why aren't the florida gays protesting?

[surferboy]

this is fuckin atrocious that the government thinks they can take away he rights of people! their justification is that it is "the will of the people"

well, slavery was "the will of the people"

the unfair treatment of asian immigrants was "the will of the people"

the overthrow of lili'uokalani was "the will of the people"

separating "white" and "colored" was "the will of the people"

and yet, all of those were unconstitutional and violated basic human rights. how were those bills allowed to even be brought to the forefront?

 

[marleyisalegend]

and yet, all of those were unconstitutional and violated basic human rights. how were those bills allowed to even be brought to the forefront?

The difference is Asians were organized, for women's liberation, women were organized, for Civil Rights, blacks were organized. Gays sorta wallow around oogling Zac Efron, then when legislation passes against us we riot and shout racial perjoratives.

Gays aren't organized, we have no leader(s), some of us aren't even honest about the fact that we're gay. We sit here and brag about all the married men we seduce, then stomp our heels when those married men vote amendments against us. Oh, in that case, just blame it on blacky.

 

[surferboy]

The difference is Asians were organized, for women's liberation, women were organized, for Civil Rights, blacks were organized. Gays sorta wallow around oogling Zac Efron, then when legislation passes against us we riot and shout racial perjoratives.

Gays aren't organized, we have no leader(s), some of us aren't even honest about the fact that we're gay. We sit here and brag about all the married men we seduce, then stomp our heels when those married men vote amendments against us. Oh, in that case, just blame it on blacky.

wow...that's just sad that gay peoples aren't organized and just brag about the married men they seduce, etc.

 

[marleyisalegend]

wow...that's just sad that gay peoples aren't organized and just brag about the married men they seduce, etc.

It is, the funny thing is we have so many historic examples we should be able to look at and learn from yet we're halting our our own progression just as much as anyone else is.

There are pro-gay politicians on local and federal levels all over the country but, like I said, they don't get as much attention as Zac Efron.

I signed up for pro-gay political forum so I get updates on events and important dates in my state. If more gay men simply got informed and involved we could get this ball rolling but too many of us are too busy jacking off in the sauna at the gym to care about our rights.

 

[surferboy]

i fully support the gay cause. i don't live the gay lifestyle, so i can't fully understand their point of view, but i do support their right to get married. i still don't get how it's legal to deny basic civil rights to people.

i would totally join a march if one was organized down here

 

[marleyisalegend]

i fully support the gay cause.

Just by saying that you've already done more than some gay people have.

i don't live the gay lifestyle, so i can't fully understand their point of view

That's admirable. Americans aren't particularly known for supporting things they don't understand. We usually do the opposite.

i still don't get how it's legal to deny basic civil rights to people.

That's easy. Our government is so full of holes that it's easy for any majority to manipulate in their favor. If I can convince enough people that fish tanks are the spawn of Satan, I can get them outlawed by 2010.

i would totally join a march if one was organized down here

There's another problem, instead of marching for our rights, we prance around in booty shorts and call it "Pride." We don't march for rights, we march so we can cruise the scene and find guys to take back to the hotel.

 

[surferboy]

Just by saying that you've already done more than some gay people have.

i feel accomplished and deeply saddened all at once

That's admirable. Americans aren't particularly known for supporting things they don't understand. We usually do the opposite.

maybe it's a hawai'ian thing? i'm a mutt, and also being born on o'ahu, i know how to tolerate peoples

That's easy. Our government is so full of holes that it's easy for any majority to manipulate in their favor. If I can convince enough people that fish tanks are the spawn of Satan, I can get them outlawed by 2010.

and it's also too easy for fucking lobyists to get what they want. see those bogus corn syrup commercials yet?

There's another problem, instead of marching for our rights, we prance around in booty shorts and call it "Pride." We don't march for rights, we march so we can cruise the scene and find guys to take back to the hotel.

and gay peoples wonder why straight peoples don't take them seriously? it's one thing to have pride, but there's no reason to be parading about in booty shorts and cruise the scene when you should be raising awareness and marching for your goddamn rights

 

[marleyisalegend]

and gay peoples wonder why straight peoples don't take them seriously? it's one thing to have pride, but there's no reason to be parading about in booty shorts and cruise the scene when you should be raising awareness and marching for your goddamn rights

Therein lies the schizophrenia of the gay community. We want rights, but we act like they're just going to fall into our laps as a gift from the Morality Fairy.

 

[OldPArtner]

Therein lies the schizophrenia of the gay community. We want rights, but we act like they're just going to fall into our laps as a gift from the Morality Fairy.

I am saddened whenever the enemies of freedom in this country use footage and images from pride parades as examples of what the gay lifestyle is like (in messages like "Do you want those FREAKS teaching YOUR precious little children of God??/"), when the gay people I know personally (though they are few) just seem to lead normal lives, and in a few cases I only learned they were gay after having known them for a long time (well okay there was one I learned was lesbian after I asked her out shortly after meeting her in class but that kind of speed is the exception).

Now when the Internets use said footage and images it can garner a few lulz, but much like ROFLracism, it gets old (on the other hand, chargin' mah lazer and sh00pin' da w00p is always win despite its history).

 

[B_VinylBoy]

and gay peoples wonder why straight peoples don't take them seriously? it's one thing to have pride, but there's no reason to be parading about in booty shorts and cruise the scene when you should be raising awareness and marching for your goddamn rights

Nah... the booty shorts and gay pride marches aren't the reason. Gay people were considered outcasts in society by the straight community long before the Stonewall Riots, long before there was any march. But I do agree with marleyisalegend when it comes to the overall attitudes of some gay men these days. The one thing that can practically fall in their laps, the sex, is the stuff they obsess over like it's going to disappear tomorrow. The stuff that needs work, like civil rights, they're expecting to just magically appear. I live a few blocks away from the Pride March route in New York, and for these past few years I haven't even wanted to go out and attend. Not because I'm not proud of who I am... but because I find myself connecting less and less with the people who are providing the images of the gay lifestyle. I love sex like anyone else. But come on, does EVERYTHING have to circulate around M2M personal ads, escorts and big dicks?

 

[mindseye]

Therein lies the schizophrenia of the gay community. We want rights, but we act like they're just going to fall into our laps as a gift from the Morality Fairy.

We do?

 

[surferboy]

We do?

wait, i'm not understanding your post...are you saying you don't want freedoms and civil rights? i'm sorry, but you were kina vague

Nah... the booty shorts and gay pride marches aren't the reason. Gay people were considered outcasts in society by the straight community long before the Stonewall Riots, long before there was any march.

it was accepted in many cultures before the christians took over the world. in most polynesian islands, there was nothing wrong with a "straight guy" getting some release from a gay dude. the only stipulation was that gay guys generally had to do "women work," such as cooking and cleaning the house. even after the christians took over, most islands kept this tolerance, like in tonga.

 

[Snozzle]

it was accepted in many cultures before the christians took over the world. in most polynesian islands, there was nothing wrong with a "straight guy" getting some release from a gay dude. the only stipulation was that gay guys generally had to do "women work," such as cooking and cleaning the house. even after the christians took over, most islands kept this tolerance, like in tonga.

It was more complicated. The Polynesian faafafine etc. were and are something like transsexuals. They renounced the whole male identity - or had it taken from them. Samoans and Tongans living in paalagi societies, such as NZ, are adopting a variety of identities, from faafafine across to gay. Since the missionaries, Polynesian societies have been much more ambivalent about faafafine. They used to have a place of respect (like American berdache). Not so much nowadays.

 

[HazelGod]

this is fuckin atrocious that the government thinks they can take away he rights of people! their justification is that it is "the will of the people"

Because our government is founded in democracy, where the majority rules.

Fortunately, ours isn't a pure democracy, but a constitutional republic.

Part of the problem, if you will, arises from the fact that the founders didn't really intend to form a strong central authority, but to have a collection of sovereign states, each with its own independent authority. It remains largely this way even today, although numerous Supreme Court battles and at least one vicious war have been fought to establish that Federal authority supersedes State law. The Bill of Rights was drafted specifically with the idea of preventing a "tyranny of the majority" in mind.

Given that our high court has already famously ruled that a doctrine of "separate but equal" is inherently discriminatory and unconstitutional, it should be a compelling precedent to have any state law (including one enshrined in a state constitution) overturned under review.

However, such review isn't automatic. The application of the law must be challenged and brought before the SCOTUS...a process not known for its brevity.

So, the good news is that recourse exists and the likelihood of such bans being overturned is better than even. The bad news is, you might have to wait a few years for it to happen.

 

[mindseye]

wait, i'm not understanding your post...are you saying you don't want freedoms and civil rights? i'm sorry, but you were kina vague

You said, "we act like they're just going to fall into our laps as a gift from the Morality Fairy."

That's what I was questioning.

 

[D_Bob_Crotchitch]

It may or may not happen if you try to apply seperate but equal to marriage. Seperate but equal applied to education and segregation. It was race based. So far the courts have not applied it to gender or familial issues.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

You said, "we act like they're just going to fall into our laps as a gift from the Morality Fairy."

That's what I was questioning.

Surferboy didn't say that ... marley did.
FWIW.

 

[HazelGod]

It may or may not happen if you try to apply seperate but equal to marriage. Seperate but equal applied to education and segregation. It was race based. So far the courts have not applied it to gender or familial issues.

Re-read my response. I spoke in terms of probabilities and likelihoods, not absolutes, saying essentially the same thing you just did.

Furthermore, the "separate but equal" doctrine of the Jim Crow era pertained to virtually every aspect of public life, not just education. True, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka was the first of the landmark cases to be decided, and it dealt with schools...but it was followed by the Civil Rights Act of '64 which extended this repudiation of the doctrine to all facets of public existence.

Anyhow, my point was that our government provides for the review and rectification of policies enacted by a majority vote that unfairly penalize minority groups. It might not be quick nor easy, but those affected by these recent state propositions aren't without hope.

 

[surferboy]

Because our government is founded in democracy, where the majority rules.

like i said, just because it's the will of the people doesn't make it ethically sound. i've cited a few examples of how the will of the people can violate basic, human, civil rights.

the killing of the jews in nazi germany was the will of the people.

the genocide going on in darfur currently is the will of the people.


granted, those are not democracies. you're making it sound like it's ok that these amendments passed because we're a democracy, and the will of the people should take affect

i'm with the philosopher john stuart mill. he believes in something called the harm principal, and in it, he rejects paternalism. basically, the harm principal states that the only time a government should have the right to make something illegal is if it harms other people. paternalism is the government telling us not to do something because "the government is wise" and acts like a father.

coincidentally, mill was an advocate for a small federal government, like the founding fathers and the republicans. odd how the political party that doesn't believe in a strong federal government seem to think they have the right to tell peoples what they can and cannot do to their bodies, be it homosexualiy or abortion, or what have you

 

[HazelGod]

like i said, just because it's the will of the people doesn't make it ethically sound. i've cited a few examples of how the will of the people can violate basic, human, civil rights.

you're making it sound like it's ok that these amendments passed because we're a democracy, and the will of the people should take affect

You didn't read my full response, did you?