Louisiana Republican Introduces Bill To Ban LGBT Rainbow Flag From Public Buildings

reply to post by seabag

So we are to be tolerant of all things gay but its totally acceptable to wish an entire generation that you claim is 'holding us back from enlightenment' dead?

Sounds reasonable.

Don't put words into my mouth. I never said dead, but "pass into obscurity". In other words, become less relevant in our society.

And as for being tolerant of gay people -- um, yes, that's the right thing to do. It's called decency and ethics and being a good person. That you would oppose that even remotely is somewhat appalling to me. But you're not the only one, so at least you've got that going for you.

reply to post by WilliamOckham


You have missed the point of America all together. America is supposed to be a melting pot represented by people of all walks of life. I served too. There's nothing wrong with gay people being able to be open about their lifestyle. They aren't hurting anybody. Do you realize that if we accepted the gays, there would be no Gay Pride movement because they wouldn't feel that they had to be so up front about it if they were accepted?

reply to post by WilliamOckham


They wouldn't be marching if they had no reason to march.

reply to post by WilliamOckham


Have you ever been to a pride parade? have you seen the Log cabin republicans there? have you seen the gay christian community there? have you seen all the masculine men there? or are you just basing everything on a stereotype?

if you don't want to see it, don't go, are we forcing you to come to pride parades? are we forcing you to look at pictures of pride parades?

and for the record, not every gay person does drag, in fact some gay men don't like Drag Queens, i do Drag as a profession

reply to post by Darth_Prime


I would venture to say that Drag Queens are a pretty small section of the gay community. I know several gays, but only one or two Queens.

I know quite a few gay men that you would never guess were gay unless they told you or you saw them with another man.

Something tells me he doesn't know very many gay men.

reply to post by grayghost

You have every right to be what you want.
I have every right to not buy into the gay community behavior.
I have said it once and i will say it again,The one and only place we see
homosexuality carried out openly is in the animal kingdom.
God made Adam and Eve, Not Adam and Steve.When two men engage in sex it is an abomination
unto God.

First inherent flaw in your statement: gays do not "want" to be gay. They ARE gay, just like you are, I presume, straight. And so you are asserting a belief, not a fact. Please get that straight.

Whether the majority of Americans choose to believe that science is wrong and the Bible knows best is irrelevant. My ultimate point -- you have NO right to push your BELIEF onto anybody else as to what a gay person is or is not. You wanting to close down their right to celebration and expression is equal to me wanting to shut your mouth on message boards about this "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" malarkey. (For the record, when are we going to retire that old and played out saying? Find something new.)

Having said that, I assume you include humans in the animal kingdom? As any good science-interested person would. Because, uh, guess what? We are. And you're absolutely right --- there ARE other animals that are homosexual, only steeling the scientific data already present indicating homosexual genetics. Begs a question, doesn't it? If homosexuality is among us and other animals -- probably means it's normal within genetics, don't you think? And normative, period.

So look --- no one is pushing any belief on you. Believe me, most gay people probably wouldn't want to be in the same room with a person who thinks along the same lines that you do, much less push their agenda on you. They simply want to exist OUT LOUD just as we all do, as moms, hunters, Democrats, joggers, gardeners, bachelors...you name it. Gay Pride Day is no different than St. Patrick's Day where you find tons of Irish and non-Irish out in the streets getting drunk and puking in the rivers, quite grotesquely. I don't necessarily want to see that either, but hey, it's within their rights, no? And I can just stay home and do my own thing. News flash: so can you. Likewise, being gay and enjoying self expression is wholly within a human being's rights (pursuit of happiness, anyone?), whether they strike against your sensibilities or not.

reply to post by WilliamOckham

Dude, no one wants to see a bunch of fairies in speedos and hairy chests groping each other in public. The world was perfectly fine when they weren't so public about their lifestyle choice.

You *are* aware just how bigoted and degrading this comment is, right? And homosexuality is not a choice. I suspect you already know this, however, but like to throw it out anyway. On this, I will not bite, because this ubiquitous assertion is, with all due respect, not just lame, but dead in the water.

And, I beg to differ -- the world was NOT a better place when gay rights were suppressed and homosexual expression was forced into a closet. Just as it wasn't better when African Americans were forced to drink at different fountains and sit in the back of the bus. My question to you is, if you hate it so much, how is it you're coming into contact with so many "fairies in speedos"? Maybe a little self-reflection is called for here...

Can anybody supply figures on how many gay people lost their lives fighting in all of Americas wars throughout the ages? Just asking!

Originally posted by WilliamOckham

Say what you will but, the stereotypes always seem to be true about the gays. Also, its insulting to even compare the strife and struggles of African Americans to a group who shares a sexual fetish. Not even in the same ballpark.

Here's why we should part ways in this discussion: you are in support of negative stereotypes which you say "seem to be true" about gays because of your personal and anecdotal experience, which by the way has nothing to do with majority reality. Your anecdote is irrelevant, except to you -- and you have a bias. So it is best to discount it.

However, the most important reason we should cease this discussion is because I believe you are throwing around terms like "sexual fetish" to avoid a very legitimate discussion on the genetics of homosexuality. I suspect it's because you're ill equipped to have that sort of meaningful discussion, but rather are inclined to disparage, paint with broad brushes, and throw about downright bigoted phraseology, all for the sake of getting your extremely oppressive point across. I simply don't respect that form of obstructionist communication. I find it self-serving and wholly non-insightful, and also --- boring.

Peace.

edit on 9-7-2013 by Brigidshine because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by bloodreviara
reply to post by seabag

 

I would actually disagree with the statement that no one rubs heterosexual
things in peoples faces, ever hear of mardi gras? spring break? summer?
car commercials, burger commercials, fitness, alcohol, condom, and really
any number of advertising out there uses half naked women and men in
mostly hetero situations. While you don't bat an eye at these because they
are the norm, that is rubbing hetero lifestyle in everyones face in the exact
same manner.

Sexuality is all over television and advertising in the US and at least 90% of
it caters to the hetero choice, also mardi gras and spring break are times
when you can go out and see all kinds of half or wholly naked people many
in the hetero category, truth is its only fair they should get the same opportunity
to flaunt their sexuality if they so choose.

Advertising companies advertise to demographics that most benefit the companies, I.E. the majority how is that flaunting heterosexuality in everyones face? Is a hot girl to a heterosexual different to a lesbian or a hot guy to a heterosexual different to a gay man?

So, you want to see only LGBT hot people at mardi gras or spring break?How do you tell by looking? I didn't realize gay people were excluded from mardi gras and spring break.....At reading these statements it seems you are segregating yourself

I don't see these things as heterosexual these are for ALL people of ALL backgrounds. Who ever claimed these things were exclusively heterosexual?


OMG i just noticed you wrote SUMMER in there i don't see how i missed that the first read! SUMMER

Originally posted by KingIcarus
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Why does it matter if a minority group decides to fly a flag for their 'cause'?

Surely as long as every group (within legality, of course) are free to fly their own flag too if they wish, it doesn't matter a jot.

It is only a flag, at the end of the day.

No one is denying the ability to fly a flag if they wish. What is stated is that only the State flag and the United States flag will be flown at government buildings. That is fair and equitable and doesn't discriminate against anyone -- unless they want it to...

Originally posted by tnhiker
This political correct bull has to stop.................

Government buildings, or those used for state/local/federal government should be free of any adornments supporting any group, or religion. Fly the american and state flag, leave the rest for private/independent people to do.

^^ This right here ^^

reply to post by LightOrange


That is non-sense. Now you can't even represent a flag in a public place? So much for freedom of expression.

If freedom of expression actually exists then we have the right to show any flag we want in public.

Originally posted by seabag
What freedom was violated? The guy voiced his opinion. All kinds of laws are passed that I disagree with and that I believe go against the Constitution (Obamacare, NDAA, Patriot Act, ect). If you have an issue, take it up with the guy proposing the law rather than the guy who suggested it.

Oh, this one again. I see where this is going...

He has the freedom to destroy the freedoms of others... right?

The fact is that the flying of the rainbow flag has no impact on his life. It doesn't threaten him, it doesn't diminish his rights, it doesn't have any impact on his freedoms and his rights in any way.

In contrast, his demand that it not be flown directly impacts on the freedoms and rights of other people.

He can express himself as he likes in this, that's not my argument. My argument is against the double-standards and hypocrisy of those who scream about their rights while deliberately trying to restrict and diminish others based on their own bigotry.

It just comes down to this... the guy is not affected or harmed in any way by someone flying a damn flag. But others would be harmed and affected negatively by his irrational and dictatorial views. That's it, case closed, explanation dealt. Any real politician with a spine would have pointed this out to the man and told him the error and the contradiction.

Originally posted by wiser3
Can anybody supply figures on how many gay people lost their lives fighting in all of Americas wars throughout the ages? Just asking!

Even of someone could come up with an exact figure, using it as some sort of argument would be an appeal to numbers fallacy.

reply to post by neo96

Yeah hatred,intolerance, and bigotry are not traits unique to straight people.

Of course they are not. Who told you otherwise??

Hatred and intolerance is in LGBT as well. Can you guess why?...

We are people too, just like 'straight' people. Equally human and equally imperfect.

Sorry OP for contributing to being off-topic.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by dave_welch and SuicideBankers

 

Gentlemen, (unless of course, you're female, or a scoundrel)

Welcome back to TRGreer! If anyone is ever in need of a Sectretary of Individualized Personhood, let me recommend him (or SuicideBankers). What a guy.

Anyway, to you both. I'm not very good at sarcasm and I don't use it often. Even then I end up having to apologize for it. This time it was not sarcasm.

All those activities happen and are protected by the First Amendment? I'm not so sure. I picked Chicago at random and looked at their Park Code. Unless you get official government approval ahead of time, the following are prohibited:

Groups of more than 50 people
The distribution of leaflets or any documents indoors, in a garden, or in any special facility
Any exhibit, dramatic event television broadcast
Amplified sound
Fireworks
A sporting event
Fire
Alcohol
Sales or offer to sell anything
Anything that uses auxilliary outside power
The erection of a tent, platform, canopy or other structure
Any commercial matter

I don't see any First Amendment protection for the events I mentioned.

Certainly the burning of the cross, or any of the events I mentioned were objectionable to some people, as is the flying of the Rainbow flag to some people. I think the danger comes in because some groups are less likely to hold in their disgust, and more likely to react violently.

But, as we have seen, government already prohibits many activities without regard to First Amendment issues. It just seems to me, at first glance, that adding "Flying a non-governmental flag" could be added to the list without causing significant problems.

With respect,
Charles1952

I like you Charles and I don't know why lol

Im not 100% clear on your point. I think i have the gist of it but could you explain a little more?