Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Gay vets group seeks to coopt military cooptation of Saint Patrick's day (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Gay vets group seeks to coopt military cooptation of Saint Patrick's day
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Or is it just being openly gay that gets you kicked out? It's rather distasteful to see veterans thrown under the bus for so petty a reason...
I haven't seen or heard of this happening. Plenty of people are openly gay who don't feel the need to bring rainbow flags to parades that are supposed to be about other things. If they want to march as part of a veterans group or as part of a police squad no one is going to ask them to leave. If they want to take the parade and turn it into a platform to talk about their sexuality then they're not welcome. Veterans aren't being "thrown under the bus" or being kicked out "just for being openly gay".
Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
So being gay means one is no longer "really" a veteran with Irish ancestry, but instead an outsider trying to steal traditions from the true Irish veterans? Or is it just being openly gay that gets you kicked out? . [/QB]

Neither. It's marching under an orange or rainbow flag that says, we beat you micks, so go suck an egg.

If they wanted to paint their faces rainbow colors or wear patches or otherwise point out to the watxhees that they are gay, I don't think they'd need to even get the march's oermissio . The problem comes.from marching in a griuo under a rainbow flag as if that was some sort of organizational unit.

[ March 15, 2014, 08:21 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
threads
Member
Member # 5091

 - posted      Profile for threads   Email threads   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Neither. It's marching under an orange or rainbow flag that says, we beat you micks, so go suck an egg.

That's a really, really bizarre interpretation and I would be very surprised if the group in question wanted to send that message. I think the flag is appropriate in military contexts because the military discriminated against LGBT members for a long time and only recently started treating LGB as equals (no T unfortunately). The flag acts as a symbol of expanding equality in the military*. It is not exclusive or spiteful.

* In this context. Obviously the scope of the flag is much broader.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
If they wanted to paint their faces rainbow colors or wear patches or otherwise point out to the watxhees that they are gay, I don't think they'd need to even get the march's oermissio . The problem comes.from marching in a griuo under a rainbow flag as if that was some sort of organizational unit.

From: http://www.southbostonparade.org/press-release-massequality.html

quote:
To our surprise, the offer was rejected by Mass Equality’s representative Kara Coredini. Her rejection was based on the fact that we would not allow LGBT Veterans to identify themselves as openly Gay by means of signage and T Shirts Identifying Them as LGBT Veteran.

Posts: 778 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Thank you for the explanation of the militarization of the parade in the first place, Pal. I hadn't thought of that. It does make sense.

I don't think that's an accurate claim in this case, even though it does make sense and may account for "militarization" of St. Patrick's Day parades in places other than Boston.

http://www.southbostonparade.org/index-3.html

There was a major military event in Boston on this day. That appears to be why this parade is controlled by a veteran's organization.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Paladine:
quote:

[QUOTE]but only a third of American Catholics agreed that homosexual behavior was sinful, in a recent Pew survey

Sure. And some sizable amount of them probably don't believe in God or the divinity of Christ. I don't know what that has to do with anything.
You really don't see what it has to do with anything? You were saying that it was disrespectful to Catholics to put a pro-gay message into the parade, because Catholics find that offensive. But it doesn't seem likely that most of the Catholics around would be offended.

Plus: it's a secular event. The way you responded, it's as if they wanted to march through a Catholic mass.

Edit: just to put a fine point on it: They accept and celebrate the involvement of Star Wars characters.

[ March 15, 2014, 11:54 PM: Message edited by: scifibum ]

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If they want to take the parade and turn it into a platform to talk about their sexuality then they're not welcome.
This is exactly (Giving leeway for your overstatement of what mass equality was asking for) what they are doing is intolerant. A culture is perfectly capable of being intolerant while acting within their culture. And, of course, the veterans group is NOT a catholic group, its a veterans group. And the parade isn't a religious celebration, its a military celebration. And, has been noted, Darth Vader is allowed in the parade, so there's not really legitimate room to say that certain groups that aren't necessarily representative of military culture aren't welcome. This is really one group's hatred of gays playing out.

And let's pay attention here: The parade is still happening. TO say that mass equality was being intolerant in asking for gays to be able to participate in a parade, and not marching in the parade when denied, is not being intolerant.

And, again, because its important. The Allied War Veterans Council of South Boston is registered with the IRS as a non profit, for public benefit as a military veterans organization. Its a private organization, so it has every right to act in an intolerant manner.

But its not intolerant for a subgroup that this group is supposed to represent to ask to be included in the same way that other subgroups are allowed to be included.

And, again, because its important: The parade is a celebration of the victory over the british that forced the british to evacuate boston during the revolution, not a celebration of st. patrick. As stated by the parade organizers in all their public documents.

Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If you had a gay pride parade, and a bunch of "cured" gays wanted to march as such, would it be "intolerance" for the parade organizers to say no?

Its called a Saint Patrick's day parade. Not a battle of Boston parade.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You really don't see what it has to do with anything? You were saying that it was disrespectful to Catholics to put a pro-gay message into the parade, because Catholics find that offensive. But it doesn't seem likely that most of the Catholics around would be offended.

Plus: it's a secular event. The way you responded, it's as if they wanted to march through a Catholic mass.

The ones running the parade seem to have been offended. They make reference in the press release linked by threads to their faith and to St. Patrick being their patron saint; that doesn't sound much like secular language to me.

quote:
And, has been noted, Darth Vader is allowed in the parade, so there's not really legitimate room to say that certain groups that aren't necessarily representative of military culture aren't welcome. This is really one group's hatred of gays playing out.
I'd be willing to bet you that if the Gay Hating Veterans of America wanted to march under some homophobic banner they wouldn't be allowed either. One thing that really bothers me is how quickly the argument over homosexuality has gone from "What people do in their bedroom is none of your business" and "How does it effect you what they do?" to "You're a homophobe and a bigot if you don't loudly and publicly endorse what they do in their bedroom at events having nothing to do with sexuality, orientation, or any of the rest of it."

quote:
And, again, because its important: The parade is a celebration of the victory over the british that forced the british to evacuate boston during the revolution, not a celebration of st. patrick. As stated by the parade organizers in all their public documents.
That's not true. I haven't looked at a bunch of their press releases, but even the one linked by Threads on this page disproves that.
Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"You're a homophobe and a bigot if you don't loudly and publicly endorse what they do in their bedroom at events having nothing to do with sexuality, orientation, or any of the rest of it."
Allowing someone to carry a rainbow flag is loudly and publicly endorsing gay sex?
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:
"You're a homophobe and a bigot if you don't loudly and publicly endorse what they do in their bedroom at events having nothing to do with sexuality, orientation, or any of the rest of it."
Allowing someone to carry a rainbow flag is loudly and publicly endorsing gay sex?
Yes or no, depending on *where* you allow them to carry that flag Matt. [Smile]

Symbols convey meaning and placement of symbols conveys more meaning. Allowing someone to Fly a confederate flag from the state capitol, for instance, signifies more than merely allowing someone to fly the same flag in his driveway.

[ March 16, 2014, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Allowing someone to Fly a confederate flag from the state caption, for instance, signifies more than merely allowing someone to fly the same flag in his driveway.
Then the government of the state Utah is loudly and publicly endorsing gay sex here:
http://img.deseretnews.com/images/article/contentimage/1314832/1314832.jpg
http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/PNTI6Q_aG3g/0.jpg

[ March 16, 2014, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You think so?

I don't think that meaning is expressed by that particular allowance. Nor do I think that it would be expressed through the Said Patrick's Day parade, at least that's not how I would interpret.it personally.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If the state of Utah was flying the rainbow flag from the top of the Capitol, I would say that manifests an intent to auck up to gay rights groups, just as other states flying a confederate flag manifests an intent to suck up to various groups.

The pics you show involve a political protest in the Capitol.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I don't think that meaning is expressed by that particular allowance. Nor do I think that it would be expressed through the Said Patrick's Day parade, at least that's not how I would interpret.it personally.
In the context of this discussion that's how it seemed that Paladine was interpreting it. I agree that there could be other contexts in which the flag would represent an endorsement, though I might quibble about whether "gay sex" was what was being endorsed.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:
I don't think that meaning is expressed by that particular allowance. Nor do I think that it would be expressed through the Said Patrick's Day parade, at least that's not how I would interpret.it personally.
In the context of this discussion that's how it seemed that Paladine was interpreting it.
I agree that's what he was saying. It's not how I would interpret it (I would interpret it as having more respect to Political expediency than for the Catholic religion) but then Pal is Irish Catholic and I am neither.

" I agree that there could be other contexts in which the flag would represent an endorsement, though I might quibble about whether "gay sex" was what was being endorsed."

Ah. I was being dirty when I said it depends on where the rainbow flag is placed. Sorry. [Frown] I really should stop watching South Park.

[ March 16, 2014, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:
Originally posted by Paladine:
quote:

[QUOTE]but only a third of American Catholics agreed that homosexual behavior was sinful, in a recent Pew survey

Sure. And some sizable amount of them probably don't believe in God or the divinity of Christ. I don't know what that has to do with anything.
You really don't see what it has to do with anything? You were saying that it was disrespectful to Catholics to put a pro-gay message into the parade, because Catholics find that offensive. But it doesn't seem likely that most of the Catholics around would be offended.

Plus: it's a secular event. The way you responded, it's as if they wanted to march through a Catholic mass.

Edit: just to put a fine point on it: They accept and celebrate the involvement of Star Wars characters.

This. There are some religious celebrations of the day (I participate in most of them) but the parade is not particularly religious.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Are there other sex-related militariatic floats in the Boston St Patrick's day parade? Is there a float set aside for heterosexual cops and military, or latex fetishists? Perhaps a sexual sadist float led by Lyddie England? . Or is it reasonable to suppose that the organizers would find such groupings offensive?

[ March 17, 2014, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
When a gay group marches it's not to broadcast their sexuality any more than a black group is marching because they want to broadcast the color of their skin or a women's group is there to make sure everyone knows about their reproductive organs. They are marching to give support to other members of their group and to raise awareness in the public at large that they exist. So if heteresexual or white cops had previosuly been marginalized then sure, it might make sense for them to have a float.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You saying that S&M folks aren't marginalized? " You have no idea how my people have suffered" [Wink]

But seriously, intent of the putative marchers has zero to do with the intent of the parade organizers. God may look on the heart, but a parade organizer looks on the outward appearance. Because clearly appearance is what a parade is about.

[ March 17, 2014, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:
I don't think that meaning is expressed by that particular allowance. Nor do I think that it would be expressed through the Said Patrick's Day parade, at least that's not how I would interpret.it personally.
In the context of this discussion that's how it seemed that Paladine was interpreting it. I agree that there could be other contexts in which the flag would represent an endorsement, though I might quibble about whether "gay sex" was what was being endorsed.
To be specific on this point- the rainbow flag stands for diversity and inclusiveness, it has nothing at all to do with endorsement of any particular sexual activities.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
They are marching to give support to other members of their group and to raise awareness in the public at large that they exist.
In what universe is that not cooptation?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:
I don't think that meaning is expressed by that particular allowance. Nor do I think that it would be expressed through the Said Patrick's Day parade, at least that's not how I would interpret.it personally.
In the context of this discussion that's how it seemed that Paladine was interpreting it. I agree that there could be other contexts in which the flag would represent an endorsement, though I might quibble about whether "gay sex" was what was being endorsed.
To be specific on this point- the rainbow flag stands for diversity and inclusiveness, it has nothing at all to do with endorsement of any particular sexual activities.
How is "inclusiveness" within a Saint Patrick's Day celebration not an endorsement?

Does Boston have no other venues for gay rights marches?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
They are marching to give support to other members of their group and to raise awareness in the public at large that they exist.
In what universe is that not cooptation?
In any where they are acting as just another element of the parade and not taking over the parade and squeezing other groups out.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
How is "inclusiveness" within a Saint Patrick's Day celebration not an endorsement?
And endorsement of what? Big parades? If the organizers were donating a float to the group or even waiving the marching fees, then there you might be able to argue that there's some degree of endorsement going on, but if they're paying for a spot like the dance school, star wars fans, car body shops, local stores/dairies/farms, and any other number of private groups that buy a spot in line, then they're not being endorsed any more than those other groups- just the opposite- it's the groups that march that are endorsing the organizers of the parade and the holiday that it's celebrating.

quote:
Does Boston have no other venues for gay rights marches?
Who said anything about a gay rights march? That's a completely separate issue and not at all relevant to whether any particular group wants to join in on celebrating the holiday in question.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
They are marching to give support to other members of their group and to raise awareness in the public at large that they exist.
In what universe is that not cooptation?
In any where they are acting as just another element of the parade and not taking over the parade and squeezing other groups out.
So is that what we are pretending that cooptation means on this day of the week? Taking over and squeezing either groups out? So if " ex-gays for Jesus" want one float in a gay Rights parade, that would not be cooptation so long as they aren't taking over the whole parade or squeezing other rights out?

After all, aren't "ex gay" fundies marching to " give support to other members of their group and to raise awareness in the public at large that they exist"? Which you said would not be cooptation?

[ March 17, 2014, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" any particular group wants to join in on celebrating the holiday in question"

Sorry, I missed the part where anyone claimed that the gay vets group wanted to celebrate Saint Patrick's day. I read the opposite when their proponents argued that the parade wasn't even a Saint Patrick's day parade at all but a celebration of some Battle of Boston. [Roll Eyes]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
So is that what we are pretending that cooptation means on this day of the week? Taking over and squeezing either groups out?


What bizarre meaning of "co-opt" are you applying that does not mean taking over?

Your example would not be co-option. It would be rather hurtful and offensive, right in line with allowing any other group that celebrates abusiveness to march, but not co-option for any meaningful sense of the word.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
" any particular group wants to join in on celebrating the holiday in question"

Sorry, I missed the part where anyone claimed that the gay vets group wanted to celebrate Saint Patrick's day. I read the opposite when their proponents argued that the parade wasn't even a Saint Patrick's day parade at all but a celebration of some Battle of Boston. [Roll Eyes]

Since the organizers set it up that way, then it's on them to deal with the implications of doing so, even if everyone else commonly understands that the intended point is to make an excuse to celebrate a holiday they enjoy celebrating.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So a bisexually inclined person whom seeks therapy to emphasize his or her hetero desires is guilty of "abuse" ... abuse of whom, exactly?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Abuse of themselves. That sounds terribly and pointlessly self-destructive.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
Abuse of themselves. That sounds terribly and pointlessly self-destructive.

So you contend that if a parade manager determines that a proposed float celebrates "self-abuse" that she should exclude said float?

If so, I actually agree. But I think that what is considered to be self abuse varies according to the values of any particular parade.

Nh, as a separate matter, how would you describe the relationship at this point in history between the LGBT community and the Catholic Church?

Would you think the relationship was so friendly as for the LGBT community to expect a float in a Catholic parade, or for the Catholic church to expect a float in an LGBT parade?

Hell, if a group of Irish-descended Mormons wanted st Patrick's day float with an Angel Moroni, would it be "bigotry" to deny them? (I would think not).

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Paladine:
One thing that really bothers me is how quickly the argument over homosexuality has gone from "What people do in their bedroom is none of your business" and "How does it effect you what they do?" to "You're a homophobe and a bigot if you don't loudly and publicly endorse what they do in their bedroom at events having nothing to do with sexuality, orientation, or any of the rest of it."

Two points; one, being gay, in 2014, is very relevant to military service of past and present veterans. Its relevant because, for the first time in our history, you can be gay and freely serve in the armed forces. In 30 or 50 years, it will likely be no big deal, but this is the generation that won the fight, and lived through both systems. Not only are they deserving of a standard of their choosing, but *special recognition* for serving under unjust conditions while successfully advocating for change. More directly, our nation owes them a big "thanks for defending our freedom with your lives while we spat on you for decades, and then pushing us to finally create a just system." Seems like enduring a rainbow flag is us getting off cheap.

Two, as others have asked, where are you getting bedroom activities here? I'm married to a woman, and that's public knowledge (insofar as anyone cares). I've never considered that to be some big reveal of what goes on in our bedroom, nor do I think I know what goes in in my neighbors' bedrooms. I know who their *families* are; I remain contentedly ignorant of their private sexual lives. Whenever this seems NOT to be the case for people (which only seems to be when discussing gay couples), I feel prompted to point out that one's imagining of other people's sex lives is not actually what happens, nor likely to be even close. For all we know, some gay couples may live completely chaste lives in obedience to their interpretation of scripture, while still sharing their life with the person they love. Unless you have information otherwise, you should own the so-called "bedroom activities" as your own fantasy, not someone else's actions.

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, I'm not sure I buy a relativist definition of self-abuse. Though certainly any kind of ex-gay float would be a prior unwelcome at a gay pride parade. But gay pride is more overtly political; it's about something in a way that St Patrick's day doesn't seem to be.

If this was a catholic Catholic parade, I wouldn't expect the relationship to be such that there'd be a LGBT float in it. I would not be surprised to see a float from a Catholic Church in a pride parade, however.

But does St Patrick's Day really qualify as Catholic? It barely even qualifies as Irish. Might as well ask if the Santa Clause parade is Christian. I mean, nominally, sure, but in actual practice?

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
. I read the opposite when their proponents argued that the parade wasn't even a Saint Patrick's day parade at all but a celebration of some Battle of Boston. [Roll Eyes]
You've never heard of the battles of bunker and breed's hill's? Interesting. Its a pretty significant event in American history. Also, its why there's a public holiday in Boston today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evacuation_Day

(CLick the massachusetts link. The coding here doesn't like the parentheses).

Yup. St. Patrick's day falls on the same day as Evacuation day, and vice versa. Yup, the military parade is explicitly about driving the British out of Boston. Nope, its not a religious event. Yup, it falls on a day that is nominally religious. Nope, in Boston, St. Patrick's day is not about catholicism... its about drinking a lot of guinness, getting smashed, and trying to find someone to make out with. More or less like everywhere else.

Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Two points; one, being gay, in 2014, is very relevant to military service of past and present veterans. Its relevant because, for the first time in our history, you can be gay and freely serve in the armed forces. In 30 or 50 years, it will likely be no big deal, but this is the generation that won the fight, and lived through both systems. Not only are they deserving of a standard of their choosing, but *special recognition* for serving under unjust conditions while successfully advocating for change.
I don't see anything unjust about the previous system, so that's likely a big part of where we're going to come apart here.

quote:
More directly, our nation owes them a big "thanks for defending our freedom with your lives while we spat on you for decades, and then pushing us to finally create a just system." Seems like enduring a rainbow flag is us getting off cheap.
I think that they should be thanked for serving as all veterans should, but I don't feel any compulsion to recognize them for agitating to change what I think was a perfectly fine system.


quote:
Whenever this seems NOT to be the case for people (which only seems to be when discussing gay couples)
This is of course not true. The phrase "living in sin" doesn't tend to refer to gay couples, but to unmarried heterosexual couples who cohabitate.

quote:
I feel prompted to point out that one's imagining of other people's sex lives is not actually what happens, nor likely to be even close. For all we know, some gay couples may live completely chaste lives in obedience to their interpretation of scripture, while still sharing their life with the person they love. Unless you have information otherwise, you should own the so-called "bedroom activities" as your own fantasy, not someone else's actions.
When people literally parade around their orientation and hold it up as a thing to be celebrated then it doesn't require much by way of "fantasy" on my part. At any rate, anyone looking at the flag knows that the people carrying it aren't making some statement about chastity or about scripture, but rather about the acceptance and normalization of homosexuality, often with a particular focus as to how it relates to political questions like marriage and military service. It is precisely those sentiments which the organizers of the parade have every right not to endorse.

[ March 17, 2014, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: Paladine ]

Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PSRT:
quote:
. I read the opposite when their proponents argued that the parade wasn't even a Saint Patrick's day parade at all but a celebration of some Battle of Boston. [Roll Eyes]
You've never heard of the battles of bunker and breed's hill's? Interesting. Its a pretty significant event in American history. Also, its why there's a public holiday in Boston todaay, and vice versa. Yup, the military parade is explicitly about driving the British out of Boston.
Oh the pain!

Why yes, saint patronizer, I have heard of the battle of Bunker hill. And you yanks LOST that battle. So now you say that Saint Patrick's day parade is really about celebrating a battle that you lost?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Also, according to psrt's own link, the st Patrick Day parade predates Boston's evacuation day holiday by 16 years.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think the argument was that it wasn't JUST about St. Patrick, not that it had nothing to do with St. Patrick.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So if Sponge Bob gets a float in a gay rights parade, does that mean they have to let in "ex gays for Jesus"?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
I think the argument was that it wasn't JUST about St. Patrick, not that it had nothing to do with St. Patrick.

If I was arguing your poaition, that's what I would wish was the argument at this point. But what PSRT actually said was:

" Yup, the military parade is explicitly about driving the British out of Boston. Nope, its not a religious event."

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1