Gay Rights

[Ryujin]

Dude, a once-a-year parade does not qualify as "leading the way" for an overall movement.

So, the other 364 days a year, when the vast majority of those "freaks" publicly look just like everyone else, and are probably serving you lattes and doing your legal paperwork and you wouldn't know it, does not count as showing that they are generally normal? They must comply to norms *ALWAYS* to count as showing they are generally normal? Even that one parade is too much?

I can think of one hell of a lot of heteros I really wouldn't want leading the way for anything I was involved in, when they 'let their freak flag fly.'

 

[KirayaTiDrekan]

Very often, it is the "freaks" - the visible folks who make people notice them - who lead the way in the fight for equality. Many of us are quiet and just want to live our lives, relying on the "freaks" to pave the way for that to happen.

 

[trappedslider]

From Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissenting opinion, he remarks, “It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.”

 

[Bullgrit]

Dude, a once-a-year parade does not qualify as "leading the way" for an overall movement.


Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?461865-Gay-Rights/page5#ixzz3eDFIEjBJ

So, the other 364 days a year, when the vast majority of those "freaks" publicly look just like everyone else, and are probably serving you lattes and doing your legal paperwork and you wouldn't know it, does not count as showing that they are generally normal? They must comply to norms *ALWAYS* to count as showing they are generally normal? Even that one parade is too much?

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?461865-Gay-Rights/page5#ixzz3eDFN7Z5V

Sigh. No. Really, am I being this difficult to understand?

If a group, any group, takes one day a year to celebrate themselves, their culture, their lifestyle, their biology, their "thing", whatever, to say, "Hey world! This is us! This is who we are!", and the main thing the world sees on that day, in that presentation, is mostly something over the top, something not only not-normal for the general world, but not even normal for that specific culture, then isn't that poorly representing the group?

For many small groups, flying the freak flag on a special day doesn't hurt them, because the world already knows and accepts them. But with a group that is already too often vilified or thought of very negatively, flying the freak flag front and center on the special day they've chosen to represent themselves just adds fuel for those who wish to burn them.

I've seen people point to the pride parade as an example of what "those people" are like. I'm just saying, if a group wants to avoid the stigma of being weird, take note that some things that group allows to be represent itself is seen as weird.

All this is based on the idea that the pride parade is actually considered a time for all gays to stand up and represent the gay community in a positive light, to gain general societal acceptance. If the pride parade is, instead, a day to get freaky and weird freely, then great, go for it. But then no one should complain that some non-gays think gays are freaky and weird.

We various geeks have our days and places to get freaky and weird freely. But then we have mostly gotten past the problem with society thinking we are freaky and weird. (Or else society has accepted our freaky and weird.) Plus, we geeks never really had to fight for legal issues, so not being taken seriously isn't really necessary.

Again: If the pride parade is for getting acceptance, everyone should note how they're being represented. If the pride parade is for fun, go for it. I just don't see how me saying this is at all controversial.

Bullgrit

 

[Bullgrit]

Very often, it is the "freaks" - the visible folks who make people notice them - who lead the way in the fight for equality. Many of us are quiet and just want to live our lives, relying on the "freaks" to pave the way for that to happen.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?461865-Gay-Rights/page6#ixzz3eDLL4rUN

Lest anyone think I'm calling gays "freaks" or "weird" -- I'm only calling the actual freaks and weirds, freaky and weird. (Freaky and weird is by no means a gay thing -- all of humanity has them. For instance: Christians have Westboro Baptist Church; Muslims have ISIS; Southerners have rednecks.) And I'd argue that the "freaks" are not the ones paving the way for anyone to quietly live their lives. They help make it difficult for you to live life in peace because they perpetuate the stereotype that some people hold all gays to.

Bullgrit

 

[Bullgrit]

I'm happy to see no one posted after my last post before I could clarify something:

Christians have Westboro Baptist Church; Muslims have ISIS; Southerners have rednecks

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?461865-Gay-Rights/page6#ixzz3eDfHIOid

I don't mean to imply that all "freaks and weirdos" are negative. Some freaks and weirdos are great and fun. But does a group want to be defined by them?

Bullgrit

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

From Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissenting opinion, he remarks, “It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.”

Judges are smart, but they ARE humans. And there, Roberts ignores the aforementioned very real, practical problems with polyamorous marriage that are well within the purview of gov't concerns- said issues which do not arise at all within homosexual marriage.

And as any of those justices well know, every decision on constitutionality is a balancing act between protection of the right in question versus all the other rights and duties in society with which it interacts. Pick any area of law to research, and you'll find judicial decisions that are distinguished from each other by the finest of details. Just because similar augments can be made for 2 similar positions, it does not neccessarily follow that the results of litigation will be similar. The Devil is in the details.

Consider: it is perfectly legal to refuse service to any potential customer...unless and until you are refusing service on the basis of someone's membership in a protected class. So if you had a restaurant & bar, you could refuse to serve Rabbi Levi on the grounds that he's being abusive, because he is drunk, because he smells like a sewer, because he's yelling at the top of his lungs, because he passed you counterfeit money last year, because his attire at the time does not meet the dress code, because he refused to do your best buddy's bar mitzvah 8 years ago, because he cut you off in traffic...

...but you can't refuse him service because he's Jewish.

 

[KirayaTiDrekan]

I'm happy to see no one posted after my last post before I could clarify something:

I don't mean to imply that all "freaks and weirdos" are negative. Some freaks and weirdos are great and fun. But does a group want to be defined by them?

Bullgrit

Yes, because no one defines us but us. Each individual defines themselves and chooses what group or sub-group or whatever to identify with. That is the primary attitude shift we are facing, all groups and people, in fact. Taking charge of our identities and refusing all labels except the ones we give ourselves.

As a personal example, I accept and celebrate the labels of transgender and gamer and accept everything associated with those labels while seeking to change the negative associations within those labels. I refuse to allow anyone else to label me.

If society has a problem with how a person defines themselves, then it is society that must change.

Caveat that shouldn't be needed: My right to label myself ends where another person's rights begin. No one has the right to harm another. And the absurdist, "Well, what if I label myself a sheepdog?" arguments are irrelevant and actively harmful to intelligent conversation.

 

[MechaPilot]

From Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissenting opinion, he remarks, “It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.”

I doubt that to be so. However, even if it were, it's also striking how much of the reasoning behind disallowing gay marriage relies on enshrining religious belief as secular law (which the opponents of gay marriage would not like if the chosen religion was not their own, say if it were Hindu or Islamic beliefs), or just saying it's wrong because some people think it's "icky."

 

[trappedslider]

Judges are smart, but they ARE humans. And there, Roberts ignores the aforementioned very real, practical problems with polyamorous marriage that are well within the purview of gov't concerns- said issues which do not arise at all within homosexual marriage..

But his remarks can at some point down the road be used in an argument before the court calling for legalization of plural can it not?