'Merica: YOU ARE SO GAY!

[Jokodo]

You don't have to like gay pride parades. You just don't get to pretend "I don't like it" is a good enough reason to demand people stop doing them.

That's narcissistic and whiny.

I have looked at my original post, variously described as 'whiny'. 'narcissistic', 'vitriolic' and a 'demand'. It was in fact a request, not a demand.

So, they (the ??10%) are normal and 'accepted' and can marry, if they want to, in every State of the Union. Now can we please have an end to 'Gay Pride' parades? Just start living normally for Chrissakes, like the rest of us.

A request based on my weariness with continually and tiresomely being presented with narcissistic, self congratulating , spectacles on TV. Exactly like my weariness with many tiresomely repetitive advertisements on the same medium, even though some of those are for products I use and value. It does come over as bad-tempered, which is exactly how I feel in respect of both those cases.
<snip>

So you're requesting, not at all demanding, just requesting, that people refrain from using their right of speech and right of assembly and "live normal" instead. Because you can't be bothered to grab your remote and switch to another channel when yet again "tiresomely" presented with their parade.

No, that's totally not whiny and narcissistic. I'm really sorry if I ever implied otherwise.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

1.The title to the OP here is 'MERICA you're so gay'. Any comment on that is fair game IMO. Sorry to rain on your parade.

The subject of the thread was the fourteenth amendment in relation to same-sex marriage. Didn't realize "It's official. The 14th Amendment prohibits laws prohibiting gay marriage! FREEDOM!" Was so cryptic to you. Or is it just that any time a word appears in a title, any and all subjects related to that word are now what's being discussed? In that case, I think a more pressing topic would be to discuss ending Independence Day celebrations. They're really just an excuse to promote poor diet, alcoholism, and arson.

 

[Herrick]

This decision is even worse and has absolutely no basis in law or the constitution. If legal the sanctions that apply to marriage are not discriminatory, then there is no basis any decision based on the 14th amendment. If they are discriminatory, then gay marriage does not eliminate that inequality. It merely extends that inequality to gays who choose to marry. Any inequalities deriving from marriage laws still exist for people, gay or straight, who do not choose to get married. For the 14th amendment to apply, the decision would have to have eliminated marriage as a legally sanctioned institution altogether.

Which legal sanctions are you talking about?

Why would marriage have to be done away with for the 14th amendment to be applied in this case?

 

[Herrick]

This would've been more encouraging if it wasn't split between the conservatives and liberals on the supreme court. Oh well.

I was mistaken about the decision being split between conservatives and liberals justices.

Also, I don't know how to edit a post on here.

 

[Jokodo]

This would've been more encouraging if it wasn't split between the conservatives and liberals on the supreme court. Oh well.

I was mistaken about the decision being split between conservatives and liberals justices.

Also, I don't know how to edit a post on here.

You can only edit posts for two hours after posting them. Within that period, you should see an "edit post" button next to the reply button.

 

[TSwizzle]

It is quite extraordinary how quickly people will give up democracy in favor of whatever cause célèbre grabs their attention.

Yes, extraordinary indeed. Like when the assembled townfolks decide that a nigger needs to be hanged for ogling a white girl, that their democratic right to decide, and the courts better mind their own business instead of declaring collective democratic decisions to execute a perpetrator "unlawful". Who do they think they are?

Oh for fuck's sake, get a grip. Only on here would you see such a grotesque comparison. You must be trolling.

 

[credoconsolans]

Well now folks. No amount of ill-tempered bitchy persuasion will make me like the Pride parades, unless they show more self-respect and genuine pride by participants and less sleaze.

Well I see you also don't like Mardi Gras or Carnivale. Are you going to be protesting those parades and celebrations too?

 

[Jokodo]

Yes, extraordinary indeed. Like when the assembled townfolks decide that a nigger needs to be hanged for ogling a white girl, that their democratic right to decide, and the courts better mind their own business instead of declaring collective democratic decisions to execute a perpetrator "unlawful". Who do they think they are?

Oh for fuck's sake, get a grip. Only on here would you see such a grotesque comparison. You must be trolling.

I'm not trolling. You're claiming that a court putting limits to the ways in which local bodies can abridge indivduals' rights is something new and extraordinary. I'm countering that it's something that's happened for ever, and illustrating my claim with a historical example, thereby directly refuting yours.

At this point, you have three possible moves: One, you could be consistent and say that courts have no business meddling in lynchings just like they have no business meddling in discriminatory marriage laws. Two, you could admit that maybe it isn't quite as extraordinary (you can still argue that the decision was wrong, but you'll have to make more of an effort). Or three, you could demonstrate that the two things are different in relevant respects. Calling the comparison "grotesque" and accusing me of trolling (contrary to forum rules) doesn't accomplish any of those things.

 

[4321lynx]

1.The title to the OP here is 'MERICA you're so gay'. Any comment on that is fair game IMO. Sorry to rain on your parade.

The subject of the thread was the fourteenth amendment in relation to same-sex marriage. Didn't realize "It's official. The 14th Amendment prohibits laws prohibiting gay marriage! FREEDOM!" Was so cryptic to you. Or is it just that any time a word appears in a title, any and all subjects related to that word are now what's being discussed? In that case, I think a more pressing topic would be to discuss ending Independence Day celebrations. They're really just an excuse to promote poor diet, alcoholism, and arson.

Sorry.
I did not realise all comment was verbotten! Only favourable comments allowed, otherwise subject is untouchable.

 

[Jokodo]

The subject of the thread was the fourteenth amendment in relation to same-sex marriage. Didn't realize "It's official. The 14th Amendment prohibits laws prohibiting gay marriage! FREEDOM!" Was so cryptic to you. Or is it just that any time a word appears in a title, any and all subjects related to that word are now what's being discussed? In that case, I think a more pressing topic would be to discuss ending Independence Day celebrations. They're really just an excuse to promote poor diet, alcoholism, and arson.

Sorry.
I did not realise all comment was verbotten! Only favourable comments allowed, otherwise subject is untouchable.

Also, Christians are being prosecuted!!!one!!!eleventy!!!

No-one's saying only favourable comments are allowed. But if the adversary comments are based on piss poor arguments, they're going to get picked apart. And if they stray from the topic of the thread to rant about barely related stuff, that's going to be pointed out.

This is what open discourse looks like.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well now folks. No amount of ill-tempered bitchy persuasion will make me like the Pride parades, unless they show more self-respect and genuine pride by participants and less sleaze.<snip>

You don't have to like gay pride parades. You just don't get to pretend "I don't like it" is a good enough reason to demand people stop doing them.

That's narcissistic and whiny.

Unless you're like me and object to the notion of being proud of things that simply are and are not accomplishments.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Sorry.
I did not realise all comment was verbotten! Only favourable comments allowed, otherwise subject is untouchable.

I never said any such thing. I'm saying it's not advisable to comment on other people being sensitive when you, yourself, are very whiny. So much drama from you.

 

[TSwizzle]

Oh for fuck's sake, get a grip. Only on here would you see such a grotesque comparison. You must be trolling.

I'm not trolling. You're claiming that a court putting limits to the ways in which local bodies can abridge indivduals' rights is something new and extraordinary. I'm countering that it's something that's happened for ever, and illustrating my claim with a historical example, thereby directly refuting yours.

At this point, you have three possible moves: One, you could be consistent and say that courts have no business meddling in lynchings just like they have no business meddling in discriminatory marriage laws. Two, you could admit that maybe it isn't quite as extraordinary (you can still argue that the decision was wrong, but you'll have to make more of an effort). Or three, you could demonstrate that the two things are different in relevant respects. Calling the comparison "grotesque" and accusing me of trolling (contrary to forum rules) doesn't accomplish any of those things.

For fuck's sake, your comparison is grotesque and demeaning to the actual struggle of "niggers" and cannot be taken seriously by me. Jog on.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

You don't have to like gay pride parades. You just don't get to pretend "I don't like it" is a good enough reason to demand people stop doing them.

That's narcissistic and whiny.

Unless you're like me and object to the notion of being proud of things that simply are and are not accomplishments.

Which is not what Pride does. In a time when people were made to feel ashamed of their sexual orientation, treated as moral deviants and perverts, a sense of 'pride' was antithetical to that shame. But it's not like people are saying "i managed to accomplish being gay, so give me a gold star!" A more common sentiment falls along the lines of, "In spite of historic condemnation of homosexuality, I reflect positively on who I am not in spite of being gay, but rather inclusive of that fact. I am no less dignified and no more degraded than any other person just for being gay."

That is not to suggest that every person's views on what LGBT pride means match what I said, but what the term 'gay pride' represents historically and presently cannot be reduced to a partial dictionary definition of the word 'pride'.

 

[laughing dog]

Democrats have been working towards this for a decade, and Libertarians have been working towards this for four decades. Thank you for finally catching up with us and helping it pass.

Well, someone had to do it and the evidence is clear that the "Libertarians" were not going to get anything do in anyone's recognizable lifetime.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Well, we did do all the ground-work, all the preparations, etc. And once the tide finally turned, it was nice of you to jump on the bandwagon and loudly tell everyone that you were actually steering it.

And Obama's going to get credit, considering that he did nothing to help but he was in the right place at the right time to sit back and watch it happen.

 

[Jokodo]

I'm not trolling. You're claiming that a court putting limits to the ways in which local bodies can abridge indivduals' rights is something new and extraordinary. I'm countering that it's something that's happened for ever, and illustrating my claim with a historical example, thereby directly refuting yours.

At this point, you have three possible moves: One, you could be consistent and say that courts have no business meddling in lynchings just like they have no business meddling in discriminatory marriage laws. Two, you could admit that maybe it isn't quite as extraordinary (you can still argue that the decision was wrong, but you'll have to make more of an effort). Or three, you could demonstrate that the two things are different in relevant respects. Calling the comparison "grotesque" and accusing me of trolling (contrary to forum rules) doesn't accomplish any of those things.

For fuck's sake, your comparison is grotesque and demeaning to the actual struggle of "niggers" and cannot be taken seriously by me. Jog on.

Yes, the comparison is grotesque. It's meant to be grotesque. This is called reductio ad absurdum. You made a strong pronouncement, calling the fact that SCOTUS declared popular decision made at the local levels unconstitutional "extraordinary" and incompatible with democratic principles. This claim, followed to its logical conclusion, leads to the grotesque (indeed) realisation that declaring lynchings unlawful is also extraordinary and undemocratic.

If you don't like that conclusion, you have to show how the two things are different in principle, not just in terms of the scale of unjustice being done.

(In no way am I demeaning the historical and ongoing struggle of African Americans. Showing that your argument against the recent SCOTUS finding against gay marriage bans could equally be used against court findings declaring lynchings unjustified homicide. It does not imply that lynchings and banning same sex marriage are the same in any other respect. It only implies that you'll have to use a different argument (or accept that you're applying your logic inconsistently) if you're for one and against the other.)

 

[laughing dog]

Well, we did do all the ground-work, all the preparations, etc. And once the tide finally turned, it was nice of you to jump on the bandwagon and loudly tell everyone that you were actually steering it.

It is news to me and probably the gay community that "Libertarian" = "gay community".

And Obama's going to get credit, considering that he did nothing to help but he was in the right place at the right time to sit back and watch it happen.

Maybe, maybe not. What is important is the outcome, not who gets patted on the back.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Of course, since Obama wasn't actually involved in any way, it isn't important who gets the credit / blame. Now if he actually had lifted a finger to help, I'm sure you'd say that credit / blame is important. That's just the way things work, isn't it?

Why is it so important to you that Libertarians receive no credit for the work they did on this issue? Because we were there long before the Johnny-Come-Lately Democrats? Is that also why it's not important who gets credit? Because if who gets credit were important, you'd have to actually say something nice about the hated Libertarians?

Yep, that's it. If you were to actually look at who gets credit, you've have to say something nice about Libertarians and admit Obama didn't play a part in this. Either of those would be galling, but both at once? Oh how awful that would feel. No wonder who get's credit is not important.

In 1972 the Libertarian Party made support of gay marriage a part of its platform and nominated an openly gay candidate for President. Meanwhile...

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage." Barack Obama, November 1, 2008.
"I believe marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman." Hillary Clinton, 2004.
"Do you think New York State should recognize gay marriage?" Chris Matthews. "No." Hillary Clinton, 2002.
Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, later ruled unconstitutional, which defined marriage as between one man and one woman. 1996.
Bill Clinton supports "Don't Ask Don't Tell" which forbids military members from mentioning if they are gay. 1994.

 

[4321lynx]

Sorry.
I did not realise all comment was verbotten! Only favourable comments allowed, otherwise subject is untouchable.

I never said any such thing. I'm saying it's not advisable to comment on other people being sensitive when you, yourself, are very whiny. So much drama from you.

The drama IMO came in the comments on my comment.