Obama pronounces June 2010, LGBT Pride Month

[MicroBalrog]

Yes, and one can be a drunk without ever tasting alcohol, a thief without ever engaging in theft, and the Pope without ever being Catholic.

The minimal requirement for being homosexual is to exclusively attracted to individuals of your own gender.

The term is attracted.

[kgbsquirrel]

.... or a (nationally known) WAACP NAAWP, or a striaght people's month.....

Fixed that for you, the N stands for National, not Negro. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Tangent: Also apparently the only group/assembly of people where "colored" is still considered publicly acceptable.

You know, I find it difficult getting upset over the fact that someone else is gay. It doesn't affect me personally at all. What does irritate me is the latent hypocrisy in the matter (go ahead, try to create a "straight pride" or "white history" month, see how far that gets you) and the utilization of government office to further said hypocritical agenda.

Also one could argue that this potentially crosses the basic principle of liberty, "so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others," in this case forcing people to learn about something that they personally find distasteful and would rather leave alone. In the interest of intellectual honesty we should also look upon the fact that the first amendment is there to prevent the suppression of the minority opinion, but still people are not compelled to listen, and it would be in such an instance where one no longer possessed the choice not to listen that we would again have an infringement on someone's rights.

A thought though: The military base I was last stationed at had this program where they would set up information stands and put up posters all over the hallways with pictures and information about "<X> History Month." I wonder how this one is going to work?

Aaand this post turned out to be along longer than I had originally intended. Funny how that happens. 

[roo_ster]

Aaand this post turned out to be along longer than I had originally intended. Funny how that happens. 

Part of real talent in writing is to able to convey one's meaning with a minimum of verbiage.  One day I might be so talented. Not today, though.

[White Horseradish]

forcing people to learn about something that they personally find distasteful and would rather leave alone.

How does that happen? I must be missing out, but I have yet to see a reeducation squad grab people off the streets. In fact, most of these <something> Month things seem to have very little practical expression.

[Monkeyleg]

My wife's uncle has been active in the gay rights movement for decades. I'm constantly suggesting that he do what he can to change the parades. The ones in Milwaukee had the heavy leather guys leading, followed by the dancing boys in bikinis. It's the same problem gun owners have when the media goes for comment to the guy with the "kill 'em all" hat.

MicroBalrog, Bridgewalker, thanks for your input. Some things to think about.

I, personally, think society becoming more sexually libertine is a great thing - but then I derive my personal views on morality from the same place I derive my views on politics.

We've had some forty years of US society becoming more libertine, and we've been feeling the results for a couple of decades: an increase in illegitimate out of wedlock births and the concomitant rise in juvenile crime; a devaluation of women; a general vulgarization of society; and more.

Sex is great, reading, watching or partaking in sex is great. Just don't make it so in-your-face, especially with kids. It's hard enough figuring out who you are when you're twelve years old without having to figure out sex, or figure out if you're gay or not. Kids should have the time to be kids.

As for adults, I'll stand by what I said about movies as an example. I love the movie, "Heat". I don't know what the bedroom scene at the beginning with Al Pacino has to do with advancing the plot. He's married. He's weird. His wife is screwed up. Is there no other way to get those ideas across? How did they make great movies years ago without showing people having sex?

[kgbsquirrel]

How does that happen? I must be missing out, but I have yet to see a reeducation squad grab people off the streets. In fact, most of these <something> Month things seem to have very little practical expression.

Ever have "<X> month" memorandums and emails sent to you in your workplace, and it's halls and walls decorated with placards, posters and pictures which you are faced with every time you walk down a hallway and log into your account to check your daily (or even hourly) email which was a necessity of the job? I have, as I stated. Those things were ubiquitous, and it would be naive to think you could ignore it entirely when you are stuck there for twelve to fourteen hours a day.

[Perd Hapley]

I'm not sure what a sexually confused person is, but what is clear to me  is that President Obama has never concealed his sympathy for the LGBT cause and that he had won the election. The LGBT community and their political sympathizers comprise, it appears, enough people to carry the White House and both houses of Congress.

This is how the Republic works.

I'm not sure why you're expanding on something I said immediately beforehand, but thanks.    

"The sexually confused" is a more accurate synonym for "the LGBT community."  

[Perd Hapley]

Where are those (ostensibly mainstream) movies that openly depict sexual acts?

Just about anything with an R rating. Do they edit the Hollywood product for you Israelis?  'Cause gettin' it on is standard fare in cinemas over here.

[taurusowner]

How does that happen? I must be missing out, but I have yet to see a reeducation squad grab people off the streets. In fact, most of these <something> Month things seem to have very little practical expression.

That's not the only form of forcing something on someone.  It can just as easily take the form of having mandatory classes in elementary school about homosexuality being OK when the parents choose to teach their children something else.

My main problem with this is that it lies so far outside what a government is supposed to do.  This type of social engineering and advocacy is simply not something any government should be involved in.  By declaring a "GLBT Month", this administration is performing the same sort of moral advocacy they accuse Republicans of doing.  The truth is, they are totally fine with morality being pushed by the fist of government, so long as it's their special brand of morality.  Consider the aforementioned "Heterosexual Month".  We've all heard the phrase "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".  That is a sentiment Liberals do not believe in.  Shown by the fact that if you take one of their programs or systems, and only change what it advocates, they declare it evil.  A White Entertainment Television, and Congressional White Caucus, and of course a Heterosexual Month. Each one of these is something that Liberals have already established and defend, but a simple replacement of the focus. They would declare every single one of those to be evil.

That's the heart of my disagreement.  I personally disapprove of homosexual actions, but I believe that's between you and God.  It has nothing to do with the controlled administration of national systems that I send representative to Congress for.  Championing a certain sexual behavior is simply not something our government is supposed to do under the Constitution.  And bear in mind, this is only another step.  There are many prongs to this attack.  Outlawing homeschooling is already a stated goal for liberals in many states.  They want to have total control over what your kids are taught.  Declaring this GLBT Month will mean it is something that government schools will talk about.  Their end goal is pretty clear: they want total uninhibited ability to teach your children their view of homosexuality.  Your personal desires as a parent to teach your children your views are at best seen as backwards and hateful and at worst something  that is to be actively stamped out.

We need to stop thinking of all of these different things as separate incidents.  As I stated in another thread, their overall goal is to have government be involved in every aspect of every person's life.   Government health-care, government schools, licenses for everything, programs that take the place of self sufficiency, etc.  All of this working in tandem to create an America where every person lives their whole life with Government as the ever-present watcher and guide, or even enforcer.

[Monkeyleg]

The LGBT community and their political sympathizers comprise, it appears, enough people to carry the White House and both houses of Congress.

That depends upon how the public reacts to what the LGBT groups are doing. There's obviously a lot more straight people than gays, and I'm certain that a good number of hetero's want to be liberal in their thinking about gay issues. Thus Obama can play to the LGBT (wasn't it GLBT before, or am I thinking of a sandwich?) community and not alienate hetero voters.

If the gay community goes too far and alienates enough heterosexual voters, it all backfires. When the GLBT groups succeed in getting books in the classroom addressing sexuality, that's going to alienate people.

[taurusowner]

That depends upon how the public reacts to what the LGBT groups are doing. There's obviously a lot more straight people than gays, and I'm certain that a good number of hetero's want to be liberal in their thinking about gay issues. Thus Obama can play to the LGBT (wasn't it GLBT before, or am I thinking of a sandwich?) community and not alienate hetero voters.

If the gay community goes too far and alienates enough heterosexual voters, it all backfires. When the GLBT groups succeed in getting books in the classroom addressing sexuality, that's going to alienate people.

I don't think so.  I think we'll be too far gone for that.  The Left has spent a long time calculating and guiding the opinions of young people who will be the next adults when the old people of today are gone. People in their teens and 20s already have lived most of their lives with government intervention as part of their life, and a government program as the first solution to any problem.  The Left has won the young adults and teens.  When we grow older and have children, changing the curriculum of government schools will just be another small step.  Kids these days already live with metal detectors, school cops, and locker searches at schools. Schools provide them breakfast lunch and dinner, government providing the money to go to college, money to not have a job, money for food, money for housing, etc.  We complain about airport security, but meekly get in line and take our shoes off when told.  No, I'm afraid government stepping in an  saying "you will teach this view of sexuality to your children" will be welcomed hand in hand with their Bridge cards.

[MicroBalrog]

We've had some forty years of US society becoming more libertine, and we've been feeling the results for a couple of decades: an increase in illegitimate  out of wedlock births and the concomitant rise in juvenile crime; a devaluation of women; a general vulgarization of society; and more.

1. Violent crime is in a 40-year low. It is continuing to fall.

2. A "devaluation" of women? What even is that?

[MicroBalrog]

I am not confused about my sexuality. I know perfectly well what my sexuality is. I certainly know more about my sexuality than  Fistful, or any other poster on this board (2swap included) is even theoretically equipped to know. The idea that I somehow am not qualified to decide who I am attracted to I - not even who I should have a relationship, but simply, who I am ATTRACTED to is beyond ridiculous and laughable.

Just about anything with an R rating. Do they edit the Hollywood product for you Israelis?  'Cause gettin' it on is standard fare in cinemas over here.

Help me here. I don’t watch films at a cinema, I watch them at home. Of recent films, I’ve seen “Avatar”, “Kick-ass” and some B-movies. Kick-ass was R-rated, and it had a very limited sex scene lasting about 3 seconds (far less explicit than the one in Terminator), only basically serving to point out that Katie and the protagonist were in a relationship. Of course, this does advance the plot.

Not that it matters to me. I’m not a fan of high-brow films. I want explosions, breasts, and shiny guns as far as the eye can see. I don’t really care if Arnie firing the Gatling gun in T2 advances the plot. It was cool then and it is cool now.

.... or a (nationally known) WAACP NAAWP, or a striaght people's month.....

Try to get into a liberal’s mind, here.

These people believe - and I’m not agreeing, but outlining their position which is not mine - that society has for a long time not paid attention to minorities. To a leftist, 11 months of the year are White Heterosexual History Months, anyway.

But my greater argument is this:

In the present system, public schools exist. The President has no real authority over them (although the bully pulpit allows him to do things like this).

Public schools will probably continue to exist in some fashion - local and charter schools for the poor, like in the early 19th century - even in the libertarian future.

The struggle for  their content will always be politicized. THe government giveth, and the government taketh away.

Right now, the liberals won a specific battle which doesn’t really enable them to enforce the gay stuff on, say, Texas schools, and they won a battle on an issue on which I agree with them.

At about twelve years old, sexual desires begin to slowly awaken in any individual, especially  a boy. This isn’t a function of liberalism or conservatism, but a function of hormones. Now, this young boy is too young to act on these desires, but the danger exists he will do so anyway. It’s likely he’ll act on them somewhere before he’s out of high school, as he gets older. Maybe he’ll have sex with someone (what’s the average age of virginity loss? 16 now?), maybe he’ll just make out with a girl or a boy. Again, this isn’t a point of moral evaluation, these are facts. It’s the duty of the people responsible for the individual - his parents, his teachers - to lead him through these changes. They are occurring. It’s a fact. The question is not whether they need to be dealt with but how.

The struggle over sexuality in public schools is a political struggle.  There is no specific right for you to win this fight. We can argue - if you like - at what level it should be determined (I note that the Constitution does not prohibit the President from making symbolic announcements on this issue), but the issue remains the same. If we were all on a school board, it would still come down - just like deciding what color to paint the school - on whether the supporters of Gay Month outvote the opposition or not. This time they did. Don’t like it? Private and home education is that way.

[Monkeyleg]

1. Violent crime is in a 40-year low. It is continuing to fall.

2. A "devaluation" of women? What even is that?

1. Crime goes in waves, as a generation of offenders is either in prison or out of the criminal life. We'll be getting another wave. Besides, do you argue that single-parent households are more likely to have children engaged in crime? If you do, you'll be arguing against a mountain of good research to the contrary.

2. I should have said "degradation," not "devaluation." Ever watch MTV?

I'm making a couple of points here simultaneously, which is making it harder for me to understand what I'm saying.

My first point is that popular culture is over-sexualized, and that's not good. I don't care what people say about the difference between cultural mores in the US and Europe, as we're now seeing the European model unravel. We have eight year-old girls dressing like whores because of marketing and TV, kids having very realistic simulated sex on the dance floor, an illegitimate (I'll use that un-PC term) birth rate thats three times what is was in the 1960's, a much higher number of people on welfare because of that illegitimate birth rate, higher rates of STD's, and other societal problems that can be traced back to changes in morals.

Forty years ago I thought that becoming sexually "liberated" was good. Hell, what 20 year-old guy wouldn't? Seeing more T&A, having casual sex more often...what could be wrong with that? Time has given me a view of the scene that my youth obscured, and I can see what happened then and what's happening now with much more clarity. It doesn't take a prude to be concerned.

As for gay rights, I think the rights that people like my wife's uncle sought years ago--pension and other funds going to surviving partners, for example--are legitimate. What the movement is doing today is bumping up against public opinion, and will hurt the movement. Gay marriage is not popular, and most of the straight population is opposed (witness California's ballot referendum). 

[longeyes]

So much pride, so little Honor.

[MicroBalrog]

2. I should have said "degradation," not "devaluation." Ever watch MTV?

I don't think a person is degraded if they participate in a wet t-shirt contest. But then degradation is often in the eye of the beholder.

an illegitimate (I'll use that un-PC term) birth rate thats three times what is was in the 1960's

A meaningless statistic without more data. How many people raise their children together while they're not formally married?

I was born two weeks after my parents' marriage. My nephew is formally an out-of-wedlock birth, but he's been raised by his father and foster mom - he's a Boy Scout, literally. And I'm not sure the alternative is better.

much higher number of people on welfare because of that

Absolutely not.

As of 2005, before the onset of the economic crisis, 3.8% of the population depended on welfare and 15% received at least some extent of wefare assistance. This is lower than on the day Bill CLinton became President.

Link

higher rates of STD's

Which STDs, precisely, are more prevalent than they were 20 years ago?

Please don't bring up AIDS. AIDS is at less than half half the prevalence rate it was at 30 years ago, and was not discovered yet in the time frame you refer to.

Gonorrhea? Peak of prevalence passed us in 1975.

Chlamydia? Fallen 25% between the 1980's and 1990's alone.

[Balog]

It vexes me he chose the month of my birth to do this silliness.

I'll just say I largely agree with Monkeyleg, Ben, and the squirrel.

[White Horseradish]

Ever have "<X> month" memorandums and emails sent to you in your workplace, and it's halls and walls decorated with placards, posters and pictures which you are faced with every time you walk down a hallway and log into your account to check your daily (or even hourly) email which was a necessity of the job? I have, as I stated. Those things were ubiquitous, and it would be naive to think you could ignore it entirely when you are stuck there for twelve to fourteen hours a day.

Nope. Never.  I delete emails without reading them all the time. I ignore things posted on the walls constantly. Heck, I sometimes ignore what people directly say to me.  Perhaps I have much better ignoring abilities than you, what with having gone to Soviet schools. :)

That's not the only form of forcing something on someone.  It can just as easily take the form of having mandatory classes in elementary school about homosexuality being OK when the parents choose to teach their children something else.

Just a few weeks ago I had to give written consent to have my 10 year old be told that boys have a penis and girls have a vagina. What mandatory classes in elementary school are you talking about?

[Monkeyleg]

MicroBalrog, we have grandmothers in their late twenties who've never been married and have children from multiple fathers. I'm not going to engage in circular arguments when the effects of single-parent households (which, by definition, usually result from illegitimate births) are well-established.

If you're fine with ten year-olds dressing like sluts, single moms popping out babies like rabbits, draining tax dollars and putting more vicious punks on the streets, and all of the other stuff that wasn't acceptable in the 1950's and early 1960's, have at it. Just don't ask me to pay for it or live near it.

[MicroBalrog]

I'm happy with the fact that 2010 has less murders, less STDs, and less taxes than 1970.

If you're fine with ten year-olds dressing like sluts, single moms popping out babies like rabbits, draining tax dollars and putting more vicious punks on the streets, and all of the other stuff that wasn't acceptable in the 1950's and early 1960's, have at it. Just don't ask me to pay for it or live near it.

Ah. Here you have it.

Welfare.

Allow people to live on welfare indefinitely and they will pop out dozens of offspring and refuse to work and assault police officers.

You know how I know this?

Because Orthodox Jews in Mea Shearim do these same things. They marry off their children at age 17, and then they spawn children and live on welfare. And we have riots, and people assaulting policemen, and what-have-you. Oh their daughters have skirts reaching to the floor, but that doesn't help at all.  

And of course we have Muslim and Christian Arabs do the same stuff. It's not the religion or the sex. It's the socialism. Allow people to fall out of society, subsidize it with taxpayer money, and this is what will happen.

[Perd Hapley]

I am not confused about my sexuality. I know perfectly well what my sexuality is. I certainly know more about my sexuality than  Fistful, or any other poster on this board (2swap included) is even theoretically equipped to know. The idea that I somehow am not qualified to decide who I am attracted to I - not even who I should have a relationship, but simply, who I am ATTRACTED to is beyond ridiculous and laughable.

I never said you don't know what turns you on, and to say that I did is (to use your phrase) beyond ridiculous and laughable.  As I said, sexual confusion refers to those who don't know which sex they should be attracted to (hint: it should be the other one), or don't understand that wet t-shirt contests are degrading. 


Back to this question:

Where are those (ostensibly mainstream) movies that openly depict sexual acts?

OK, we've had two nominations so far; Terminator and Heat.  Just to pick the ones that come to mind, I'll nominate Schindler's List, Desperado and American History X.  I doubt I could name all the movies I've seen (and you've probably seen), which depict sex, or gratuitous nudity. Are you really denying that "mainstream films" frequently include this?  If so, you are also cinematically confused.

[Monkeyleg]

Okay, fughetaboutit. I'm going to walk around naked with Christmas tree lights tied to my wedding tackle.

[MicroBalrog]

I never said you don't know what turns you on, and to say that I did is (to use your phrase) beyond ridiculous and laughable.  As I said, sexual confusion refers to those who don't know which sex they should be attracted to (hint: it should be the other one), or don't understand that wet t-shirt contests are degrading.   

You know, just because I don't agree with your opinion does not mean I don't understand it or that I am stupid. I will not debate with someone who just outright states that I am "confused". Enjoy your day.

And Monkeyleg: This thread is hereafter USELESS WITHOUT PICTURES.

[longeyes]

And of course we have Muslim and Christian Arabs do the same stuff. It's not the religion or the sex. It's the socialism.

What it is is socialism + religion via gov't subsidy.

[RevDisk]

We've had some forty years of US society becoming more libertine, and we've been feeling the results for a couple of decades: an increase in illegitimate  out of wedlock births and the concomitant rise in juvenile crime; a devaluation of women; a general vulgarization of society; and more.

Respectfully, folks have been saying that for hundreds if not thousands of years.  "These kids are out of control, society is getting less moral, the end is nigh, etc"

http://web.archive.org/web/20070427032541/www.john-ross.net/mtv.htm

John Ross wrote an excellent essay on the subject.  Basically, yes, but no.  

- Humanity has always been libertine whenever they could get away with it.  In the past, if the folks did not publicly care for it, there were more "proper venues for such things" (Brothels, lots and lots of them).  But they were still always pretty libertine, just more discreet.  
- Sure, illegitimate births are pretty high, but they've always existed.  Still, better than the alternative of basically shotgun marriages that could not realistically be dissolved.  
- Crime has been falling for a long time.  There's many reasons for it.  The main reason I cannot discuss here because it is considered extremely un-PC by most of the readers here.
- Devaluation of women.   Well, for a long time, women could be house slaves, cloistered, or prostitutes.  Uhm...  Which is more demeaning, women voluntarily showing some skin, or not allowing them to do so by threat of violence?  I don't particularly care for the "booth babe" niche and similar roles in advertising thing myself, but if they're happy with the paycheck, that's their business.  
- General vulgarization?  Well, people swear more.  But lynch a lot less folks.  A lot of folks would consider three baseball throws for a nickel to be a lot more vulgar than swearing.  Some wouldn't.  So probably about even on that one.

Sure, life is different but roughly equal to most of history.  But we can always do better.  There are segments of our society that are significantly worse than average.  Turning on Jerry Springer or whatnot allows you to see them in a nice sterile environment of daytime television.  

Such folks will always exist, but killing off the Welfare state would probably help ease that more than anything else.  Folks are what they are.  Mostly decent, with a hand full that will never be remotely rational, productive law abidding citizens.  Best thing to do is let them work or starve (metaphorically speaking), and toss them in jail if they break any laws.  


Just some thoughts.  I'm sure when I'm a bit older, I'll be shaking my fist at the young amoral kids and telling them to get off my lawn.