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.
Where did I say that first part?
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.
As a very broad generality, no. However, as with all such generalities, there are always exceptions, and context again plays a large role.
Funny, because that certainly looked like your argument.
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?
(: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.
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 a pretty cool clip featuring the parents of newly-minted astronaut Neil Armstrong on I’ve Got a Secret.
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 Manhattan[sub]2008[/sub] than Chicago[sub]1929[/sub]. 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…
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.
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.)
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.
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 they could put them up for adoption. Or they could be (and often were) raised by the pregnant girls’ parents or other relatives.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
As 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.
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
Anyway if you think this is going to create a big stir, you don’t know Amsterdam very well.
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.
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.
I’ve got to agree. did some checking on the net on Dutch attitudes 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 .
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 “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.
