality.

I'm rejecting the automatic assumption that the intent of the Amsterdam nativity was to insult Christianity. It's certainly a possibility, but there's nothing in the linked article to make it a certainty.

Given that you accept the venue is pertinent , You should realize that Safeway is off the street and like Safeway, The Pink Market sells goods to the public.

So does any gay nightclub. The point of the venue argument is not public versus private, it's simply what someone should expect from a given context. A performance (even one outside) at a gay nightclub in a gay neighborhood is going to be seen almost exclusively by gay or gay-friendly people. The odds of someone who would be grossly offended by the scene actually seeing it are astronomically remote, because such a person would already know to avoid that particular neighborhood.

[Revenant Threshold]

The same people who, to one degree or another, harbor backwards, uninformed, or bigoted ideas about the segment of the population in question? Why should the gay rights movement take advice from someone like Jesse Helms, or Pat Robertson, or Bill O'Reilly? Not all of them. But beyond that I would say the reactions of the people you mention would actually be pretty helpful, since they are, to one extent or another, representative. I wouldn't be willing to be that the first two could be convinced at all, and i'm not personally aware of any particular unpleasant opinions uttered by O'Reilly on the subjects of gay people, but, nevertheless, their advice matters because they too are a part of the "audience", and more than that to an extent they're among the most vocal critics. This is not to say their advice will necessarily be useful and worthy of respect. A person with such views may simply declare that gays should be willing to admit their pedophiliac tendencies in order to get any respect, entirely unhelpful advice bsed upon a ratehr scurrilous falsehood. But, by the same token, it is not not necessarily the case that their advice and views will be entirely worthless and tainted by their conception of gay people.

To add to that, the world isn't made up of gay people on one side and Pat Robertsons (or Fred Phelps') on the other. There's a vast horde of the public that's undecided, or leans for or against due to a couple of points, who could be convinced either way. It's those in the middle who are the richest source of potential agreers.

[Starving Artist]

Except that's not what we want. What we want is to get people to accept that what we are is okay. The point of the gay rights movement is not to change ourselves until we're acceptable to mainstream America. The point is to change mainstream American until it accepts us. If the sight of a dude in gold lame biker shorts and feather boa is so traumatic to heterosexual sensibilities that it sets the gay rights movement back twenty years, then we're just going to have to work on this for another two decades.Well, I gotta tell ya, this comes as a revelation to me (and drives home the points you've been making upthread). I thought the gay rights movement was about wanting to live in pretty much the same way heterosexual couples do now, and to gain societal acceptance of homosexuality so that you don't have to hide it, be ashamed of it, or feel any differently than anyone else. I didn't realize that what you were championing was the normalizing of the outrageous type of behavior that characterizes the kinds of gay rights marches I've been talking about in this thread.

You know my feelings regarding today's crass and classless society vs. the society that existed in the fifties and sixties, and if your goal is to fill the streets with Bobby Trendys flouncing around behaving outrageously, goosing each other and making lewd/lascivious in-jokes/comments to each other (which is typical of every gay of that type I've ever seen) in front of everyday men, women and children going about their business out in public, or behaving in the outrageous way gays do in gay rights parades, I'm seriously gonna have to rethink my postion on gay rights.

No one else in society is allowed to behave outrageously and in a way that annoys everyone else just because "that's who they really are", so why should you?

I would also point out that I have just as much right to feel that way as you do to loathe a society in which Ricky Nelson could have a music career (as you just said in the other thread), because now you're no longer talking about basic human rights, you're talking about societal mores and modes of behavior, and I have just as much right to find them objectionable as you do the mores and modes of behavior of the fifties and sixties.

Harumph!

[Revenant Threshold]

You know my feelings regarding today's crass and classless society vs. the society that existed in the fifties and sixties, and if your goal is to fill the streets with Bobby Trendys flouncing around behaving outrageously, goosing each other and making lewd/lascivious in-jokes/comments to each other (which is typical of every gay of that type I've ever seen) in front of everyday men, women and children going about their business out in public, or behaving in the outrageous way gays do in gay rights parades, I'm seriously gonna have to rethink my postion on gay rights. What does "typical of every gay of that types i've ever seen" mean? It seems to me like you're saying "people who act like that are people who act like that", which seems somewhat redundant. I'm unsure which "type" you mean.

[Heffalump and Roo]

As has been stated, gays have a right to mock that which they own.
:confused: Gays own Christianity?

If Christians don't want gays mocking them, they should stop giving birth to us.
I think they try. You can't fault them for not giving it a good effort.

But this is a far cry from the example in the OP where it's done to be mocking, not to be expressing individuality.I'm rejecting the automatic assumption that the intent of the Amsterdam nativity was to insult Christianity. It's certainly a possibility, but there's nothing in the linked article to make it a certainty.
From the article:
Amsterdam hosted a Christmas celebration for its gay community Sunday . . .

Christians for Truth, an independent religious group, had asked the city council to cancel the "Pink Christmas," event, saying it made a mockery of Christian tenets. The city did not comment.
bold added
Even if it may not have been the original intent of the event to be mocking, once the religious group asked the city council to cancel the event because they were feeling mocked, the event organizers were on notice that the event mocked at least a portion of society.

[Olentzero]

The Pink Market sells goods to the public.Yeah - gay-themed Christmas cards and leather goods. Y'know, stuff that openly declares and celebrates the gay lifestyle. The kind of stuff that might stir up homophobia. Should the Pink Market be taken off-street, then?There's a vast horde of the public that's undecided, or leans for or against due to a couple of points, who could be convinced either way. It's those in the middle who are the richest source of potential agreers.That's true, but they're not the ones fighting for acceptance and equality. Why should they be the ones calling the tune? Accept gays and lesbians as they are, not as some heterosexuals would like them to be.

[Starving Artist]

What does "typical of every gay of that types i've ever seen" mean? It seems to me like you're saying "people who act like that are people who act like that", which seems somewhat redundant. I'm unsure which "type" you mean. There are gay people of this type (http://www.insidesocal.com/outinhollywood/aaaaaaaaaaaahyde.jpg) and gay people of this type (http://blogs.20minutos.es/myfiles/bobpop/bobbytrendy1.jpg). Miller apparently wants to see the streets filled with people of the second type and worse.

Miller also finds the Ozzie & Harriet type of society objectionable (though I would characterize it more as the What's My Line/I've Got A Secret type of society, due the sophistication, charm, wit and relatively elegant dress of most people in America in those days and which is more on display in those shows); and similarly I would find a society full of Bobby Trendys objectionable.

This is why societies have standards: so people can get along. I don't know of any other group in this country struggling to make behavior that almost everyone else finds laughable or offensive...or both...commonplace, because "that's who they are".

[Miller]

Well, I gotta tell ya, this comes as a revelation to me (and drives home the points you've been making upthread). I thought the gay rights movement was about wanting to live in pretty much the same way heterosexual couples do now, and to gain societal acceptance of homosexuality so that you don't have to hide it, be ashamed of it, or feel any differently than anyone else. I didn't realize that what you were championing was the normalizing of the outrageous type of behavior that characterizes the kinds of gay rights marches I've been talking about in this thread.

What it's about, is allowing people the right to live their lives as they see fit, provided it doesn't harm other people. The caveat, here, is that the fact that you might not like the way some people live their lives does not constitute harming you. I have spoken to the appropriateness of context, though. If you know that a particular behavior discomfits other people, it's polite to refrain from that behavior when you are interacting with those people. However, we have the right to create our own communities, and (within reason) define what is acceptable behavior within those communities. Gay pride parades are not about interacting with straight people. They're about the gay community interacting with itself. If you don't like it, it should be easy enough to avoid it: it's a parade, after all. It's not like it's going to sneak up on you.

I would also point out that I have just as much right to feel that way as you do to loathe a society in which Ricky Nelson could have a music career (as you just said in the other thread), because now you're no longer talking about basic human rights, you're talking about societal mores and modes of behavior, and I have just as much right to find them objectionable as you do the mores and modes of behavior of the fifties and sixties.

Of course you have the right to find them objectionable. What you do not have is the right to punish people for not acting the way you want them to act.

And I never said I loathed the society that gave rise to Ricky Nelson. I just said that I loathed Ricky Nelson. And so should you! Did you listen to that song he was singing? The guy's out there, in front of God and everyone, bragging about how many girlfriends he's got! It's indecent!

[Olentzero]

Miller apparently wants to see the streets filled with people of the second type and worse.Ooooh, yeah, that fellow in drag is BAD. Best not to let him out of the house. Lord knows we can't go accepting anything like that in our society!:rolleyes:

Simply put: Fuck you. Fuck you and your sanctimonious rose-colored nostalgia goggles. If you live in a city, I hope your neighborhood becomes the next gay mecca and you have to see people like that every day for the rest of your life. And I hope the stress of it ruins your health permanently.

[Miller]

:confused: Gays own Christianity?

No, Christians own Christianity. And many gays are Christian. Gay Christians own Christianity every bit as much as straight Christians.

Even if it may not have been the original intent of the event to be mocking, once the religious group asked the city council to cancel the event because they were feeling mocked, the event organizers were on notice that the event mocked at least a portion of society.

So there was at least one group in Holland that complained about the nativity. So what? Who is this group? How many people are in it? What else do they complain about? Do they represent mainstream Christianity, or are they a bunch of cranks? Is their complaint motivated by genuine concern over the public portrayal of their religion, or are they just angry that a bunch of dirty fags dared to get their hands all over their Jesus?

The existence of a complaint is not evidence in and of itself that the complaint has merit.

[Olentzero]

a bunch of dirty fags dared to get their hands all over their JesusPics or GTFO :D

[Heffalump and Roo]

If you know that a particular behavior discomfits other people, it's polite to refrain from that behavior when you are interacting with those people.
In this case, there was a behavior (mocking the nativity scene) that some group of people were discomfited by (feeling mocked). Since this was a public event, there could be interaction with those people.

Why does your statement not apply to the situation in the OP. . . or does it?

No, Christians own Christianity. And many gays are Christian. Gay Christians own Christianity every bit as much as straight Christians.
So that was his point? That there may have been gays in that group, so they're actually mocking themselves and their own Christianity? Is that your feeling as well?

The existence of a complaint is not evidence in and of itself that the complaint has merit.
Perhaps not. But it is evidence that a group of society felt mocked, and that if the original intention was not to mock, then the intention changed when the organizers found out that people were feeling mocked by it and continued on with it anyway.

[Miller]

There are gay people of this type (http://www.insidesocal.com/outinhollywood/aaaaaaaaaaaahyde.jpg) and gay people of this type (http://blogs.20minutos.es/myfiles/bobpop/bobbytrendy1.jpg). Miller apparently wants to see the streets filled with people of the second type and worse.

I don't want the streets "filled" with the second type. In fact, I'm not really comfortable around really flamboyant people. But I don't expect people to conform their lives to fit my personal comfort zone. If a guy wants to run around in a pink frock and fairy wings, why should I care? More to the point, why should you?

Miller also finds the Ozzie & Harriet type of society objectionable (though I would characterize it more as the What's My Line/I've Got A Secret type of society, due the sophistication, charm, wit and relatively elegant dress of most people in America in those days and which is more on display in those shows); and similarly I would find a society full of Bobby Trendys objectionable.

This is why societies have standards: so people can get along. I don't know of any other group in this country struggling to make behavior that almost everyone else finds laughable or offensive...or both...commonplace, because "that's who they are".

Actually, the sort of standards you're arguing for aren't there so people can "get along." They're their so you have a club you can use against anyone who's different. You don't want to get along with the "Bobby Trendys*," you want to force them to conform to a standard that you find acceptable, regardless of what they think of that standard.

Let me ask you this: there are a lot of people who would find the sight of me holding hands with another man outrageous and disgusting. How are they any different from you being outraged and disgusted by the guy in your second link? You're both demanding that someone conform to your own personal sensibilities about what is and is not acceptable. What gives you the moral high ground over the average homophobe?

*I have no fucking idea what this term is supposed to mean, so it's possible I'm completely misusing it.

[Heffalump and Roo]

Bobby Trendy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Trendy)
from a google search. I had no idea either.

[Miller]

In this case, there was a behavior (mocking the nativity scene) that some group of people were discomfited by (feeling mocked). Since this was a public event, there could be interaction with those people.

Why does your statement not apply to the situation in the OP. . . or does it?

Because context matters. It would be inappropriate of me to go into a Baptist church and slow dance with another man. It would not be inappropriate of me to go into a gay bar and slow dance with another man. And yet, both are public places. Why is there a difference in what's acceptable? Because, again, context matters. The context of this nativity was the property of a nightclub in the middle of a well known gay neighborhood. Lots of things go on in that neighborhood every night that would be offensive to all sorts of people. The answer to this problem is for those people not to go into that neighborhood.

So that was his point? That there may have been gays in that group, so they're actually mocking themselves and their own Christianity? Is that your feeling as well?

Again, you haven't shown any evidence that the intent was to mock anything. But yes, I do believe that there's a qualitative difference between someone who is a member of a group making fun of the group, and an outside making fun of the group. Moreover, straight Christians do not own Christianity, and they do not have the right to dictate to other Christians how they are allowed to interpret or react to their faith.

Perhaps not. But it is evidence that a group of society felt mocked, and that if the original intention was not to mock, then the intention changed when the organizers found out that people were feeling mocked by it and continued on with it anyway.

Okay, two thing. First, the fact that someone, somewhere is offended by something does not automatically factor into the motivations of the person doing the "offensive" action. If I'm having sex with a guy in my bedroom, I know that there are a lot of people who are offended by the very idea of it. That doesn't mean I'm suddenly having sex just to piss those people off. Second, there's no evidence that anyone involved in the nativity was aware of the complaints while the performance was going on. So you do not, in fact, have any idea what the motivation behind this pageant was at any point during it's execution.

[Miller]

Bobby Trendy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Trendy)
from a google search. I had no idea either.

Huh. Anyone else shocked that Starving Artist watches such witty, charming, and elegant fare as The Anna Nicole Show?

[Starving Artist]

What it's about, is allowing people the right to live their lives as they see fit, provided it doesn't harm other people. No, you're into an entirely different area than human rights. You're into an area of lifestyle. And you're trying to make that lifestyle about human rights. I have no problem with gays as people, gays as couples, or gays in society. I have no problem with them being viewed and thought of like anyone else. I do have a problem with fucking this society up even further and what you propose will do just that.

The caveat, here, is that the fact that you might not like the way some people live their lives does not constitute harming you. I have spoken to the appropriateness of context, though. If you know that a particular behavior discomfits other people, it's polite to refrain from that behavior when you are interacting with those people. However, we have the right to create our own communities, and (within reason) define what is acceptable behavior within those communities. Gay pride parades are not about interacting with straight people. They're about the gay community interacting with itself. If you don't like it, it should be easy enough to avoid it: it's a parade, after all. It's not like it's going to sneak up on you.Every man is an island has long been the defense of the left. Don't like the language on TV, turn it off! Don't like nudity and profanity in movies, don't see 'em! Don't like vulgar, misogynistic rap music, don't listen to it. Etc., etc., etc.

The problem is these things are never confined only to the people who want them. Eventually every movie has these things, every program on television has these things, you work and your kids go to school in environments where all this is commonplace. An example occurred just the other day at a 7-11 near my house. Cute 17-year-old girl, getting a fountain drink and telling her boyfriend right out loud about her day: "Dude! I was so fuckin' stopped up when I got up this morning that I couldn't fucking breathe!...Oh, shit, I forgot a straw, blah, blah, blah." Practically everyone in there over the age of 35 was scowling at her, and everyone her own age wasn't even paying attention because that's what school life is like nowadays, and she was totally oblivious to everyone.

And then there was the time I've talked about before when I pulled up to a red light and saw another cute, wholesome looking little teenage cheerleader type happily tapping away on her steering wheel to the rap album playing in her car: "Bitch! Get down on your knees, and suck my badass dick!"

Now, you tell me how I'm gonna raise my kids without them being exposed to that shit. Tell me how I'm gonna keep 'em from becoming pregnant or becoming one of the 25% of teenage girls with STDs. Etc., etc.

You know as well as I do that when the entire society has been flooded with that crap, there is no way to avoid it.

Now I'm hardly a prude and my language has been coarse since my mid-teens, but I don't use it in front of little kids and I don't use it in front of older people and I don't use it in public. And I'm not lobbying for people to allow me to do it because that's who I am, and if they don't like it they can go listen someplace else.

And if I were predisposed to do so, how would I go about avoiding the gay rights parades you're so certain it would be easy to avoid. Should I give up magazines, televison news, the internet?

Of course you have the right to find them objectionable. What you do not have is the right to punish people for not acting the way you want them to act.Every society on this planet 'punishes' people who behave in ways far enough from the norm...otherwise you get anarchy.

Argue for the same basic rights we all have and I'll be right there beside you. Argue to behave outrageously and differently than the rest of what is left of polite society just because you think it's who you are and I'll oppose you.

And I never said I loathed the society that gave rise to Ricky Nelson. I just said that I loathed Ricky Nelson. And so should you! Did you listen to that song he was singing? The guy's out there, in front of God and everyone, bragging about how many girlfriends he's got!Huh, I would have figured you for a "When Johnny Cash sang about shooting a man in Reno just to watch him die" he wasn't really advocating that. Same with Ricky. Someone wrote the song, someone at the record company thought it would be a hit, and so Ricky recorded it.

And besides, big deal! How is that worse than "Bitch, get down on your knees and suck my badass dick!"? I'll trade you his misogyny for yours anyday.

It's indecent!:D

Simply put: Fuck you. Fuck you and your sanctimonious rose-colored nostalgia goggles. If you live in a city, I hope your neighborhood becomes the next gay mecca and you have to see people like that every day for the rest of your life. And I hope the stress of it ruins your health permanently.No! Fuck you! Fuck you and the horse you rode in on! I hope you get hemmies that rip and bleed everyday of your life and that you live long and suffer, you scumsucking dipshit!

Now, see how you sound?

Civility and manners are what keep people from violence and allow us to interact pleasantly with each other. I try to keep up my end even with people I disagree with, provided they show me the same consideration. I'd suggest you do the same unless you just want to be viewed as a hysterical nincompoop.

And having said that, I gotta go. I've said everything I'm likely to want to say ,and when it comes to this subject people could me answering challenges and insults all night.

[FinnAgain]

"The children now love luxury. They have bad manners and contempt for authority. They show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers."

[Starving Artist]

Huh. Anyone else shocked that Starving Artist watches such witty, charming, and elegant fare as The Anna Nicole Show?Some people I'm very fond of, young people not surprisingly, watched it and I was unfortunate enough to have been there during several episodes. (And I actually got kind of a kick out of Bobby Trendy; I just don't think he should be guiding societal mores.)

P.S. - He also has/had a furniture and interior design business (http://www.bobbytrendydesigns.com/welcome.html). I think I saw Elton in there one day. :D

Hi, Finn...and oh, please. :rolleyes: There is no comparison between Socrates/Plato's day and what has occurred in the last fifty years. Millions of abortions, a 25% STD rate, a rampant drug problem that has also taken and ruined millions of lives, road rage, drive-by shootings and people shooting up schools, glamorization of ghetto life and of its misogynistic/violent nature.

And now, I do have to go. Ta-ta.

[Miller]

No, you're into an entirely different area than human rights. You're into an area of lifestyle. And you're trying to make that lifestyle about human rights. I have no problem with gays as people, gays as couples, or gays in society. I have no problem with them being viewed and thought of like anyone else. I do have a problem with fucking this society up even further and what you propose will do just that.

Every man is an island has long been the defense of the left. Don't like the language on TV, turn it off! Don't like nudity and profanity in movies, don't see 'em! Don't like vulgar, misogynistic rap music, don't listen to it. Etc., etc., etc.

I don't like Ricky Nelson. You don't like rap music. Why do your likes trump my likes? Why do you get to be the one who determines what I listen too? Why can't I say that Ricky Nelson doesn't get air time, because he's too fucking bland and talentless to live?

This is a civil rights issue. It's a personal liberty issue. You trying to dictate what I can say and what I can hear is the most fundamental civil rights issue there is.

The problem is these things are never confined only to the people who want them. Eventually every movie has these things, every program on television has these things, you work and your kids go to school in environments where all this is commonplace. An example occurred just the other day at a 7-11 near my house. Cute 17-year-old girl, getting a fountain drink and telling her boyfriend right out loud about her day: "Dude! I was so fuckin' stopped up when I got up this morning that I couldn't fucking breathe!...Oh, shit, I forgot a straw, blah, blah, blah." Practically everyone in there over the age of 35 was scowling at her, and everyone her own age wasn't even paying attention because that's what school life is like nowadays, and she was totally oblivious to everyone.

And then there was the time I've talked about before when I pulled up to a red light and saw another cute, wholesome looking little teenage cheerleader type happily tapping away on her steering wheel to the rap album playing in her car: "Bitch! Get down on your knees, and suck my badass dick!"

That's the agony of living in a free society. People are free to do things you don't like. If you don't like it, I hear Saudi Arabia has some very strong legislation on just these sorts of issues.

Now, you tell me how I'm gonna raise my kids without them being exposed to that shit. Tell me how I'm gonna keep 'em from becoming pregnant or becoming one of the 25% of teenage girls with STDs. Etc., etc.

I dunno. Have you considered parenting?

Now I'm hardly a prude...

HA!

Huh, I would have figured you for a "When Johnny Cash sang about shooting a man in Reno just to watch him die" he wasn't really advocating that. Same with Ricky. Someone wrote the song, someone at the record company thought it would be a hit, and so Ricky recorded it.

You know what sucked about the '50s? Nobody back then understood irony.

And besides, big deal! How is that worse than "Bitch, get down on your knees and suck my badass dick!"?

Oh, he wasn't really advocating that. Someone wrote the song, someone at the record company though it would be a hit, and so they recorded it.

[Miller]

Millions of abortions, a 25% STD rate, a rampant drug problem that has also taken and ruined millions of lives, road rage, drive-by shootings and people shooting up schools, glamorization of ghetto life and of its misogynistic/violent nature.

Every single one of those things you list either existed in the 1950s, or was a remedy to a much worse situation in the 1950s. Or both. Legal abortions are better than back alley abortions, and both are preferable to a society that forced women who became pregnant out of wedlock to live in shame for the rest of their lives. STDs aren't more common today, they're just better reported, because we don't systematically teach people to be ashamed of having sex. Consequently, the dangers of most STDs are vastly reduced. Drugs have been a social problem in every society that has ever existed, and the modern era is no worse than any other. Violent crime, over all, has decreased steadily since the 1950s. I prefer the glamorization of ghetto life over a Klan rally, and I'll take misogynistic lyrics over a misogynistic society any day of the week.

Face, SA, the '50s were a cultural cesspool. The violence of the '60s was a direct result of lancing that particular boil, and society has been improving steadily since then.

[Heffalump and Roo]

Because context matters.. . . The answer to this problem is for those people not to go into that neighborhood.
So now you're saying that it's OK for gay people to do whatever they want. . . as long as it's in an area where gay people congregate? Earlier, I thought you were trying to argue that there shouldn't be a difference as to where gay people's behavior is acceptable, but now you're saying that if some people are offended by it, it's OK for gay people to do as long as it's where gay people normally do things?

Again, you haven't shown any evidence that the intent was to mock anything.
Only insofar as it's not possible to read people's minds. But in the normal sense that we can imply notice was given when someone complained, then certainly the intent was to mock, whether that was the original intention or not.

But yes, I do believe that there's a qualitative difference between someone who is a member of a group making fun of the group, and an outside making fun of the group. Moreover, straight Christians do not own Christianity, and they do not have the right to dictate to other Christians how they are allowed to interpret or react to their faith.
So gay people shouldn't be making fun of heterosexuals as a group since they don't belong to that group?

Okay, two thing. First, the fact that someone, somewhere is offended by something does not automatically factor into the motivations of the person doing the "offensive" action.
This wasn't anyone's argument--certainly not mine.

Second, there's no evidence that anyone involved in the nativity was aware of the complaints while the performance was going on. So you do not, in fact, have any idea what the motivation behind this pageant was at any point during it's execution.
See point above about implied intention. It's reasonable to infer that the organizers knew about the complaint and that they communicated that to the people who executed the nativity scene. Asking for explicit proof about people's motivations and intentions when the actions are clear is unreasonable.

[Revenant Threshold]

There are gay people of this type (http://www.insidesocal.com/outinhollywood/aaaaaaaaaaaahyde.jpg) and gay people of this type (http://blogs.20minutos.es/myfiles/bobpop/bobbytrendy1.jpg). Miller apparently wants to see the streets filled with people of the second type and worse. Thanks for the answer. If it helps at all, I have a friend who might be described as your second type there, and he doesn't go around goosing people and making lavicious jokes. I don't know if that helps at all. Miller also finds the Ozzie & Harriet type of society objectionable (though I would characterize it more as the What's My Line/I've Got A Secret type of society, due the sophistication, charm, wit and relatively elegant dress of most people in America in those days and which is more on display in those shows); and similarly I would find a society full of Bobby Trendys objectionable. I'm afraid you'll need to translate those references into British for me if you want me to get you. :)

A "society full of" seems like quite considerable hyperbole. So if I may ask; what is the acceptable point to you? Would you like to see no such examples of that type of behaviour whatsoever?This is why societies have standards: so people can get along. I don't know of any other group in this country struggling to make behavior that almost everyone else finds laughable or offensive...or both...commonplace, because "that's who they are". I generally tend to think societies have standards because generally that is how people act, rather than from any particular impetus for people to get along. And you do know such a person; you. On these boards, your views are often considered laughable or offensive. In the name of standards, would it be reasonable to tell you to never mention them to others? I hope not. I find, for example, Der Trihs' posts pretty commonly offensive, and yours sometimes also, among many numbers of posters. But I would be far more offended by the idea that, in order to protect me from being annoyed, he and you and they were all prevented from posting at all. And I think i'd say the same about society as a whole; i'll be the first to admit that I have a low opinion of civility, but I do tend to value actual freedom to a greater extent than I do a really quite small level of offensiveness.

Besides, the cats out of the bag now. On a purely practical level, I agree offense-causing behaviour isn't helpful. But people know about it already. If gay people suddenly stopped acting like that - if they presented to the world a front of conformity - people would not forget what they'd seen before and say "Ah, yes, they're just like us". Gay people wouldn't be seen as offensive - they'd be seen as offensive and secretive. It'd just be assumed they were doing the same in private, and while being in private would be seen as better, the fact that it can't be seen would lead to two things. First, the assumption that since the difference between the two types you suggest can no longer be seen, that all gay people are secretly like that. And second, that what they're actually getting up to in secret is much, much more offensive and unpleasant, thanks to the nature of rumours always being far worse than the truth. I really think it would make matters worse.

[Revenant Threshold]

Only insofar as it's not possible to read people's minds. But in the normal sense that we can imply notice was given when someone complained, then certainly the intent was to mock, whether that was the original intention or not. I don't think this makes sense. Simply knowing that something will cause a reaction doesn't mean that it is therefore done in order to cause that reaction. Certainly knowing it will happen means that it is accepted, but that doesn't imply direct, deliberate intention at all.

To put it another way; if I said your argument here offended me, and you continued to post it, would that mean you were doing so deliberately in order to piss me off? Or, rather, would it mean that you had accepted that I was offended, but felt that your argument was important enough to overweigh that offense?

[FinnAgain]

There is no comparison between Socrates/Plato's day and what has occurred in the last fifty years.

You are partially correct. Roughly 2500 years ago the problem was seen as being so serious that he was put to death for corrupting the youth.


Millions of abortions

Which means millions fewer unwanted babies. You can't ignore the impact that things like the pill and IUD's have had on people's ability to have sex. Or the fact that medical science has reduced (some of) the consequences of even foolish and rash unprotected sex.


a 25% STD rate

Not all that much has changed WRT sex. (http://www.publichealthreports.org/userfiles/122_1/12_PHR122-1_73-78.pdf)
I'd also note that even during the straight-laced Victorian age, STD's were such a major concern that the Contagious Disease Acts were passed.


a rampant drug problem that has also taken and ruined millions of lives

Check your figures. Alcohol and Tobacco together kill roughly 30 times more people than drugs each year. (http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30)
It's also worth pointing out that alcoholism is hardly a kinder, gentler scourge than drug addiction. And while I'm at it, it's worth pointing out that the first wave of prohibition helped cement organized crime in America, saw Americans drinking more than ever before and radically altered how society itself functioned. The second wave of prohibition has seen, among other things, the rise and strengthening of drug-related inner city gangs. As well as children who are increasingly jaded as they see that the propaganda about drugs like marijuana simply don't line up to facts, and if adults will use bogus scare tactics to demonize pot, then (they figure) maybe they're lying about heroin or cocaine too.


road rage

Prove that this is not a function of more drivers, more urban congestion, less time spent with the family due to work, a harsh economic climate, etc...


drive-by shootings and people shooting up schools

Drive-by's (as opposed to the Mafia related ones during the first wave of Prohibition) are largely gang related, and thus, drug related. And thus, only kept going because a wildly profitable black market has been created by the second wave of prohibition. School shooting, while certainly disturbing, are still statistically vanishingly rare. Moreover, school shootings were not at all prevalent during the heyday of "turn on, tune in, drop out". And while I'm at it, I'd note that you've committed either the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc or cum hoc ergo propter hoc.


glamorization of ghetto life and of its misogynistic/violent nature.

Yes, some people do. Then again, a lot shun "ghetto life" and the more vile side of rap music. The fact is that even in the 1950's, many children were still rude and rebellious.
Nor was America particularly peaceful in the 1940's or 1950's, for that matter. Racial violence, for intance, was a significant factor in the lives of many minority citizens.

All that aside...
Your style of argumentation here is exactly the same as the one used by people to 'prove' that the decline of society is due to a lack of prayer in schools. Or those who 'prove' that the decline of society is due to increased immigration. Or those who 'prove' that the decline of society is due to people being able to get divorced more easily.
And so on.

[Miller]

So now you're saying that it's OK for gay people to do whatever they want. . . as long as it's in an area where gay people congregate?

I'm saying that gay people have a right to create their own communities, and to define the standards of acceptable behavior within those communities.

Earlier, I thought you were trying to argue that there shouldn't be a difference as to where gay people's behavior is acceptable, but now you're saying that if some people are offended by it, it's OK for gay people to do as long as it's where gay people normally do things?

Where did I say that first part?

Only insofar as it's not possible to read people's minds. But in the normal sense that we can imply notice was given when someone complained, then certainly the intent was to mock, whether that was the original intention or not.

No, I don't think you can make any such implication. If there was an original, non-mocking intention before anyone complained, there's no reason to assume that intention is not the driving intention after notice of the complaint has been resumed.

So gay people shouldn't be making fun of heterosexuals as a group since they don't belong to that group?

As a very broad generality, no. However, as with all such generalities, there are always exceptions, and context again plays a large role.

This wasn't anyone's argument--certainly not mine.

Funny, because that certainly looked like your argument.

See point above about implied intention. It's reasonable to infer that the organizers knew about the complaint and that they communicated that to the people who executed the nativity scene. Asking for explicit proof about people's motivations and intentions when the actions are clear is unreasonable.

Yes, your point about implied intention was nonsense, as is your "reasonable" inference in the immediately quoted paragraph. People complain to city hall constantly, about all manner of things. Not all of these complaints are passed on. The vast majority are discarded outright. There's no reason to assume that this particular complaint was forwarded to the festival organizers, let alone the planners or performers of this specific nativity.

And while the actions are clear, the motivations most certainly are not. The assumption that the incorporation of homosexual themes into a religious observance is intended to denigrate that observance is predicated on negative view of homosexuality. But as the performers of this piece were themselves homosexuals, it's fairly certain that they do not have negative views on homosexuality. Therefore, the actual intent of the performance is entirely open to question: if the performers do not view homosexuality as a negative quality, how can we assume that they're mocking Christianity by implying that one or more Christian figures was a homosexual?

[Starving Artist]

Your style of argumentation here is exactly the same as the one used by people to 'prove' that the decline of society is due to a lack of prayer in schools. Or those who 'prove' that the decline of society is due to increased immigration. Or those who 'prove' that the decline of society is due to people being able to get divorced more easily.
And so on. (:smack: I knew I shouldn't have checked back in here.)

I've never claimed to prove anything. I've offered my thoughts, beliefs and perspective, and the reasons for them. I'm content to let those who read them make of them what they will. Some will agree and some will not. But at least, in my own small way, I'm furnishing some food for thought and helping to keep the wind around here from blowing in one direction only. ;)

[Miller]

I'm afraid you'll need to translate those references into British for me if you want me to get you. :)

Ozzie and Harriet was a sitcom that more or less defined the stereotype of the middle class, suburban family. As the Baby Boomer generation grew up, it was largely supplanted in the cultural lexicon by Leave it to Beaver, because the latter show focused on the child, where as the former on the parents.

What's My Line and I've Got a Secret were game shows where a panel of celebrity guests would play 20 Questions with a non-celebrity guest. Here's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zd7eWKCOk-A) a pretty cool clip featuring the parents of newly-minted astronaut Neil Armstrong on I've Got a Secret.

[Jaglavak]

On the other hand, if you want to talk miracle births, you can't get much more miraculous than having the Holy Mother be a dude.

Oy vey! And you thought passing a kidney stone was bad.....

[FinnAgain]

I've never claimed to prove anything.

No, I suppose you've never specifically said that. But you've argued rather pointedly for a specific claim. To do so without believing that your position is proven rather than surmised seems... odd. At least to me.

I'd point out that societal issues are often, literally, unimaginably complex, and simple answers are to be distrusted. And as Miller points out, even pre-British Invasion, American society was a nasty, nasty place. Racism was endemic and institutionalized. Divorce wasn't common, partially, because women didn't have enough economic or social power to exist comfortably without a husband while single men could make their way in the world. Homosexuals were much more likely to be subjected to violence and/or discrimination if they weren't closeted. Women who still got abortions, had to do so through dangerous and potentially life threatening methods, or raise children who they didn't want and/or couldn't afford to properly raise. And you want to talk civility? That was the era of McCarthyism and Blacklisting. There's something to be said for honest incivility rather than polite witch hunts and whispering campaigns.

And yes, many of the problems you point out that exist now existed then, from STD's to violence and so on. Myself, I'd much rather live in Manhattan2008 than Chicago1929. And the thing is, I'd be willing to bet that so would you.

I'd also point out that true Conservative principles on this issue would be a minimum of governmental oversight while the responsibility of raising children (and teaching them proper sexual morality, how to be polite, what type of language to use in public, etc...) would fall to parents and not to the FCC. That the free market should determine what type of programming and movies are represented and not the government censor, and that if sex sells and crudity has a market, then those are sound business decisions. Etc...

[FinnAgain]

P.S. Whatever you do, don't google "not the Bradys". :D

[ivan astikov]

There is no group or category of persons that does not contain some obnoxious ass-wipes. Now, get out there and shop, like the Good Lord intended!

Yup, homosexuals don't have a monopoly on arseholes, as much as they might like the idea.

[Starving Artist]

No, I suppose you've never specifically said that. But you've argued rather pointedly for a specific claim. To do so without believing that your position is proven rather than surmised seems... odd. At least to me.

I'd point out that societal issues are often, literally, unimaginably complex, and simple answers are to be distrusted. And as Miller points out, even pre-British Invasion, American society was a nasty, nasty place.It was nothing of the sort. Racism was endemic and institutionalized. Granted. And polite, well-dressed, non-violent blacks, demonstrating and marching in the fifties and sixties had already pretty much won the battle for civil rights pre-1968. And they didn't do it by acting like assholes. They did it by bringing the public's atttention to their essential and basic humanity and the shamefulness and cruelty inherent in the way they were treated.

And libs usually like drag out mention of lynchings whenever pre-1968 culture is praised, so let me point out that, as bad as racial killings indeed were, the U.S. population in 1950 was 152,000,000 people...and I'd bet just about any amount you'd care to mention that 99.99% of them never witnessed or knew anyone who witnessed a lynching in their entire lives. So, assertions by modern day liberals to the contrary, lynchings and other racially inspired killings not only didn't define that era's culture, but most of the people who lived back then never had first hand knowledge of or even thought about them.

Divorce wasn't common, partially, because women didn't have enough economic or social power to exist comfortably without a husband while single men could make their way in the world.You didn't live during that era, did you? Divorce wasn't common because society looked down on divorce and stressed the importance of family in providing a suitable environment for raising children. This resulted in some women (and probably just as many men) being trapped in loveless marriages. It also resulted in kids growing up with parental supervision.

And then, when divorce did occur, the courts overwhelmingly favored women. They got the kids, the house, the car, furniture, alimony and child support. Automatically! Men making good money were forced to move to small apartments and drive used cars so their wives and children could live in the style to which they'd become accustomed, even if the divorce was the result infidelity or other wrongdoing by the wife, and a woman had to be an unfit mother times ten before the courts would grant custody to the father. Men usually also had scant visitation priviliges and virtually no input as to how his children were raised, disciplined, etc. Women whose men skipped out or didn't make much money did suffer financially as a result of divorce, but no more than their men did.

The opinion you have of this period of time makes me wonder whether you actrully lived then or whether you're just a victim of modern day revisionist history. (I'm pretty sure it's the latter.)


Homosexuals were much more likely to be subjected to violence and/or discrimination if they weren't closeted.More likely than today, perhaps, but still not all that likely. You may note that Truman Capote was blatantly and unapologetically gay from the time he became known in the forties up till the time he died. No one attacked him or beat him up, did they? How come, do you suppose? He spent a great deal of time not only in New York where it could be expected that it would be more tolerated, but in the south and a good deal of time in rural Kansas in the early sixties. The way you and other people around here talk, one would expect that his life would have been on the line every time he ventured from his house.

Further, I worked in a large manly-man auto parts warehouse in the mid-sixties in which the running inventory was managed by a woman in her late forties who was openly and unapologetically gay. She wore a men's haircut, jeans and boots, and made no bones about her orientation to anyone. No one bothered her, no one harrassed her, and certainly no one ever attacked her. Sometimes people would laugh at how a new female employee would shriek when spotting her in the next stall in the ladies room, but that was about it. (I realize of course that this doesn't mean anything around here because I merely experienced it rather than drug up some statistic, but there ya go. The point remains that she somehow managed to be openly gay throughout the forties, fifties and sixties and no one beat her up or killed her...just like no one beat up or killed Truman Capote.

The danger and hate allegedly aimed at gays during that era is largely a fiction of liberal revisionists and is largely accepted by people too young to have experienced it first hand for themselves.

Women who still got abortions, had to do so through dangerous and potentially life threatening methods Granted. Though since teenage girls weren't encouraged to fuck like bunnies by their peer group, culture and/or school systems, they got pregnant far less often than they do today. And given that I view second and third term abortion as the cruel, painful muder of an innocent baby, I have a hard time thinking things are more humane now....or raise children who they didn't want and/or couldn't afford to properly raise. Or they could put them up for adoption. Or they could be (and often were) raised by the pregnant girls' parents or other relatives. And you want to talk civility? That was the era of McCarthyism and Blacklisting. There's something to be said for honest incivility rather than polite witch hunts and whispering campaigns.Do you have any idea of the scale you're talking about in regard to these issues? McCarthyism and blacklisting involved hundreds or maybe a couple thousand people -- out of a population of 152,000,000!

The notion that McCarthy, blacklisting, etc. defined that era's society is absolutely ridiculous.

And yes, many of the problems you point out that exist now existed then, from STD's to violence and so on.Though on a much, much smaller scale. Why is it that every time I mention the 25% STD rate, somebody says 'Oh, yeah...well, STDs exited then, too!' Big deal. That's not the point. They existed on a much smaller scale per capita, because people were far less promiscuous. Myself, I'd much rather live in Manhattan2008 than Chicago1929. And the thing is, I'd be willing to bet that so would you. Well, sure. Due to modern technology, automobiles and other advances, I'd rather live in just about any major city or town than in 1929.

I'd also point out that true Conservative principles on this issue would be a minimum of governmental oversight while the responsibility of raising children (and teaching them proper sexual morality, how to be polite, what type of language to use in public, etc...) would fall to parents and not to the FCC. And that minimal government oversight would extend most particularly to schools, where parents then had a great deal of input and are virtually powerless today. That the free market should determine what type of programming and movies are represented and not the government censor...Wrong. Conservatives recognize that standards are necessary in order to maintain values, and that standards cannot be maintained without a certain degree of censorship.

And besides, censorship is rampant today, probably more so and in more ways than it ever was pre-1968. It's just that there's no Hays Office now to enforce it.

Instead, we have celebrities and talk shows and indignant liberals right and left telling us what kind of thinking is acceptable, what words are acceptable, how and what to think and so forth. It's to the point now that it's pretty much de riguer for anyone uttering some sort of slur for any reason to have to forfeit his entire career.

Now I'm not championing the use of racial, sexist or gay slurs, but political correctness extends far further than this. So, we have censorship still, it's merely taken a different form.

...and that if sex sells and crudity has a market, then those are sound business decisions. Etc...Nope. Wrong again. Sound business does not equate to sound family or societal values. This is why television, movie and music recording businesses were expected to conform to certain standards back then, for the fact of the matter is there are no depths to which people will not sink in an effort to make money, and there are no depths that a large enough segment of the population to make it profitable will not sink to in order to be titillated and entertained by it. A large part of what pre-1968 era American society did was aspire to higher standards than existed in reality. Manners, civility, class, a pleasant way of life...these were all things that people aspired to even if it didn't define them at the time.

Now it's every man for himself and this society is becoming a cesspool as a result.

Societies, like traffic, cannot function properly if everyone is free to decide for themselves what they want to do.

[Starving Artist]

P.S. Whatever you do, don't google "not the Bradys". :DAs I said upthread, I'm far from a prude. It's just that I see the advantage of having a society where stuff like this has to be sought out rather than promoted.

Still, thanks for the new bookmark. :D

I keed, I keed...

[Superfluous Parentheses]

If they wanted a gay Mary and Joseph, wouldn't it have made more sense for them both to be women, rather than both being men?

Actually, they'll have both. As in: two nativity scenes, one with two women, and one with two men. This is happening in the Reguliersdwarsstraat, which Amsterdam newspaper het Parool is calling "the center of the Amsterdam gay scene".

It's part of a larger event which actually includes an evangelical church service, a christmas market etc. Video report (in Dutch) here (http://e.blip.tv/scripts/flash/showplayer.swf?file=http%3A%2F%2Fblip.tv/rss/flash/1611208&showplayerpath=http%3A%2F%2Fblip.tv/scripts/flash/showplayer.swf&feedurl=http%3A//parool.blip.tv/rss/flash&brandname=Parool.tv&brandlink=http%3A//www.parool.tv&enablejs=true&tabType3=guide&tabTitle3=Populaire%20afleveringen&tabUrl3=http%3A//parool.blip.tv/rss/flash/%3Fsort%3Dpopular&tabType1=details&tabTitle1=Over%20deze%20aflevering&tabType2=guide&tabTitle2=Vorige%20afleveringen&tabUrl2=http%3A//parool.blip.tv/rss/flash&lightcolor=0x004996&frontcolor=0x336699&smokeduration=0)

Anyway if you think this is going to create a big stir, you don't know Amsterdam very well.

[Frylock]

Sure. What you have yet to do is provide an example of gays exhibiting club behavior in a Safeway environment.




You guys should stop right here. You've now agreed regarding the important point in the debate. The only disagreement is how to characterize a particular incident. That's basically a non-issue in the scheme of things.

-FrL-

[Olentzero]

Civility and manners are what keep people from violence and allow us to interact pleasantly with each other. I try to keep up my end even with people I disagree with, provided they show me the same consideration. I'd suggest you do the same unless you just want to be viewed as a hysterical nincompoop.I believe I'll not be all that disturbed by your view of me as a hysterical nincompoop, sir, given that - from what I've seen of your contributions to this and other threads - I regard your general point of view as having greater stink, and less logical validity, than a steaming pile of santorum.

[The Flying Dutchman]

Anyway if you think this is going to create a big stir, you don't know Amsterdam very well.

I've got to agree. did some checking on the net on Dutch attitudes (http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:DsmCOYJ50WsJ:fra.europa.eu/fra/material/pub/comparativestudy/FRA-hdgso-NR_NL.pdf+netherlands+homophobia&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=ca) on homosexuality and frankly, watching your video, I couldn't drum up the criticism I had for Pro Gay in Amsterdam with respect to engendering a homophobic backlash. I actually got the feeling that these guys were respectful of the creche tradition .

My general point still stands however had this taken place in America. It certainly wouldn't have gone over very well .

[levdrakon]

My general point still stands however had this taken place in America. It certainly wouldn't have gone over very well .Gays can't do anything in the US that goes over well, except becoming not gay.

I think it's better to piss people off once in awhile and draw attention to yourself than hide out where you can be easily ignored.

Gays are, by and large, a pretty friendly group. The people who like to take gay rights away are the people who will follow us around and be offended by our very existence no matter what we do. I wonder where Fred Phelps gets his funding, anyway?

[Superfluous Parentheses]

I've got to agree. did some checking on the net on Dutch attitudes (http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:DsmCOYJ50WsJ:fra.europa.eu/fra/material/pub/comparativestudy/FRA-hdgso-NR_NL.pdf+netherlands+homophobia&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=ca) on homosexuality and frankly, watching your video, I couldn't drum up the criticism I had for Pro Gay in Amsterdam with respect to engendering a homophobic backlash. I actually got the feeling that these guys were respectful of the creche tradition .

One of the organizers (interviewed in the video) explicitly states that the nativity scene is not intended to offend. It's intended to be a fairly light-hearted sort of gesture to have gay people relate more to christmas, and also to provide a visual support for children not in a "traditional" husband-wife-children family. Note that gay couples can adopt here, for example.

My general point still stands however had this taken place in America. It certainly wouldn't have gone over very well .
Probably true, but the Netherlands are not only relatively tolerant of gay people and gay culture, but also a LOT more tolerant of different religious (and atheistic) views.

[levdrakon]

It's part of a larger event which actually includes an evangelical church service, a christmas market etc. Video report (in Dutch) here (http://e.blip.tv/scripts/flash/showplayer.swf?file=http%3A%2F%2Fblip.tv/rss/flash/1611208&showplayerpath=http%3A%2F%2Fblip.tv/scripts/flash/showplayer.swf&feedurl=http%3A//parool.blip.tv/rss/flash&brandname=Parool.tv&brandlink=http%3A//www.parool.tv&enablejs=true&tabType3=guide&tabTitle3=Populaire%20afleveringen&tabUrl3=http%3A//parool.blip.tv/rss/flash/%3Fsort%3Dpopular&tabType1=details&tabTitle1=Over%20deze%20aflevering&tabType2=guide&tabTitle2=Vorige%20afleveringen&tabUrl2=http%3A//parool.blip.tv/rss/flash&lightcolor=0x004996&frontcolor=0x336699&smokeduration=0).I love the sound of the language. There are so many achs though, I kept expecting the camera to get sprayed with spit. :D

[Miller]

Further, I worked in a large manly-man auto parts warehouse in the mid-sixties in which the running inventory was managed by a woman in her late forties who was openly and unapologetically gay. She wore a men's haircut, jeans and boots, and made no bones about her orientation to anyone. No one bothered her, no one harrassed her, and certainly no one ever attacked her. Sometimes people would laugh at how a new female employee would shriek when spotting her in the next stall in the ladies room, but that was about it. (I realize of course that this doesn't mean anything around here because I merely experienced it rather than drug up some statistic, but there ya go. The point remains that she somehow managed to be openly gay throughout the forties, fifties and sixties and no one beat her up or killed her...just like no one beat up or killed Truman Capote.

Actually, you didn't experience it. She did. And you have no idea what her experiences being openly gay during that time period were. You know that she was largely unharrassed in the workplace. You don't know what her life was growing up, what her relationship was like with her family, or what happened to her when she wasn't at work. You knew her for a very brief window of time, and from that, you extrapolate the experiences of the entire gay population of the US at that time. And then you act put upon when no one takes your bullshit anecdotes seriously.

[matt_mcl]

One of the organizers (interviewed in the video) explicitly states that the nativity scene is not intended to offend. It's intended to be a fairly light-hearted sort of gesture to have gay people relate more to christmas, and also to provide a visual support for children not in a "traditional" husband-wife-children family. Note that gay couples can adopt here, for example.

I suggested that too, in the previous page. Nobody paid any attention to me, either, so don't get your hopes up.

[Starving Artist]

You knew her for a very brief window of time, and from that, you extrapolate the experiences of the entire gay population of the US at that time. That would be all well and good, if only it were true. Anyone taking from my comments what you just said has serious problems with reading comprehension.

Your usual intellectual honesty, perspective and logical ability is sorely lacking in this thread, Miller. Must be why doctors don't treat themselves and lawyers don't defend themselves, huh?

[levdrakon]

The opinion you have of this period of time makes me wonder whether you actrully lived then or whether you're just a victim of modern day revisionist history. (I'm pretty sure it's the latter.)


More likely than today, perhaps, but still not all that likely. You may note that Truman Capote was blatantly and unapologetically gay from the time he became known in the forties up till the time he died. No one attacked him or beat him up, did they? How come, do you suppose? He spent a great deal of time not only in New York where it could be expected that it would be more tolerated, but in the south and a good deal of time in rural Kansas in the early sixties. The way you and other people around here talk, one would expect that his life would have been on the line every time he ventured from his house.

Further, I worked in a large manly-man auto parts warehouse in the mid-sixties in which the running inventory was managed by a woman in her late forties who was openly and unapologetically gay. She wore a men's haircut, jeans and boots, and made no bones about her orientation to anyone. No one bothered her, no one harrassed her, and certainly no one ever attacked her. Sometimes people would laugh at how a new female employee would shriek when spotting her in the next stall in the ladies room, but that was about it. (I realize of course that this doesn't mean anything around here because I merely experienced it rather than drug up some statistic, but there ya go. The point remains that she somehow managed to be openly gay throughout the forties, fifties and sixties and no one beat her up or killed her...just like no one beat up or killed Truman Capote.

The danger and hate allegedly aimed at gays during that era is largely a fiction of liberal revisionists and is largely accepted by people too young to have experienced it first hand for themselves.Oh c'mon. You and Miller are arguing around each other, and you, my friend are being disingenuous. There were free blacks who owned black slaves. That means it didn't suck to be black? Truman Capote was a clown, and accepted as such. His life experience has little or nothing to do with the life experience of homosexuals (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsYQ4TKY_PQ) "You see, Ralph was sick. Not like Smallpox, but no less dangerous and contagious. A sickness of the mind."

My aunt Donna (not a blood relative) was as an original dyke. She lived through the depression, rode a Harley Davidson Motorcycle, and fought unions that would burn your building down if you dared try to employ someone non-union. She opened the first gay bar in her area, and told me stories about the green light she had installed over the bar that she could switch to red when the cops or MPs would raid the place, trying to catch same-sex couples dancing. The gays & lesbians were always ready to quickly pair off to avoid getting arrested.

[Starving Artist]

All of which is apropos of nothing. The point is that just because these elements may have existed then, they didn't define the society of that time. As I alluded to above, the country's population then was 150,000,000 + and only a miniscule number of those people ever engaged in lynchings or beating up gays.

The notion that these kinds of things were commonplace and happily accepted and engaged in by people of that era is a post-1968 liberal fabrication, and it's purpose is intended to try to make liberals look wonderful, caring, enlightened and superior at the expense of the truth, and to excuse what has become of life in this country in the meantime.

[Freudian Slit]

All of which is apropos of nothing. The point is that just because these elements may have existed then, they didn't define society of that time. As I alluded to above, the country's population then was 150,000,000 + and only a miniscule number of those people ever engaged in lynchings or beating up gays.

The notion that these kinds of things were commonplace and happily accepted and engaged in by people of that era is a post-1968 liberal fabrication, and it's purpose is intended to try to make liberals look wonderful, caring, enlightened and superior at the expense of the truth, and to excuse what has become of life in this country in the meantime.

But you don't have to be afraid of getting killed to feel bad about being gay. You can feel bad that your parents don't want to meet your significant other, that you can't get married or associate with your SO the same way straight people can. You can feel bad that psychiatrists are telling you that you suffer from a mental illness. You can feel lonely because no one talks about being gay and you feel like you're the only person you know who has this issue. There's a lot of ways to make people feel unwelcome without threatening them with death or physical pain.

[alexandra]

I've got to agree. did some checking on the net on Dutch attitudes (http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:DsmCOYJ50WsJ:fra.europa.eu/fra/material/pub/comparativestudy/FRA-hdgso-NR_NL.pdf+netherlands+homophobia&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=ca) on homosexuality and frankly, watching your video, I couldn't drum up the criticism I had for Pro Gay in Amsterdam with respect to engendering a homophobic backlash. I actually got the feeling that these guys were respectful of the creche tradition.

That's a nice acknowledgement. And no, I wouldn't expect Americans to appreciate it exactly - that includes a lot of gay Americans. Not everything is done in order to please others, though, and there's a happy tradition of potentially offensive irreverence towards religion amongst many Americans. Merry Christmas everyone - I may spend the rest of this Christmas Eve watching American Dad....

[FinnAgain]

I'm going to lead off with one of your mistakes as it is a perfect example of what is going on here. You have invented a fictional time period and are comparing it unfavorably to today, even if things are significantly better now.


Granted. Though since teenage girls weren't encouraged to fuck like bunnies by their peer group, culture and/or school systems, they got pregnant far less often than they do today.

Ahhh yes, the school systems. I often find, myself, that my administrators rebuke me for not advising the girls in my classes to fuck.
And, no, you are wrong. (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/05/1/gr050107.html) In fact, you have it exactly backwards. From a preliminary report that actually overestimated the data for 2000:

"The rate of teen childbearing in the United States has fallen steeply since the late 1950s, from an all time high of 96 births per 1,000 women aged 15-19 in 1957 to an all time low of 49 in 2000"
And before you object: "Among teens in the United States, at least in recent years, declining birthrates are not the result of more pregnant teens opting to have an abortion."

You can note that if we look at total pregnancies rather than births: statistics confirm this. (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guttmacher.org%2Fpubs%2F2006%2F09%2F12%2FUSTPstats.pdf&ei=75pSSYDFKdvFtgeRqtzmBg&usg=AFQjCNFFYJN6jcYyWe4Pa2iz4scL2r_yBg&sig2=PELUiUuP8-eKdHTzJJIIqA) In 2000 there were 821,810 pregnancies among 15-19 year olds and 235,470 abortions out of 9,826,000 girls/women of that age. That gives us roughly 83 pregnancies per 1000 women. So even with abortions still factored in as pregnancies, the number of total pregnancies is still lower than the 96 births per thousand in 1957, a number that would be even higher if we included miscarriages as during each year in the data set we have, miscarriages make up roughly 1/8 to 1/10 of the total pregnancies for that year.

In short, you have created an idealized version of a past that didn't actually exist, in order to denigrate the present.

It was nothing of the sort.

Racist, misogynistic, McCarthyistic... not a nasty place?


but most of the people who lived back then never had first hand knowledge of or even thought about them.

The KKK kidnapped and murdered three voter registration volunteers in 1964 as a message to anybody helping blacks, a terrorist gesture if ever there was one. This happened in Mississippi, the same place where black churches homes and businesses were firebombed and civil rights workers were beaten.
That's just a snippet of one single state. Deliberate, terroristic, brutal and societaly sanctioned violence. The Klan was quite active in the 50's and 60's. No, they didn't always lynch people. But the necessity for the Deacons for Defense didn't arise out of thin air. And I'd wager if you were black in any of the towns that the Klan terrorized, it wouldn't matter to you whether or not you had first hand knowledge of lynchings.

While I'm at it I could mention the 'internment' camps we created for Japanese Americans. Maybe that marital rape was still legal until 1976?
Not a nasty society to live in? Concentration camps for law abiding citizens based on ethnicity alone was civil behavior? Legally raping your wife was more polite back then than it'd be now?


You didn't live during that era, did you? Divorce wasn't common because society looked down on divorce and stressed the importance of family in providing a suitable environment for raising children. This resulted in some women (and probably just as many men) being trapped in loveless marriages.

Well, first, you've provided an excellent argument that shows just why the whole 'family values' schtick is a very bad idea.
Second, no, I wasn't alive then but that's not exactly relevant. To start with, women were still systematically discriminated against (but politely!) even if they felt perfectly free to divorce. Yes, a large number of people felt that divorce was wrong, but that didn't change the fact that a woman didn't have much chance at all of getting a decent paying job and being well off without a man's help. As I said, it was partially a factor, not the only or the deciding factor.

And a look at how the 'better' more 'civil' and more 'polite' nation treated women:

Women didn't even gain suffrage until 1920. It wasn't until 1936 that information about birth control could be distributed through the mail or classified as 'obscene'. minimum wage laws for women. In 1961 the SCOTUS upheld Florida's rules making it harder for women to serve on juries due to their reasoning that "woman is still regarded as the center of home and family life." It wasn't until 1964 that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was created. It wasn't until 1965 that states were finally prohibited from making birth control illegal. It wasn't until 1969 that institutions like Yale College started admitting women. It wasn't until 1970 that employers weren't legally able to simply change a woman's job title in order to pay her less than a man for doing the exact same job. It wasn't until 1972 that Title IX was created. It wasn't until 1975 that states were prohibited from barring women from serving on juries. The Equal Rights Amendment which specifically made denying equal rights based on sex failed to be ratified by the nation. It wasn't until 1986 that sexual harassment was found to be illegal.

But because they'd have called her Miss or Mis, I suppose it was better than today, what with its gangsta rap and such?
They may be called 'bitches' and 'hoes' by some rappers, but in 1945 they'd only been allowed to vote for 25 years. A 45 year old woman in 1945 would have spent virtually her entirety of her formative years legally restricted from full United States citizenship. She'd have to wait another 25 until she could be assured that her boss wouldn't just change her title while she did the same work, and pay her substantially less than men doing the same job.


More likely than today, perhaps, but still not all that likely.

Stonewall was in 1969. In New York. In the freaking Village.
That a celebrity who happened to be a homosexual wasn't beaten doesn't mean that it wasn't a truly ugly and shameful time in American history wrt our treatment of homosexuals. Up until 1962 homosexual sex acts were still criminal in every state in the US. Up until the 1974 DSM homosexuality was still listed as a mental disorder. In the 50's the American government underwent a purge in order to find and fire homosexuals.

The fact of the matter is that until 1975, the US didn't even have a commission to monitor and document discrimination based on sexual orientation. As such, obviously, reliable figures won't be had. Even today, there are still a disturbingly large number of anti-gay hate crimes in America per year, and that should give you a good idea of what things were like before being gay was anywhere near socially acceptable.
Also confusing things is that vastly more gays were closeted in the 1940's-50's than today largely because it was not a socially viable option.


The danger and hate allegedly aimed at gays during that era is largely a fiction of liberal revisionists

Damn those liberal revisionists! Damn them!
Those pesky liberals didn't invent the Lavender Scare, however.


The notion that McCarthy, blacklisting, etc. defined that era's society is absolutely ridiculous.

The reality of McCarthyism, the Red Scare and the Lavender Scare show that such attitudes did in fact penetrate society and government and informed their character.


They existed on a much smaller scale per capita

Cite?
You claim sounds quite similar to your assertion that teen pregnancy is up from the 1950's.


Instead, we have celebrities and talk shows and indignant liberals right and left telling us what kind of thinking is acceptable, what words are acceptable, how and what to think and so forth.

We also have you, doing the same exact thing.


Societies, like traffic, cannot function properly if everyone is free to decide for themselves what they want to do.

Traffic laws are about safety.
What you want to do is akin to making flame decals on cars illegal.
And yes, everybody is free to decide what they want to do as long as they don't break the law.

It's the job of families to teach morality and codes of behavior, not government. Your earlier evident confusion over how you could raise your own daughters not to get pregnant or to get STD's, and blaming that on society itself, is not without irony. I'd remind you that Consevativism is the philosophy of personal responsibility, not government helping raise/shelter your children because they might be exposed to other viewpoints or aesthetics.

[levdrakon]

All of which is apropos of nothing. The point is that just because these elements may have existed then, they didn't define the society of that time. As I alluded to above, the country's population then was 150,000,000 + and only a miniscule number of those people ever engaged in lynchings or beating up gays.When cops bust you for being gay, it defines society at the time.

The notion that these kinds of things were commonplace and happily accepted and engaged in by people of that era is a post-1968 liberal fabrication, and it's purpose is intended to try to make liberals look wonderful, caring, enlightened and superior at the expense of the truth, and to excuse what has become of life in this country in the meantime.I don't really understand this.

[Starving Artist]

But you don't have to be afraid of getting killed to feel bad about being gay. You can feel bad that your parents don't want to meet your significant other, that you can't get married or associate with your SO the same way straight people can. You can feel bad that psychiatrists are telling you that you suffer from a mental illness. You can feel lonely because no one talks about being gay and you feel like you're the only person you know who has this issue. There's a lot of ways to make people feel unwelcome without threatening them with death or physical pain.
The points you raise are good ones, but I was responding to assertions by Miller, FinnAgain and some of the others that pre-1968 society was a nasty, violent, evil society in which physical attacks and killings of blacks and gays was commonplace.

In my opinion the issues you raise could have been fought in the same way that women got the right to vote and blacks gained legislative and societal support for civil rights. If most people of those eras were so hate-filled and dead set against women and blacks, no meaningful progress could ever have been made. The fact of the matter is that the great majority of people of that era could readily see the injustice inherent in denying women the vote and blacks their civil rights, and they're being thanked for it now by being portrayed as violent, murderous bigots.

The way to address the issues you raise is with knowledge and exposure and by creating an environment in which people can see that gays are just like everyone else, that they are not mentally ill, they didn't choose to be that way, etc.

I'd like to add more but our family is getting together tonight and I have to go now. Perhaps I can elaborate more later.

[Superfluous Parentheses]

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=498971

fyi

[FinnAgain]

assertions by Miller, FinnAgain and some of the others that pre-1968 society was a nasty, violent, evil society in which physical attacks and killings of blacks and gays was commonplace.

:dubious:
Cite?

My specific claims were "[r]acism was endemic and institutionalized." And
"[h]omosexuals were much more likely to be subjected to violence and/or discrimination if they weren't closeted."

You're fighting with a strawman.


If most people of those eras were so hate-filled and dead set against women and blacks, no meaningful progress could ever have been made.

The Civil Rights Act was legislated, not put up for popular vote, and passed largely due to Kennedy's postmortem political clout.
Brown vs the Board of Ed was judicial and not put up for popular vote.
When schools were integrated, the National Guard had to be called out to facilitate it. The Decons for Defense had to go, armed, to prevent fire houses being turned on black students trying to go to school.
Freedom Riders were still arrested and in mass.
De La Beckwith got away with murder.
Rubin "Hurricane" Carter was jailed for a murder he obviously did not commit.

As an example:

White Southerners received the Brown decision first with shock and, in some instances, with expressions of goodwill. By 1955, however, white opposition in the South had grown into massive resistance, a strategy to persuade all whites to resist compliance with the desegregation orders. It was believed that if enough people refused to cooperate with the federal court order, it could not be enforced. Tactics included firing school employees who showed willingness to seek integration, closing public schools rather than desegregating, and boycotting all public education that was integrated. The White Citizens Council was formed and led opposition to school desegregation all over the South. The Citizens Council called for economic coercion of blacks who favored integrated schools, such as firing them from jobs, and the creation of private, all-white schools.

Virtually no schools in the South were desegregated in the first years after the Brown decision. One county in Virginia did indeed close its public schools. In Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1957, Governor Orval Faubus defied a federal court order to admit nine black students to Central High School, and President Dwight Eisenhower sent federal troops to enforce desegregation. The event was covered by the national media, and the fate of the Little Rock Nine, the students attempting to integrate the school, dramatized the seriousness of the school desegregation issue to many Americans. Although not all school desegregation was as dramatic as in Little Rock, the desegregation process did proceed—gradually. Frequently schools were desegregated only in theory, because racially segregated neighborhoods led to segregated schools. To overcome this problem, some school districts in the 1970s tried busing students to schools outside of their neighborhoods.

As desegregation progressed, the membership of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) grew. The KKK used violence or threats against anyone who was suspected of favoring desegregation or black civil rights. Klan terror, including intimidation and murder, was widespread in the South in the 1950s and 1960s, though Klan activities were not always reported in the media. One terrorist act that did receive national attention was the 1955 murder of Emmett Till, a 14-year-old black boy slain in Mississippi by whites who believed he had flirted with a white woman. The trial and acquittal of the men accused of Till's murder were covered in the national media, demonstrating the continuing racial bigotry of Southern whites. (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761580647_2/civil_rights_movement_in_the_united_states.html)

And (http://www.publicagenda.org/civilrights/civilrights.htm):

In 1954 a slight majority were in favor of Brown Vs Board of Ed. By 1959, virtually the same percent of people now thought that Brown was "more trouble than it was worth".
In fact, in 1961, a majority of Americans were against even the polite actions like sit-ins and the Freedom Riders. Only 23% wanted a potential civil rights act enforced fully and immediately, 62% wanted a "gradual, persuasive approach." That is, a "gradual, persuasive approach" to granting people their civil rights.
In 1964, only 62 percent supported a law to guarantee blacks "the right to be served in any retail store, restaurant, hotel or public accommodation."
They couldn't even get 90% percent of Americans to agree on such a basic principle of civil rights, let alone 99.9%.
You may want to cast that 62% as some sort of victory, but that it really means it that a full 38% of people, at late as 1964, were against or at least not for giving blacks even the most basic of civil rights.

And yes, millions upon millions of Americans against civil rights, or simply not for them, does indeed make it an ugly time in American history. You might have a case if it was .05%, or .5% or maybe even 3% or 4 %, but 38%?
That's about the same percent of Americans who attend a place of worship weekly, today.

[The Flying Dutchman]

I love the sound of the language. There are so many achs though, I kept expecting the camera to get sprayed with spit. :D

Ding a linga, Ding a Linga , Ding Dong Ding.

I loved they way that line was delivered.

[FinnAgain]

While we're at it, I found a very interesting ebook (http://books.google.com/books?id=DTqj0OPRSkUC&pg=PA167&lpg=PA167&dq=women+attitudes+divorce+1950+america&source=web&ots=lfmOLHOY5e&sig=oWpf36Ishz5OwPfXQf5G3Z05RRc&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA30,M1) on this general topic.

[Miller]

I'm amused that Starving Artist dismisses racial violence in the '50s as an aberration, but is eager to offer up school shootings as proof that modern society is degraded and valueless.

[Grumman]

I'm amused that Starving Artist dismisses racial violence in the '50s as an aberration, but is eager to offer up school shootings as proof that modern society is degraded and valueless.
Kids these days and their guns! Back in my day, if a kid wanted to kill someone at school, he had to use a slingshot. And he had to walk five miles uphill through the snow to get there!

[diggleblop]

As I have always said, gay people want to be equally part of society, yet they go and separate themselves with gay parades, gay bars, gay schools (they are trying to open one), gay pride events and other things and events like this one in Amsterdam.

Fat people want to be excepted by everyone too, but there aren't any fat people bars, fat people parades, fat people schools are there?

No, I'm not homophobic, I am very pro-gay rights.

[Sublight]

Fat people want to be excepted by everyone too, but there aren't any fat people bars, fat people parades, fat people schools are there?
McDonald's, St Patrick's Day, and Ohio State?

[Superfluous Parentheses]

As I have always said, gay people want to be equally part of society, yet they go and separate themselves with gay parades, gay bars, gay schools (they are trying to open one), gay pride events and other things and events like this one in Amsterdam.

Fat people want to be excepted by everyone too, but there aren't any fat people bars, fat people parades, fat people schools are there?

No, I'm not homophobic, I am very pro-gay rights.
Yeah right. :rolleyes:

[Terrifel]

As I have always said, gay people want to be equally part of society, yet they go and separate themselves with gay parades, gay bars, gay schools (they are trying to open one), gay pride events and other things and events like this one in Amsterdam. They "separate themselves?" So you figure there was, and is, no real problem with gay people openly expressing their affection in non-gay bars, schools and the like? Most modern bar patrons are just as comfortable being approached by a member of their own gender?

"Go on, Doug! Take a chance! Ask the captain of the football team if he wants to be your date for the prom! If he's not gay, then no harm done!"

I remain dubious.




ETA: My use of "Doug" is in no way intended to depict any particular SDMB member named Doug; so if it actually does, it's pure coincidence.

[levdrakon]

As I have always said, gay people want to be equally part of society, yet they go and separate themselves with gay parades, gay bars, gay schools (they are trying to open one), gay pride events and other things and events like this one in Amsterdam.

Fat people want to be excepted by everyone too, but there aren't any fat people bars, fat people parades, fat people schools are there?

No, I'm not homophobic, I am very pro-gay rights.Well, 20-30% of the US is fat anyway, so it's not like the obese are lonely.

Interestingly, obese gays just called themselves "bears" and became popular.

[Daffyd]

As I have always said, gay people want to be equally part of society, yet they go and separate themselves with gay parades, gay bars, gay schools (they are trying to open one), gay pride events and other things and events like this one in Amsterdam.


Gay schools were set up for an important reason - to reach the Gay and Lesbian students who are at risk just for being themselves in a "normal" school. Many of them were attacked either verbally or physically on a daily basis and are ready to quit school rather than continue to be harassed.

I definitely don't think every Gay or Lesbian student should be at a different school, but when it comes to safety - and school administrators in many schools do nothing when it comes to homophobia - I think the schools are needed unfortunately.

[Guinastasia]

You didn't live during that era, did you? Divorce wasn't common because society looked down on divorce and stressed the importance of family in providing a suitable environment for raising children. This resulted in some women (and probably just as many men) being trapped in loveless marriages. It also resulted in kids growing up with parental supervision.


And that's a GOOD thing? For kids to grow up in that kind of home? I had a friend who used to wish her parents WOULD get a divorce. :rolleyes:


And quite frankly, if bigoted jackasses like you are a product of that era, I think that it pretty much proves that the fifties were a fucking cesspool.

[BrainGlutton]

I'm going to start spitting in people's faces, then asking them to be my friends. Seems logical.

Look, they're not saying to Christians, "This is what I think of your stupid religion!" (Though many idiots will read it that way.) Many of the celebrants are Christians themselves, I have no doubt. They are saying, "I can celebrate Christmas in a flaming-gay way without disrespecting the holiday or the faith." It's simply a variation on "We're here, we're queer, get used to it."

[Olentzero]

I've got to agree. did some checking on the net on Dutch attitudes (http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:DsmCOYJ50WsJ:fra.europa.eu/fra/material/pub/comparativestudy/FRA-hdgso-NR_NL.pdf+netherlands+homophobia&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=ca) on homosexuality and frankly, watching your video, I couldn't drum up the criticism I had for Pro Gay in Amsterdam with respect to engendering a homophobic backlash. I actually got the feeling that these guys were respectful of the creche tradition.That's... actually pretty cool of you.My general point still stands however had this taken place in America. It certainly wouldn't have gone over very well.Which goes to show American society stands to learn something from the Dutch, wouldn't you say?