12
   

Should Gay Pride Groups be Allowed to PIGGYBACK on Irish Pride Parades?

 
 
Butrflynet
 
  4  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2014 11:21 pm
@hawkeye10,
Exactly. They are wishing to celebrate and display their pride in being a gay Irish person or an Irish gay person..
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2014 11:25 pm
@Butrflynet,
Butrflynet wrote:

You brought it into the discussion when you said this:

hawkeye10 wrote:

ossobuco wrote:

Gender/sexuality isn't a philosophy.
What is your standard for who gets to show up when ever where ever they want no matter what anyone else thinks to sell their wares? How does one get on the list of those who can not be refused?



"show up to sell your wares" is not "show up"

I am disappointed...I was under the impression that you were more intelligent than this.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2014 11:29 pm
@Butrflynet,
Butrflynet wrote:

Exactly. They are wishing to celebrate and display their pride in being a gay Irish person or an Irish gay person..


If I read the instructions correctly parade organizers said that expressions of gay pride were not allowed, but I see no where that instructs me that expressions of Irish pride by gay persons is not allowed. This event is about Irish Pride, this makes perfect sense.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  3  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2014 11:30 pm
Would you object to someone carrying the American flag while celebrating their Irish heritage in an Irish pride parade?

What is the difference in that and someone carrying the GLBT rainbow flag while celebrating their Irish heritage in the same Irish pride parade?
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2014 11:39 pm
@Butrflynet,
Quote:
Would you object to someone carrying the American flag while celebrating their Irish heritage in an Irish pride parade?


no, but then again in my books showing American pride is always OK in America...And I have no reason to think that Irish Americans are not proud Americans. I did not however take note of this, a massive mistake, a caving into fears of violence (aka bullies):

Quote:
A federal court ruled Thursday that a northern California high school did not violate the constitutional rights of its students when school officials made them turn their American flag T-shirts inside out on Cinco de Mayo or be sent home due to fears of racial violence.

The three-judge panel unanimously decided the officials’ need to protect the safety of their students outweighed the students’ freedom of expression rights.

Administrators at Live Oak High School, in the San Jose suburb of Morgan Hill, feared the American-flag shirts would enflame Latino students celebrating the Mexican holiday, and ordered the students to either turn the shirts inside out or go home for the day.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/02/27/court-rules-school-can-ban-american-flag-shirts-to-avoid-racial-strife/
Butrflynet
 
  2  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2014 11:41 pm
@hawkeye10,
And the second question?
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2014 11:48 pm
@Butrflynet,
Butrflynet wrote:

And the second question?


Quote:
What is the difference in that and someone carrying the GLBT rainbow flag while celebrating their Irish heritage in the same Irish pride parade?


we are almost all Americans, we have that in common, but very few of us are gay or sexually confused. It is the difference between celebrating the collective and celebrating a very small bunch of individuals, some believe abnormal or flawed individuals. Not at all the same thing, and I see no reason why people out to celebrate Irish Pride should be made to suffer through dissension in their own event that has nothing to do with their cause, inflicted by a very small minority bullying their way into their event on claims of entitlement.

"At least pretend to agree with us or else" is the demand of the gay political pressure groups. **** them I say, I will decide what I believe and I will decide when I speak and if they dont like it they can go to hell. This is America, too many people have died for me to be a free man for me to renounce my freedom to choose my own beliefs and speech.
Butrflynet
 
  2  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2014 12:17 am
@hawkeye10,
Yet you don't grant those same freedoms to others for whom you have a personal distaste.

The Irish immigrants were once the ones being repressed and discriminated against by other Americans. American society has greatly benefited by their fight for equality and justice. The gay community is fighting against the same bigotrty and for the same equality and justice once denied the Irish immigrants who eventually were allowed to become citizens.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_American

Catholics and Protestants kept their distance; intermarriage between Catholics and Protestants was uncommon, and strongly discouraged by both ministers and priests. As Dolan notes, "'Mixed marriages', as they were called, were allowed in rare cases, were warned against repeatedly, and were uncommon."[117]

After the large influx of Irish in the middle of the 19th century, many Catholic children were being educated in public schools. While officially nondenominational, the King James Version of the Bible was widely used in the classroom across the country, which Catholics were forbidden to read.[118] Many Irish children complained that Catholicism was openly mocked in the classroom. In New York City, the curriculum vividly portrayed Catholics, and specifically the Irish, as villainous.[119] The Catholic clergyman John Hughes campaigned for public funding of Catholic education in response to the bigotry. While never successful in obtaining public money for private education, the debate with the city's Protestant elite spurred by Hughes' passionate campaign paved the way for the secularization of public education nationwide. In addition, Catholic higher education expanded during this period with colleges and universities that evolved into such institutions as Fordham University and Boston College providing alternatives to Irish who were not otherwise permitted to apply to other colleges.

Prejudice against Irish Catholics in the U.S. reached a peak in the mid-1850s with the Know Nothing Movement, which tried to oust Catholics from public office. After a year or two of local success, the Know Nothing Party vanished.[120] Some historians, however, maintain that actual job discrimination was minimal.[116]

Many Irish work gangs were hired by contractors to build canals, railroads, city streets and sewers across the country.[21] In the South, they underbid slave labor.[121] One result was that small cities that served as railroad centers came to have large Irish populations.[122]

In 1895, the Knights of Equity was founded, to combat discrimination against Irish Catholics in the U.S., and to assist them financially when needed.

Stereotypes
Irish Catholics were popular targets for stereotyping in the 19th century. According to historian George Potter, the media often stereotyped the Irish in America as being boss-controlled, violent (both among themselves and with those of other ethnic groups), voting illegally, prone to alcoholism and dependent on street gangs that were often violent or criminal. Potter quotes contemporary newspaper images:

"You will scarcely ever find an Irishman dabbling in counterfeit money, or breaking into houses, or swindling; but if there is any fighting to be done, he is very apt to have a hand in it." Even though Pat might "'meet with a friend and for love knock him down,'" noted a Montreal paper, the fighting usually resulted from a sudden excitement, allowing there was "but little 'malice prepense' in his whole composition." The Catholic Telegraph of Cincinnati in 1853, saying that the "name of 'Irish' has become identified in the minds of many, with almost every species of outlawry," distinguished the Irish vices as "not of a deep malignant nature," arising rather from the "transient burst of undisciplined passion," like "drunk, disorderly, fighting, etc., not like robbery, cheating, swindling, counterfeiting, slandering, calumniating, blasphemy, using obscene language, &c."[123]

The stereotype of the Irish as violent drunks has lasted well beyond its high point in the mid-19th century. For example, President Richard Nixon once told advisor Charles Colson that “[t]he Irish have certain — for example, the Irish can't drink. What you always have to remember with the Irish is they get mean. Virtually every Irish I've known gets mean when he drinks. Particularly the real Irish.”[125]

Discrimination of Irish Americans differed depending on gender. For example, Irish women were sometimes stereotyped as "reckless breeders" because some American Protestants feared high Catholic birth rates would eventually result in a Protestant minority. Many native-born Americans claimed that "their incessant childbearing [would] ensure an Irish political takeover of American cities [and that] Catholicism would become the reigning faith of the hitherto Protestant nation."[126] Irish men were also targeted, but in a different way than women were. The difference between the Irish female "Bridget" and the Irish male "Pat" was distinct; while she was impulsive but fairly harmless, he was "always drunk, eternally fighting, lazy, and shiftless". In contrast to the view that Irish women were shiftless, slovenly and stupid (like their male counterparts), girls were said to be "industrious, willing, cheerful, and honest—they work hard, and they are very strictly moral".[127][128]

Americans believed that Irish men, not women, were primarily responsible for any problems that arose in the family. Even Irish people themselves viewed Irish men as the cause of family disintegration whereas women were “pillars of strength” that could uplift their families out of poverty and into the middle class.[129] In this sense, Irish women were similar to their American counterparts as mothers with moral authority.

There were also Darwinian-inspired excuses for the discrimination of the Irish in America. Many Americans believed that since the Irish were Celts and not Anglo-Saxons, they were racially inferior and deserved second-hand citizenship. The Irish being of inferior intelligence was a belief held by many Americans. This notion was held due to the fact that the Irish topped the charts demographically in terms of arrests and imprisonment. They also had more people confined to insane asylums and poorhouses than any other group. The racial supremacy belief that many Americans had at the time contributed significantly to Irish discrimination.[130]
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  3  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2014 12:43 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
**** them I say, I will decide what I believe and I will decide when I speak and if they dont like it they can go to hell.


That sounds like a bully's manifesto.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2014 12:48 am
@Butrflynet,
Butrflynet wrote:

Quote:
**** them I say, I will decide what I believe and I will decide when I speak and if they dont like it they can go to hell.


That sounds like a bully's manifesto.

only if you completely ignore the meaning of words..."bully" is focused on what others do, I am only talking about what I do. Ignoring others as in "**** them" is not focused on changing their behavior or them at all, It is all about me. If they care enough about me ignoring them that they change that is on them.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2014 01:25 am
@hawkeye10,
A better response

Bullying is all about powering over others, what I am talking about is ignoring others, the exact opposite.
maxdancona
 
  3  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2014 07:44 am
@hawkeye10,
We have two sides here...

One side only wants to march in the parade themselves as themselves, and they want to express their identity, while letting anyone else express their own identity. Every group that marches in the parade has a sign explaining who they are, live and let live.

The other side is trying to exclude people from participating. They are not only expressing their own idea of Irishness, but they are working hard to prevent anyone who they disagree with from expressing themselves.

Which of these two sides is being a bully?

This is a ridiculous argument... which is why it is a losing argument.
Romeo Fabulini
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2014 10:02 am
An Irish farmer from the backwoods visits the city and walks into a bar and orders a Guinness.
He notices two women sitting at a table and says to the barman "Begorrah! Dem wimmin are bootiful!"
"Forget it" replies the barman, "they're lesbians"
"And pray tell, what are lesbians?" asks the farmer.
"Well" answers the barman, "it means the brunette would like to jump on the blonde and make mad passionate love to her!"
"Bejabers!" says the farmer, "in dat case oi tink oi must be a lesbian too!"
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2014 10:21 am
@Romeo Fabulini,
Romeo Fabulini wrote:
An Irish farmer from the backwoods visits the city and walks into a bar and orders a Guinness.
He notices two women sitting at a table and says to the barman "Begorrah! Dem wimmin are bootiful!"
"Forget it" replies the barman, "they're lesbians"
"And pray tell, what are lesbians?" asks the farmer.
"Well" answers the barman, "it means the brunette would like to jump on the blonde
and make mad passionate love to her!"
"Bejabers!" says the farmer, "in dat case oi tink oi must be a lesbian too!"
Please define "Begorrah".
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2014 10:23 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

We have two sides here...

One side only wants to march in the parade themselves as themselves, and they want to express their identity, while letting anyone else express their own identity. Every group that marches in the parade has a sign explaining who they are, live and let live.

The other side is trying to exclude people from participating. They are not only expressing their own idea of Irishness, but they are working hard to prevent anyone who they disagree with from expressing themselves.

Which of these two sides is being a bully?

This is a ridiculous argument... which is why it is a losing argument.



Under your argument people who invite themselves to my party and who will not follow party protocol under the excuse "they just need to be themselves" are not bullies. I also bet that you will claim that they are not uncivil either.

There is the identity of the parade to think about, what it is supposed to mean, which is organized by the organizers. If you want to have a different kind of parade (or party) more in keeping with your identity then do your own.
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2014 10:43 am
The message, in my opinion, from the parade organizers, is that gays can march, if they are in the closet. Now, once upon a time in the U.S., there might have been an Irish Catholic that found him/herself in the middle of Protestant America, and thought it better for employment, or whatever, to be an Irish Catholic in the closet. Let's not forget Elizabethan England where Catholics had to be in the closet for their safety.

So, what would be so wrong for a Catholic parade to just accept the fact that marching under a rainbow banner does not mean the Catholic Church promulgates homosexuality, but just understands that not everyone can be born and then mature into an adult that humps the opposite sex? It might just go far in showing a degree of divine tolerance for the ambiguity of evolution?
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2014 11:04 am
A good history of this conflict is here

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/03/gay-rights-st-patricks-day-parade.html?mid=google
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2014 12:03 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Under your argument people who invite themselves to my party and who will not follow party protocol under the excuse "they just need to be themselves" are not bullies. I also bet that you will claim that they are not uncivil either.


I wouldn't come to your party if you were going to discriminate (which is my right). And if your party was a public spectacle, then I would would be public about my reason for not coming.

That is pretty much what is happening. Mayors, sponsors and celebrities are refusing to participate. What is the problem with that?

It is the parade organizers who are being uncivil.
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2014 12:15 pm
@maxdancona,

Quote:
It is the parade organizers who are being uncivil.

It is the parade organizers that should have control of what happens in the parade. It is that simple.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2014 01:15 pm
@coldjoint,
coldjoint wrote:


Quote:
It is the parade organizers who are being uncivil.

It is the parade organizers that should have control of what happens in the parade. It is that simple.

Yes, but the city politicians should be free to choose other organizers....NYC did have an "everyone say what you want" parade, and next year it could be called the official one. For all the chatter about the demand for inclusiveness mostly conservative Catholics are fair game in Liberal NYC, the current organizers need to be careful that they dont over play their hand.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/07/2024 at 09:47:07