FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Gay Rights XV: everybody gets gay marriage (Page 4)

  This topic comprises 15 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ...  13  14  15   
Author Topic: Gay Rights XV: everybody gets gay marriage
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Blackblade -

quote:
It's not the publicity that bothers me. There's nothing inherently unethical in getting people to notice what you are doing so they are forced to think about it. But in one instance, with King, people are peacefully exercising their right to assemble and voice their grievances. In the other, people are intentionally looking for a conflict so they can get into violent altercations that leave them bloody, bruised, and possibly dead, while also having the chance to crack some skulls.

I don't much like arguing this point, because honestly it was the people boarding the buses and beating up the freedom riders who are the real villains. The mobs who blew up WWII vets homes for being black, and moving into the neighborhood. Who looked for the best and the brightest black men and lynched them, taking their pictures with the body in open defiance of the law. Who institutionalized hate.

Well, first of all, King was looking for a fight. If you think he picked Birmingham because it was close to home, and not because everyone for miles around knew Bull Connor's reputation, you're nuts. He knew it would only be a matter of time before Connor snapped. It was part of why he went to Selma too, because Jim Clark also had a bad rep. It was a lesson he learned from Albany, where the local sheriff, Laurie Pritchett, arrested people in huge numbers that filled jails for miles around, but rarely ever committed heinous acts of violence. By doing so, he killed all their momentum and Albany fell apart. King knew he needed a Bad Guy, and he needed cannon fodder. The whole point of Non-Violent Direct Action is about provoking a response. He talked about it in the Letter from Birmingham Jail, and he was unapologetic about it.

The Freedom Riders, on the other hand, did NOT start off that way. The Supreme Court ruled that segregated bus facilities had to be integrated, and that interstate buses could not be segregated. They rode South to exercise their rights. The first two busloads never imagined they would suffer the violence they did. They knew it might be problematic, but the firebombing of the bus in Anniston, and the mob that beat the Riders in Montgomery, that was something way beyond what they thought would happen. When SNCC took over the ride after that, they did it not to provoke a confrontation, but to prove that they wouldn't be cowed by violence. They begged state and federal officials for protection so there wouldn't be violence, but were denied, and in true non-violent fashion they allowed themselves to be beaten when the mobs arrived.

And if you don't mind my tackling a little bit of your exchange with Rakeesh...

quote:
Perhaps I am mistaken but did Dr. King ever say anything about people in the South being idiots, or fools, or evil?
I don't know if he ever said it outright, but he often called the Jim Crow system evil, and portrayed men like Bull Connor and Gov. Wallace as evil even as he preached to love thy enemy. He very much painted the struggle as one of good against evil, and I don't think it would be incorrect to say that he referred to at least some people of the South as either evil or complicit with evil.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
King was looking for a fight.
Yup. He also did very much so call it evil, as well as a 'lie which cannot live' and that the institutions of racism, like the lingering homoisms of today, survive by not being challenged due to the cowardice of the fairweather.

Also, to reiterate, and I'm really only doing this as part of what I assume to be a neutral analysis of what's working, not as an advocate of any such approach: when you make this an issue of the utility of differing techniques, then challenging and demeaning the anti-homo as readily as one should challenge and demean racism wins, and abstaining from that challenging and demeaning in order to 'reach out' to the 'fence sitters' loses. The reason, as I elaborated upon, is simple: when you're trying to use either as an intending tactic to change popular attitudes, you get an extraordinarily minimal benefit from trying to respectfully court the "defense of marriage" crowd. They are not fence-sitters. They will not be swayed in large numbers.

They're not going to be converted by the respect of society, they're going to have their ideas emboldened and preserved by the respect of society, where if instead you demean their discrimination and bigotry, it erodes conspicuously. By treating it as the entrenched ignorance of a bygone era (which I will submit and argue that it really is) and stigmatizing discriminatory attitudes towards homosexuals (again, discriminatory attitudes which the Defense of Marriage movement is ultimately about), you cut off the intergenerational transmissibility of those attitudes.

As I read today on the headline reddit: everybody (who isn't massively committed to deluding themselves otherwise, at least) knows that the entire gay marriage "issue" is already settled. You look at the demographics, nobody under the age of 35 is still convinced that the eeevil homosexuals will subvert democracy and ruin marriage and cause a population plunge or whatever other imbecile reasoning is being used for the anti-homo front-group cause of "defending marriage."

And that all this issue is anymore is that it would be nice if we could avoid making the current generation suffer while we wait for the oldsters to die off.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
Lyrhawn: I really appreciate your taking the time to enlighten me on a subject where you have a much better grasp of the history than I.

quote:
Well, first of all, King was looking for a fight. If you think he picked Birmingham because it was close to home, and not because everyone for miles around knew Bull Connor's reputation, you're nuts. He knew it would only be a matter of time before Connor snapped. It was part of why he went to Selma too, because Jim Clark also had a bad rep.
When you say looking for a fight, do you mean he actually was hoping he'd invoke a violent response and had prepared his followers to respond in kind?

Walking into the lion's den is not the same thing as wearing Crip blue in Blood territory.

quote:
The Freedom Riders, on the other hand, did NOT start off that way. The Supreme Court ruled that segregated bus facilities had to be integrated, and that interstate buses could not be segregated. They rode South to exercise their rights. The first two busloads never imagined they would suffer the violence they did. They knew it might be problematic, but the firebombing of the bus in Anniston, and the mob that beat the Riders in Montgomery, that was something way beyond what they thought would happen. When SNCC took over the ride after that, they did it not to provoke a confrontation, but to prove that they wouldn't be cowed by violence. They begged state and federal officials for protection so there wouldn't be violence, but were denied, and in true non-violent fashion they allowed themselves to be beaten when the mobs arrived.
I'll have to look more into it then. From what I'd read about it, I was under the impression a lot of the buses had idealistic white college boys and celebrities riding it because they were expecting trouble.

quote:
I don't know if he ever said it outright, but he often called the Jim Crow system evil, and portrayed men like Bull Connor and Gov. Wallace as evil even as he preached to love thy enemy. He very much painted the struggle as one of good against evil, and I don't think it would be incorrect to say that he referred to at least some people of the South as either evil or complicit with evil.
Assuming accuracy (and isn't that always the problem? [Wink] ), calling a system evil is fine, saying what a person is doing is evil is fine, portraying the conflict as good vs evil is fine, saying that an individual and what they are doing is evil in effect is fine.

Saying all people who support an idea are evil is almost always not fine.

[ February 07, 2012, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Glenn Arnold
Member
Member # 3192

 - posted      Profile for Glenn Arnold   Email Glenn Arnold         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
When SCOTUS ordered schools to desegregate in Brown, Virginia shut down their entire state school system for an entire year rather than integrate.
Part of the state shut down schools for as much as 5 years. And the state gave grants to private schools, hence designing the prototype for white flight to private schools throughout the south. This in turn is the basis for much of the current attack against public education: vouchers, charter schools, etc. in an attempt to divert funding from the perceived evil of public schools to the preferred private schools that they have more control over.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
Also, see if you can identify the speaker before you see his name at the bottom of the quote.

"I am more convinced than ever before that as we seek to establish full equality for America’s gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent.

I am not unaware of my opponent’s considerable record in the area of civil rights, or the commitment of Massachusetts voters to the principle of equality for all Americans. For some voters it might be enough for me to simply match my opponents’s record in this area. But I believe we can and must do better. If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern. My opponent cannot do this. I can and will."


-Mitt Romney (Back in 1994 while running against Bobby Kennedy)

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Actually, BB, in many ways I would say that walking into the lion's den is exactly the same as wearing Blood colors in Crip territory...if one is doing the latter to make a statement aside from bravado, that is.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Blackblade -

quote:
When you say looking for a fight, do you mean he actually was hoping he'd invoke a violent response and had prepared his followers to respond in kind?

Walking into the lion's den is not the same thing as wearing Crip blue in Blood territory.

The first, yes, he was looking to provoke a violent response. The entire point of the non-violent workshops that demonstrators went to before things like sit-ins, Freedom Rides, Freedom Summer, marches, etc. was that they all expected (and in many cases wanted) there to be violence and they had to instruct the protesters in how to react to the violence non-violently. So they taught them how to ignore it without wanting to strike back, and how to curl into a ball and protect your head, those sorts of things.

King was heavily criticizes in Birmingham when halfway through the movement there, things were starting to peter out and they finally set upon the idea of recruiting local school kids. So they got thousands of high schoolers and junior high kids (some as young as ten) and sent them right into Bull Connor's hoses. They knew EXACTLY what they were doing, they'd be warned it was dangerous that there'd be violence.

And it was exactly the kind of response that King both needed and wanted to incite, because without it, the press goes home, and you can't get to the rest of the country. It's why later in the movement, around 1963 or so, groups like SNCC made the painful decision to start bringing more whites into the movement, because when the white college kids came South for the summer, they KNEW local Mississippians would kill a couple of them, and they knew it was the only way to get national attention because no one cared when a black guy was lynched, but kill a white guy and it's news. And that's exactly what happened. Literally on the first day.

The Movement had no problem with provoking violence, and with using people as cannon fodder, and I don't say that as a criticism, just a statement of fact. In many ways it was brilliant, and required a hell of a lot of bravery to undertake.

quote:
I'll have to look more into it then. From what I'd read about it, I was under the impression a lot of the buses had idealistic white college boys and celebrities riding it because they were expecting trouble.
If you'd like a quick, rather interesting primer, I'd suggest Ain't Scared of Your Jails. It's a 60 minute segment from the very highly regarded Eyes on the Prize series. Discusses the early sit-in movement and the Freedom Rides. You also might want to look at the Freedom Riders PBS documentary. I can also find it on Youtube, and it's also a great watch. This might introduce you to some civil rights heroes that never really made it into the mainstream narrative, like Dianne Nash.

The celebrities and white kids thing kept the Rides going all throughout 1961. The FIRST Riders were from CORE, and they weren't planning to get their asses kicked. The second set that came through were from SNCC, and they knew they might, but felt they had to force the issue. I'm not 100% sure about everyone who followed, but the first two groups are by far the most significant.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
Just popping in to say I love the new thread title. And that I'm sad Heath Ledger is dead.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Darth_Mauve
Member
Member # 4709

 - posted      Profile for Darth_Mauve   Email Darth_Mauve         Edit/Delete Post 
So King went looking for a fight.

What should he have done instead?

He did what he thought best to end a system that was destroying lives. He did it in a way that was non-violent on his part, even if he expected and feared violence on another.

They had seminars on what to do in case of violence. That does not mean they wanted, or even expected violence. It just means they did not want their followers to respond violently.

He went to places where violence was likely? Those were also the places where violence was already occurring even unprovoked by marchers, and where peaceful responses were only guaranteed by the fear of those who face the violence. Lynchings, beatings, and violence did not begin in Birmingham with Kings marches. Kings marches just brought them to the media's attention.

Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post 
I read a post about what the civil rights movement did and mlk jr and I can't find the link but it was interested. It talked about the atmosphere at the time, that you keep your head down, take the abuse and hope against hope that the white guys don't decide to kill you. Then the civil rights movement came and said, they are killing us and we are ducking down. Let's instead stand up, take our blows and make it public. Stop fearing the beating or violence and face it and by facing, run a chance at ending it. The essay did a better job at writing than me and was written by a black man who lived through the time. But it wa interesting- that blacks lived with violence all the time, but by making it public and shedding light on what could happen, it helped end it.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
I'd caution against describing the entire Civil Rights Movement as being that dedicated to NVDA. There were plenty of Movement members who had no problem with answering violence with violence in private spaces. The private vs. public space argument, and when to curl into a ball and when to unload a shotgun into someone was one of the major points of contention between Malcolm X and MLK, for example.

I'd also point out that the vast majority of civil rights work wasn't public. A lot of it was small town or rural activism, or for that matter, was big urban groups, but most of them didn't get the publicity that King got. King was invited to Montgomery by Rev. Shuttlesworth, who had been doing a lot of the same things as King for almost a decade but had precious few victories to show for it. King brought cameras with him wherever he went. Some of the local community organizing that never saw the light of day ended up having the most powerful long term impact in many places. But it was no less violent.

But yeah, in general I guess, the stuff that did make it on TV certainly point out publicity angle oft the self-empowerment involved with that.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/us/washington-state-set-to-legalize-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=1&hp

quote:
SEATTLE — Washington was poised Wednesday to become the seventh state to allow same-sex couples to marry after the State House gave final passage to such a bill. Gov. Christine Gregoire promised to sign it.

The governor is expected to do just that as soon as next week, but it is not likely to take immediate effect. Under state law, if opponents gather 120,000 signatures, the measure will be put to a public referendum before it can be enacted.

The Washington vote came just a day after a court ruling in California that struck down that state’s ban on same-sex marriage, and it precedes several other votes expected across the country that could keep the issue in the spotlight throughout this election year. Some will take place in legislative chambers, including in Maryland and New Hampshire, and some at the ballot box, including in Minnesota, North Carolina and, very likely, a referendum here in Washington on the bill the Legislature just passed by a vote of 55 to 43.

New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, D.C., soon to be Washington, getting back California, keep it rolling, gents
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
I'll have you know that since the United States is a she, all the individual states must also be girls too.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Washington gets the go, New Jersey is on deck

Jersey looks good to give it the go ahead in the coming weeks, and while there was no indication on whether or not Christie will veto, I think he will. He's a wild card, but if he wants to run for the White House in 2016, he has to veto, or he'll be tarred with the same liberal taint that Romney is getting hammered with now. On the other hand, Christie has really cultivated his cult of maverickness, so he might just let it go and call for a referendum. He's hard to read.

Either way, the momentum continues.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anthonie
Member
Member # 884

 - posted      Profile for Anthonie   Email Anthonie         Edit/Delete Post 
Christie promised to veto it. [Frown]
He called on the legislature to punt the issue to the general electorate in a referendum and said he would accept the results. But the legislature isn't biting.

Unfortunately, they don't have enough votes in the legislature to override his veto (at the moment--in NJ there is a strangely long period of time given the legislature to override a gubernatorial veto. They have clear up until January 2014 to override. Though I doubt that will matter.)

Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Apparently not only are the courts not allowed to do it without being held to overthrow the will of the people. The lawfully elected legislature can't do it either. It is so hugely important that the people we pick to decide damn near everything just can't be trusted.

What a chickens#*t. Though on the bright side, I suppose politically motivated delaying actions like this are going to be more and more common, rather than flat-out refusals.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
This will end up being a liability. In 20 years, he'll be the guy that didn't have the balls to do the right thing. People will remember that.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Liz B
Member
Member # 8238

 - posted      Profile for Liz B   Email Liz B         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm hoping for more like 10 years.

I have several pro-gay-marriage argumentative essays being written right now by 8th graders. (Kids pick their own topics.)

I am very hopeful for our future.

Posts: 834 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
The writing is on the wall. The population is headed in that direction. It WILL happen eventually, just like marijuana will probably be legalized in the next 20 years.

The next generation is decidedly more liberal on a range of issues that simply don't see the stigma in this activities that their parents do.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anthonie
Member
Member # 884

 - posted      Profile for Anthonie   Email Anthonie         Edit/Delete Post 
Yes, the writing is on the wall, all wrapped together nicely here by Pew Research.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Thanks for that. It's very concisely put together.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
Its funny as I keep seeing the right wing crackpots insisting its the opposite, that people become more conservative as they age.

On the other hand their complete contempt for the nations youth and their support of destructive intergenerational policies that screw over the next generation possibly shows their real thoughts on the matter and their fear. Scorched earth and all that.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anthonie
Member
Member # 884

 - posted      Profile for Anthonie   Email Anthonie         Edit/Delete Post 
I wish this equality journey followed the adage "two steps forward, one step back," but sometimes it feels more like "one step forward, ten steps back."

Gay marriage advances in Maryland, vetoed in New Jersey.

Let's hope the best for Maryland, but again don't hold our breath. It is almost certain there will be referendums in both Washington state and Maryland before either law will go into effect. Sadly, at this point, I still think any state will reject gay marriage if put to a popular vote, due to both the Bradley Effect and the fact that the older generations are the most faithful voters.

Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anthonie
Member
Member # 884

 - posted      Profile for Anthonie   Email Anthonie         Edit/Delete Post 
[Smile] Blayne,
I just realized that you share the same name as Mayor Bradley. Any chance you are ever planning a run for mayor?

Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anthonie
Member
Member # 884

 - posted      Profile for Anthonie   Email Anthonie         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Its funny as I keep seeing the right wing crackpots insisting its the opposite, that people become more conservative as they age.

They are conflating cross-sectional polls with longitudinal studies. Common error exhibited by intro stats students and crackpot politicians.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
This will end up being a liability. In 20 years, he'll be the guy that didn't have the balls to do the right thing. People will remember that.

Well, on the positive side, there's ...

no, it's still all gov. Christie.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
So yeah!

quote:
George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Martin Sheen, Jamie Lee Curtis, Jane Lynch, Kevin Bacon, Chris Colfer, Matthew Morrison, Jesse Tyler Ferguson, John C. Reilly, and Rory O’Malley star in 8 — a stage adaptation of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the federal trial that ultimately overturned California’s ban on same-sex marriage.

The play, penned by Dustin Lance Black (Milk) using court transcripts and first-hand interviews, was directed by Rob Reiner for a one-night-only benefit in support of the American Foundation for Equal Rights.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qlUG8F9uVgM#t=1791s
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
Clicks on over... "gee... I wonder if this Rob Reiner production will be teaming with self-satisfaction..."
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
It is a level beyond self-satisfaction, especially if you can cram that much talent into those court seats.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
Too much of a good thing, is a bad thing.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
Trust me, I couldn't get through it. I'm just boggling that this thing is a thing that exists.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
Give a guy an Oscar for best screenplay and suddenly he's a playwright.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
Well, at least, a bad playwright. I was thinking maybe something like "Conspiracy" or "A few good men." this was like... Well it wasnt anything to *be like* anything else.

Honestly, why does Hollywood need to be some lame-assed, always behind the curve, never ahead of the pack, self congratulatory cluster**** all the time? Its pathetic. My sister is gay and a playwright, and anyone she studied with could have done better.

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
Well, at least, a bad playwright. I was thinking maybe something like "Conspiracy" or "A few good men." this was like... Well it wasnt anything to *be like* anything else.

Honestly, why does Hollywood need to be some lame-assed, always behind the curve, never ahead of the pack, self congratulatory cluster**** all the time? Its pathetic. My sister is gay and a playwright, and anyone she studied with could have done better.

Dude what are you talking about? They're always ahead of the curve! The worst thing you could say is that those paragons in Hollywood are maybe a little... out of touch.

But you know what? That's probably a good thing!

They talked about AIDS when it was just being whispered... and they talked about civil rights when it wasn't really popular...

I mean, they gave Hattie McDaniel an Oscar in 1939 when blacks were still sitting in the backs of theaters!

They should be proud to be out of touch!

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
Okay, I'm starting to get that you guys don't get what this is. Here's a summary.

quote:
Basically, it is an adaptation of the court transcripts from the trial in California that overturned the ban on marriage equality there. It was a very high profile trial where anti-gay bigots went to court and showed what terrible people they were without making any persuasive argument on why gays should be discriminated against. It was recorded but the courts have barred the release of the tapes so at the time a group reenacted the trial every day. Like every word and every minute, it was pretty excruciating to watch but there were many remarkable and horrifying and moments like this:
quote:
Dr. William Tam, a defendant-intervener and staunch proponent of Prop 8, wanted to be excused from the federal same-sex marriage trial now in progress. It seems he feared for his and his family's life. We can see why. Our sister site LAist has a disturbing letter Tam sent out on behalf of Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California. Yesterday, during the redirect examination of Yale Professor George Chauncey (an expert on gay discrimination) by SF Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart, the video taped deposition (from December 1st, 2009) of Tam was shown.

Here are some (horrifying) selections:
Question: “And it is your understanding that part of the gay agenda is legalizing underage sex?”

Answer: “Right.” (Page 43 of deposition)

“They lose no time in pushing the gay agenda --- after legalizing same-sex marriage, they want to legalize prostitution. What will be next? On their agenda list is: legalize having sex with children.” (Pro-Prop. 8 email by Tam, page 78 of deposition and full text of email below)

“We hope to convince Asian-Americans that gay marriage will encourage more children to experiment with the gay lifestyle and that the lifestyle comes with all kinds of disease.” (Pro-Prop. 8 media interview by Tam, page 77 of deposition)

“Question: And how did that come to be? How did it come to be that you were part of that debate?

“Answer: I was told by Protect Marriage to take part in that debate.

“Question: What do you remember saying on that topic of children and Prop 8?"

“Answer: Oh, I was saying that if same -sex marriage is legalized, then every child can grow up thinking whether he would marry John or Jane when they grow up.” (Tam discussing his arguments during a Pro-Prop 8 debate, page 73 of deposition)

Also introduced was a pro-Proposition 8 letter from Tam:

Dear Friends:
This November, San Francisco voters will vote on a ballot to "legalize prostitution". This is put forth by the SF city government, which is under the rule of homosexuals. They lose no time in pushing the gay agenda --- after legalizing same-sex marriage, they want to legalize prostitution. What will be next? On their agenda list is: legalize having sex with children. I hope we all wake up now and really work to pass Prop 8. We have only 48 days left. Even if you have church building projects, mission projects, concert projects, etc, please consider postponing them and put all the church man/woman power to work on Prop 8. We can't lose this critical battle. If we lose, this will very likely happen......

1. Same-Sex marriage will be a permanent law in California. One by one, other states would fall into Satan's hand.

2. Every child, when growing up, would fantasize marrying someone of the same sex. More children would become homosexuals. Even if our children is safe, our grandchildren may not. What about our children's grandchildren?

3. Gay activists would target the big churches and request to be married by their pastors. If the church refuse, they would sue the church. Even if they know they may not win, they would still sue because they have a big army of lawyers from ACLU who would work for free. They know a prolonged law suit would cripple the church. They had sued the California government many times before. They sue until they win. They would not be afraid to sue a church. The church would have to spend lots of money in defending the case. The court fight would be long and the congregation would be discouraged and leave --- how long are they willing to shoulder the law suit costs. The church may give in and accept them, their membership would grow and take over the church. Then a righteous pastor would have to leave. Such scenarios have happened in Scandinavian countries. At that time, churches would keep quiet, hoping that they won't be picked as the next target.

If your church is sued, don't expect others to help your church. You would be in the battle alone, and chances are you would lose. If that happens, whatever nice building your church have built now would become meaningless.

In order not to let this happen, we better team up at the current battle to defeat same-sex marriage. Collectively, we have a chance to win. Right now, each church sacrifice a little. For 48 days, delay your projects, put your resources ($ and manpower) into Prop 8. We'd have great power if we pool our resources together. Let's win this battle. After victory, your congregation would be energized and go back to the original projects with joy and cheer. They may want to give more and build a bigger building to thank God. Our God would be pleased and bless us more. But if we lose, our congregation would lose heart. They might not want to work as hard. Our opponents would be overjoyed. They would do more and change more laws so as to persecute us easier. Churchs would have a much much harder time to survive. We would be collecting offerings to fight law suits instead of building new buildings. I pray that day would not come. The choice is yours. Talk to the leaders of your church. Your actions would change the history in either direction.

Thanks for your efforts,
Bill Tam
Traditional Family Coalition

This and many other similar moments actually happened in federal court and it was the best defense they could come up with to end marriage equality.
The dialogue in 8 is pretty much the transcripts of the case itself. From the court. Pretty faithfully.

And yes, Kevin Bacon is playing a real person who really came before the court in this case and said, verbatim, most of these things.

Get it now?

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
Here's some more glory from those transcripts:

quote:
B: Your paper says that after Netherlands legalized SS marriage, Netheralands legalized incest and polygamy. Do you believe that?
T: Same sex marriage may not have led to legalization of incest and polygamy, but it happened.
B: Who told you that?
T: I found it on the Internet. I did not write this that polygamy was legalized in 2005.
B: You put it out there to convince people to vote for Prop. 8. Did you ever look up the law?
T: Yes, there was different documents that shows that’s true.
B: So after Netherlands legalized same sex marriage, legalized polygamy and incest.
T: I’m not sure about incest. That may have been legal before same sex marriage passed.
B: If that’s the case, then it has nothing to do with same sex marriage.
T: Yes, but it shows that if countries are loose with sex it leads to this…

that scene with John C. Reilly actually happened.

quote:
quote:
BY MR. BOIES:
Q. Let me try to make the question as simple as I can. Have any of the scholars that you have said you relied on said in words or in substance, okay, this permitting same-sex marriage will cause a reduction in heterosexual marriage? That's "yes," "no," or "I don't know."

A. I know the answer. I cannot answer you accurately if the only words I'm allowed to choose from is "yes" or "no." I can give you my answer very briefly in one sentence.

THE COURT: If you know the answer, why don't you share it with us?

THE WITNESS: I would be happy to, but he is only permitting me to give "yes" and "no," and I cannot do that and be accurate.

THE COURT: He is giving you three choices, "yes," "no," "I don't know."

THE WITNESS: But I do know. I do know the answer.

THE COURT: Then is it "yes" or is it "no"?

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I can answer the question, but I cannot give an accurate answer if the only two choices I have are "yes" and "no." I -- if you give me a sentence, I can answer it. One sentence is all I'm asking for.

THE COURT: All right. Let's take a sentence. One sentence.

A. Can you ask me the question again, please.

BY MR. BOIES:
Q. Yes, yes.
Have any of the scholars who you say you relied on asserted, written, that they believe that permitting same-sex marriage will result in a reduction in the heterosexual marriage rate?

A. My answer is that I believe that some of the scholars I have cited have asserted that permitting same-sex marriage would contribute to the deinstitutionalization of marriage, one of the answer -- one of the manifestations of which would be a lower marriage rate among heterosexuals. But I do not have sure knowledge that in the exact form of words you are asking me for they have made the direct assertion that permitting same-sex marriage would directly lower the marriage rate among heterosexuals.

BY MR. BOIES:
Q. Mr. Blankenthorn?

A. Horn.

Q. Mr. Blankenhorn.

A. That wasn't so long.

Q. Questions and answers.

THE COURT: If I were to take that as an "I don't know" would that be fair?

quote:
Q: My question was whether you had conducted any study in connection with your expert work or otherwise, of the effects of permitting same-sex marriage in the countries where same-sex marriage was permitted? That begins with a yes or no answer.

A: I don't think I'm able to answer that question yes or no, if those are my only two choices.

Q: Well, the question is whether you have attempted to study the effects of same-sex marriage in the jurisdictions where they have been permitted. You have either attempted to do that or not attempted to do that. It may very well have been that you attempted to do something entirely different or even related to it. But I'm not asking you about that. Do you understand?

A: May I tell you what I did do?

Q: I would like you to answer my question, sir. Now, do you understand what my question is?

A: No, sir, because --

Q: If you don't understand my question, anytime you don't understand my question, please let me know.

A: I'm letting you know now.

Q: Okay. Let me try to be as clear as I can.
You are aware that there are some jurisdictions that have permitted same-sex marriage?

A: I am so aware.

Q: Okay. Now, have you studied any of those jurisdictions to try to determine what the effect of permitting same-sex marriage in those jurisdictions has been, subsequent to the time that same-sex marriage was adopted?

A: The answer to your question is: Yes.

Q: Okay.

A: If by --

Q: As long as you answer yes, then I can begin to ask more questions.

A: I'm just afraid that you won't accept my definition of "study." And I don't want to try to say something that is -- is -- that it doesn't meet your definition of a study.

quote:
Q: Sir, I have got to ask you, I mean, this is going to move along a lot faster if you at least begin with a "yes," "no," or "I don't know."

A: I cannot do that on this, because the -- there are different domestic partnerships. I have to be able to say what kind of domestic partnerships we are talking about.

THE COURT: Mr. Blankenhorn, counsel is entitled to an answer to his question.

THE WITNESS: May I ask a --

THE COURT: That's how this process works. There is a question and then there's an answer. The answer has to respond to the question.

THE WITNESS: Does he mean domestic partnerships that are open to opposite sex couples or not?


Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
Samprimary: I definitely get the absurdity of the things being said. But I also get that this thing is mind numbingly boring, and packed with actors who have a egos and legacies to stoke.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
Not just boring, but hammy too. And 1.5 hours. There are worse ways to stoke egos and legacies, though (assuming we're just going to go ahead and generously infer that motive on their part for some reason). Besides, you don't need to watch the whole thing when you can watch from here for about ten minutes.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
coppertoe
New Member
Member # 12791

 - posted      Profile for coppertoe           Edit/Delete Post 
Anyone who uses the term "homophobia" seriously is someone to ignore. There is no such thing. It's an emotionally based ad hominem attack. The term is used to make anyone who does not agree 100% with the homosexual agenda seem like a psychiatric case. (Remember that in the 80s, homosexuality was a psychiatric disorder until the homosexual lobbyists put pressure on the folks behind the DSM to remove it. They've got to wipe out that stigma by imposing a psychiatric diagnosis on anyone who says anything that is not positive about homosexuality.) Same goes for folks who label anyone who finds homosexuality in anyway not positive a bigot--such people are the ones with intolerance problems. No? [Smile]

As for Don't Ask, Don't Tell, erm... What's wrong with it? I don't want to know your sexuality, mister, and mine is a private matter.

As for one study that proves this or that, if that's all you've got to back your belief, you're in big trouble. Ask anyone trained in designing studies. (And I'd be shocked if Socialist Canada came forward with a study saying anything that was politically incorrect. It's just not done. This doesn't mean that the PC studies show the truth. No, they show what is politically correct. It's PC to say outing homosexuals in the military in Canada was seamless. That's all the study shows. Take a university course in designing scientific studies and you'll see.)

Just sayin'...

Posts: 4 | Registered: Mar 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by coppertoe:
... I don't want to know your sexuality, mister, and mine is a private matter. ...

Somehow, I think I can guess what your displayed sexuality is.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
As for Don't Ask, Don't Tell, erm... What's wrong with it? I don't want to know your sexuality, mister, and mine is a private matter.
Under DADT, you would not be kicked out of the army for mentioning your opposite-sex girlfriend, whether or not anyone wanted to know your sexuality. And yet someone else would be kicked out the army for mentioning his same-sex boyfriend. That's part of what's wrong with it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
coppertoe,
I think you may mean the 70s. Here's a thread we had all about it. I'll also quote myself from that thread:
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
The 1973/74 decision took place within the context of two wider cultural shifts that may make what happened somewhat clearer.

The first was a redefintition of the purpose of sex across the cultural board. The introduction of effective, reliable contraception and the century or so of efforts by contraception advocates had brought about a sharp change in the public perception of the purpose of sex. As the physical reality of sex leading to reproduction had been largely obviated, the idea that sex was primarily about reproduction was also falling by the wayside. By the 70s, even the Catholic Church had altered it's millenia-old view of sex by raising pleasure from a secondary role to procreation to of equal importance. Though thwarted by papal intervention, a commission called in 1966 even said that there was no reason in doctrine or practice for the Church to be against birth control. Outside the sexual arch-conservatism of the Catholic Church, the idea that sex solely for pleasure was ok and even healthy became widely accepted.

More specifically, the 50s and 60s saw a widespread attack on the two dominant schools of psychology, Pschyoanalytic (the traditioanl couch jockeys - pretty much like Freudian) and Behavioral (what of the rewards and punishments, Pavlov, Thorndike, Watson, and such). Experimental analysis of the predictions of these two theories often found them wanting. In the field of psychopathology, new therapies were being developed and applied with remarkable sucess. Albert Ellis and others developed treatments based on their patients cognitions, fueling the fledgling Cognitive school of psychology. Advances is the biological understanding of the brain led to the development of a wide array of pharmocological treatments.

As these two schools of psychology weakened, so did their way of approaching and defining psychopathology. Several people touched on the idea of homosexuality as a deviation. That what the inital definition of what was a mental illness relied on: deviations. A person was sick when they deviated from most people in society, from what society expected of them, and most importantly, from what the theory the therapist adhered to said was normal.

There was a growing dissatisfaction with this theoretical orientation, both from people who believed the the theories involved were highly flawed and from people who were noticing the problems with labeling people as "ill" and that some of the people so labeled didn't seem to be having any real problems.

While there were isolated extremists such as Thomas Szasz before this, these issues really came to a head when the gay activists used sophisticated (and some not so sophisticated) political protests to force confrontations at APA meetings during 1972 and 73. Out of these confrontations, there developed a dialogue between the APA and these activists and within the APA as homosexual members came forward (although, as the NPR piece points out usually in some sort of disguise) to discuss why, actually, homosexuality should be considered a disorder.

First in comittee and then, in 1974, by the whole APA membership, the determination was made that there didn't exist sufficient evidence to say that gay people should actually be considered intrinsically sick. Due in large part to the agitation and forcing of the issue, the APA membership moved towards a characterization of psychopathology that now seems inevitible. Rather than basing their judgements of what was sick and what was healthy on the predictionsof theories, they analyzed people's functioning and drafted condtions by which it could be considered impaired.

The rest of the 70s was characterized by a re-evaluation of the field of psychotherapy under this different standard of pathology. This can be seen clearly reflected in the change from the DSM-II to the DSM-III in 1980.

---

The actual history and progression of this is much messier and more prone to politcs than I'm making out. Check out the NPR piece or some of the other reasoures. There's great stories involved here and the decisions and divisions that sprang out of this are still active today, some in places you wouldn't expect.

Also, it's important to note that, while it would be silly to say that there isn't an air of endorsement of homosexuality to this decision (which is borne out by later APA actions), the APA doesn't consider the DSM as a standard for judging what's right and what's wrong. Removing it as a classification doesn't mean that they were saying that it was right, just that it didn't fit the qualifications for being considered a mental illness. There's actually at least one interesting interview with an APA member who agreed with this decision but still considered homosexuality wrong. I'll see if I can find a on-line version of it.

If you're going to set out to show that anti-gay people are not ignorant bigots, I think you might do better to have a handle on the basic facts.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Facts are PC!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by coppertoe:
Anyone who uses the term "homophobia" seriously is someone to ignore. There is no such thing. It's an emotionally based ad hominem attack. The term is used to make anyone who does not agree 100% with the homosexual agenda seem like a psychiatric case.

Ignoring completely the notion that homophobia literally does not exist, as opposed to just being too psychologically/diagnostically charged a word applied to too broad a category of people, you need to describe what — in your mind — someone has to believe in order to "agree 100% with the homosexual agenda." What is the homosexual agenda?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Darth_Mauve
Member
Member # 4709

 - posted      Profile for Darth_Mauve   Email Darth_Mauve         Edit/Delete Post 
See, Coppertoe is not Homophobic. He is a hetero-supremisist. Heterosexuality is supreme. homosexuality is not.

As far as anyone using the term "Homophobic" being automatically unworthy of listening too, the same can be said for anyone using the term "Homosexual Agenda". That is a term created by conservatives to stigmatize the desire for homosexuals to be accepted in our society. The only people I know who ever have listed what is on the homosexual agenda have been heterosexual conservatives listing their fears of what it might be.

Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm fairly sure the homosexual agenda includes, but isn't limited to, a sort of gay reverse Halloween: 364.25 days out of the year, wandering bands of homosexuals rove the landscape-especially suburbia-and if they ring your doorbell, they get to make a lengthy sales pitch to your entire family, enticing them to be gay.

That's just the public face of it, though. Being gay (and therefore obviously liberal), there's an insidious Jesus-hating agenda too: as more and more Americans go gay-and it's skyrocketing, of course-individually, gays become more powerful and appealing. With every awards show gay kiss, every gay Hollywood movie, an individual gay may, on sight, turn you gay. Or your god-fearin' kids, of course.

The really powerful gays, the Alpha Gays if you will, wield this power even without firsthand sensory contact. Scientists from various creationist universities don't fully understand this phenomenon yet, whether it's gay pheremones or hypnotic fashion sense or gay mind control or good old fashioned Gay Satan, but it's been observed in the world. It exists.

There: the homosexual agenda. Now I don't want to hear any of you whining later when you're gay that you weren't warned.

(My contribution to my own enjoyment and heaping scorn and ridicule on coppertoe's noxious, foolish ideology as expressed. Two valuable public services!)

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
Rakeesh, the only part of your assessment of the homosexual agenda that I disagree with is that they're all liberals.

As the gay population skyrockets and becomes the new normal (and straighties hide in the shadows of the huge rainbow skyscrapers in the gay megapolis), and social conservatism as we know it evaporates, we'll see the normal distribution of left/right between the new all-gay-all-the-time population.

But yeah, otherwise you're right. The dominant scientific theory says it's the gay pheromones that do it, and the fringe religious group that worships Gay Stan (you know what, I'm gonna leave that typo as-is) is fading, hopefully vanishing into the mists of time.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
As the gay population skyrockets and becomes the new normal (and straighties hide in the shadows of the huge rainbow skyscrapers in the gay megapolis), and social conservatism as we know it evaporates, we'll see the normal distribution of left/right between the new all-gay-all-the-time population.
You won't have much time, though. As we have been warned, legitimizing gay marriage pretty much causes civilization to collapse and we would be setting the doomsday ticker.

BUT SERIOUSLY hi coppertoe, I do really want an answer as to what the gay agenda is.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
A better question, a two-part question if we must at least give the appearance of taking such a post seriously: what is the 'homosexual agenda', and equally important, how did you come to know it?

It's striking how abruptly arguments against legalizing SSM fall flat on their faces when you merely insist that, no, it's not a given that it's bad for whatever reason-you have to demonstrate why it's bad without the starting assumption that it is.

And no, I don't want to hear about what it says in your given holy books anymore than I want to hear about why it's awful I work on Sundays, eat pork, don't veil my women (who are of course mine), blaspheme. Just because that serves as evidence to you is not at all a reason why it's evidence in itself, or to anyone else.

It's just a feeling based on memories of mine, and so all sorts of biased, but it feels like not long ago, it was pretty much a rule everywhere that to have this discussion, much less enact law, you had to go through a whole debate about why a given group of interpretations of Christian sexuality should not, in fact, be a decisive factor in civil law in this country. You'd be lucky to get past that stage, and often you never really did.

Just makes me glad that, in more and more places, the burden of proof is finally shifting in this discussion.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:

Get it now?

I got it before. I was hoping it would at least have been "written" a little better (cut-aways, blocking, byplay, editing and timing, etc), or directed with a little more than half-interest.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 15 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ...  13  14  15   

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


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2