A victory for human rights.

[Masklinn]

I think this victory is a good thing for freedom. Should have been done sooner though...oh well, better late than never eh ? [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

Ohhh, lookee, a gay pride parade, complete with drag divas, high-cut Daisey Dukes, and men lisping everywhere.

Look, for the exact same reason I support the Supreme Court's privacy ruling regarding sodomy, I also insist that it is immature to flout your sexuality. You don't see me having a parade because I'm straight and adore pu. . .

In short, it is PRIVATE, so why don't you keep it to yourself? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] I have worked with flaming fags who just felt they *had* to comment on a guys body at least once a day, and I have worked with 50-yr-old gay men who were surprised I caught on so fast that the person they kept mentioning at home was in fact a guy. It's simply the difference, IMO, between the insecurity of immaturity and the security that comes with knowing who you are a being comfortable with it.

Anyway, read on about fags, flags, and Bloomberg in the middle.
_____________________________________

Today's NY Times:

Gays and Lesbians Parade With a New Sense of Pride
By ANDREA ELLIOTT

Rainbow flags, samba drag queens, politicians, gay grandparents and a lavish flow of discordantly thumping floats made their way down Fifth Avenue yesterday, as they do every year. But there was an added hop of jubilation this time.

The celebratory jolt at New York City's gay and lesbian pride parade drew from two significant advances in gay rights this month — the United States Supreme Court's ruling to strike down laws against sodomy and decisions in Canada to allow same-sex marriages.

Crowds cheered louder, political groups marched in greater numbers and paradegoers seemed more party-prone than protest-bound, organizers and longtime participants said. The mood mirrored that at gay pride parades that drew hundreds of thousands of people across the country yesterday, from Atlanta to San Francisco.

"We've broken new ground," said Janice E. Thom, a spokeswoman for Heritage of Pride, which organized the 34th annual parade, now known as New York City's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Pride March. "It's part of the mainstreaming of us as people. We're becoming part of the diverse quilt of this country."

The parade lasted more than five hours and flowed from Fifth Avenue at 52nd Street down to the West Village. It drew as many as 250,000 observers and participants, organizers said.

Scant protesters engaging in rosary prayer circles were upstaged by the thick, noisy crowds, which lined the length of the parade and cheered in waves, with many peering through video camera lenses.

Rainbow-hued arcs of balloons led a cacophonous succession of bouncing beach balls, shrill whistles and clashing, often-deafening musical rhythms. In keeping with past parades, veterans of the 1969 gay rights disturbances helped lead the entourage.

"This is what pride is all about," said Greg Curatolo, 47, of the West Village, as he held the Stonewall Veterans' Association banner awaiting his cue to march.

Paradegoers included a gay and lesbian gospel choir; the Brazilian Rainbow Group, which included a bare-skinned man wrapped in the green and yellow Brazilian flag bearing the national motto, "Order and Progress," in Portuguese; a group of lesbian and gay judges; a gay rodeo group; a gay rugby team; and the Imperial Float of New York, filled with would-be princesses in tiaras, waving in slow motion to the crowd.

Humor was in constant supply. One marcher held a picket sign with a message for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas that read, "Hey, Clarence, sexual harassment is demeaning, not sodomy."

Don Bennett and his partner, Paul Templeton, traveled to New York from Albuquerque, specifically to see the parade.

"This is very special to me," Mr. Templeton said. "I grew up in rural America. You heard about gay pride for years. It makes me feel a part of that."

Of the parade he added: "The costumes are great and, of course, the men. I'd be lying if I don't say the men are gorgeous."

The parade also drew its annual supply of elected officials, including Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, United States Senator Charles E. Schumer, State Senator Thomas K. Duane, Council Speaker Gifford Miller and Councilwoman Christine C. Quinn.

Mayor Bloomberg, who has been lustily booed at several recent parades, received a warm welcome as he marched down Fifth Avenue with several gay city employees. Shouts from the crowd included: "We love you, Mayor!" "Nice to see ya!" and "Go Bloomberg — No. 1!"

The mayor told reporters that he thought the Supreme Court made the right ruling last week. But he side-stepped a question about whether he supports gay marriage.

"I'm sort of on record as not being in favor of marriage, period, for myself," he said. "I've done one marriage, and I think I'll stay out of the marriage business. I've got other things to worry about."

Senator Schumer proudly announced to a reporter that he was the first senator to march in this parade, in 1999, adding: "I've been saying to people, `Let's hear it for the Supreme Court.' Whoever thought I'd be saying that?"

Brendon Fay, a gay rights advocate and a television producer, held a sign that read "Justice for Gay Couples." Mr. Fay, of Astoria, Queens, is organizing to send a group of gay couples from New York to Canada so they can be legally married.

Mr. Fay said he and his partner, Tom Moulton, will be legally married in Canada in July.

"We want equal justice here in the United States, so when we return our marriages are afforded the same legal rights," Mr. Fay said.

Before the parade began, dozens of couples took part in commitment ceremonies, a staple of the event.

Tempering the joy over the Supreme Court ruling, Carol Parson, 69, of Brooklyn, said she was not ready to believe that it means a permanent victory for gays.

"It's a long time coming," said Ms. Parson, a retired nurse who marched with Senior Action in a Gay Environment. "We've been fighting for equal rights in the city forever, it seems. I've personally seen too much come and go not to be a little subdued about what's happening. I'm waiting for the backlash."

[Luvian]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by Luvian: quote: Originally posted by khazadman: The true tragedy here involves the case of the asshole in Kansas who had his sentence vacated. He was 17 when he had sex with a 14 year old retarded kid. So I guess that makes him a victim? Let's just hope he got what was coming to him while locked up.

Well... if they arrested him for doing sodomy, then yes, he should be freed, but then re-arrested for rape. [/QUOTE]Had they been male and female, it would have been an underage sex charge, which would have resulted in 1 year probation and NO JAIL.

Attalus, isn't PRIVACY a Constitutional issue? Whatever majority moral you're enforcing, is the citizens' bedroom a place to do it? The Right to Privacy is one of our most fundamental rights, is it not?

Erm... I note no one has posted where in the Constitution this right is found. [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]I'm pretty sure minor can be arrested for rape, too. At least I think they can here.

[cormack]

Flaunting any sexual behavior is wrong in the general public and really does need to be addressed in laws voted on by the regions population. As far as I know 2 country's allow same sex unions in common law already. Go there if you want to I say. None of my bs.

I would throw in a statistic that some might find disturbing but all the same, it stands for this area.

Point in fact;
1. Gay partners stay together longer then straight couples.

2. Gay couples make more money and have higher education levels then straights on the average
3. Those that are married stay married for longer amounts of time.

Go figure..

People fly out to Las Vegas to get married all the time, what's the big difference? I don't understand it fully. I love my wife thow, I would, and did, marry her twice

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: [QB] Eisenschwarz, I will defend "dont ask dont tell" till the military decides to end it, if ever. Equal protection and/or privacy concerns can be trumped by military rules. Military indoctrination, as they see fit, is necessary to the military system. There are other reasons, but that's the nutshell.

So you’re saying that expelling people on the basis of their sexuality from the militry is okay?

Will you be consistent and therefore apply it to the rest of emplyoment or will you claim that militry is a special case, and if so, can you underline EXACTLY why the militry is a special case please.

Since for example, The unit cohesion idea is false.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Eisenschwarz: So you’re saying that expelling people on the basis of their sexuality from the militry is okay?

Yep. Look, in the military (at least the first years), people of the same sex are housed together and shower together, etc. Why is that? Well, in theory it is to remove the presence of SEX from the barracks. The military treats each individual as a number, breaks down their individual assertiveness to the point where they can mindless follow orders as needed in the heat of battle, and rebuilds them.

Now, if you start housing men and women together, I'm fine with letting gays be open in the military. Until that time, it is simply unfair to ask folks in the military to be naked with and take communal showers with people who may express sexual desires toward them. If one man in the shower is openly gay, all others are exposed to the sexual tension that he just *might* be coveting their bodies. This would be tantamount to forcing a female barracks to let men shower with them. It would be an attention they may not want and should not be forced to endure.

What reason is there to keep males/females separate if not sexual tension?

So, in order to strike a balance with the sexual tension concept, the military says you can *be* gay, and no one will *ask* if you are gay, just don't go flouting it.

Which is fine by me, and makes sense. Remember that rant about *privacy* and openly flouting sexuality I had earlier? It applies here too.

Even foregoing this argument, the government is allowed to deny admission to the military if you are overweight, diabetic, have poor eyesight (pilots), are flat-footed, have ever tripped acid, belong to certain special interest groups (extreme example, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a US non-profit that sends money to Palestinians) and, yes, if you are gay.

Originally posted by Eisenschwarz: Since for example, The unit cohesion idea is false.

Prove this or go home. Im am quite sure you never served in the US armed forces so you do not know the problems caused are.

[Night Stalker]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Eisenschwarz: Since for example, The unit cohesion idea is false.

Prove this or go home. Im am quite sure you never served in the US armed forces so you do not know the problems caused are.
[/QUOTE]I will echo this .... well, not the go home part. But this statement, Eisen, shows your ignorance of understanding unit co-hesion's effects on combat effectiveness. Quite simply, a unit that is divided is ineffective. The forced integration of "coloreds" created very tense units because of the rampant predjuces that abounded. Those units either overcame them under fire (bad place for that) or attrophied. It wasn't until society as a whole accepted integration (for the most part) that 'mixed units' were not a large problem.

The military is not the place for social experimentation - people's lives are at stake. For a unit to be effective, it needs trust and respect. Otherwise, people die.

This also goes for personal conflicts as well. If every one in the unit, for whatever reason, can't get along, the unit is in jepordy.

[Sir Taliesin]

Originally posted by IronDragon: quote: Timber Loftis said: You'll note Idaho's attorney general's office still intends to enforce its "crimes against nature" law which will prevent acts between gays or with animals. I've already pointed out the distinction with beastiality. As for the rest of it, I'm offering 3 to 1 odds that IF Idaho does enforce its law, it will be the "next item up for bids" on the State and Supreme Court hit list.

Were Idaho to enforce this law and charge two men with this ‘crime’ it would likely struck down by lower courts and would probably never even get near the Supreme Court. The justices already said in a 6-3 decision that what two consenting adults do in private is none of the states concern. [/QUOTE]You need to go back and re-read the quote from the Idaho AG. Well let me just paste it in that way you won't have to go look for it.

"Similarly, in Idaho, an 1864 state law that forbids "crimes against nature" will still be applied to public sexual acts involving gays, said Michael Henderson, deputy attorney general. He added that the law would also still apply to acts with animals."

He is talking about PUBLIC SEX ACTS, not those taking place in someones bedroom. I think that WILL stand up in court, since that statute can be and is applied to hetrosexuals as well. I regret that he single out gays in this statement, but you can be assured that a hetrosexual couple engaging in a sex act in public is going to see the inside of the hossgaw just like a gay couple would.

Never understood the attraction of having sex in a public place in the first place. It's definitely no a thing to do around children!!!

[Sir Taliesin]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Eisenschwarz: Since for example, The unit cohesion idea is false.

Prove this or go home. Im am quite sure you never served in the US armed forces so you do not know the problems caused are.
[/QUOTE]I will echo this .... well, not the go home part. But this statement, Eisen, shows your ignorance of understanding unit co-hesion's effects on combat effectiveness. Quite simply, a unit that is divided is ineffective. The forced integration of "coloreds" created very tense units because of the rampant predjuces that abounded. Those units either overcame them under fire (bad place for that) or attrophied. It wasn't until society as a whole accepted integration (for the most part) that 'mixed units' were not a large problem.

The military is not the place for social experimentation - people's lives are at stake. For a unit to be effective, it needs trust and respect. Otherwise, people die.

This also goes for personal conflicts as well. If every one in the unit, for whatever reason, can't get along, the unit is in jepordy. [/QUOTE]First off, let me say that I agree with the Supreme courts ruling. What happens in the privacy of ones on bedroom with another consenting adult is none of mine or anyone elses business. That said, I also agree with TL, Majik and Night Stalker! Personally, I don't even think it's a good idea for young men and women to serve in the same unit together. My personal experience with that comes from when my unit was activated for Desert Storm. We had three young women come up pregnent prior to our deploying. All the fathers came from our unit and none were married (Well one was and he got a divorce from his wife so he could marry the girl he got pregnent). When we got to Saudi Arabia, we had two fights over the women in our unit within the first few days of being in-country.

They moved all the females over to the Battilion Headquarters company before the unit moved to the front. While at the front our guards almost shot three guys from one of the line companies after they were caught trying to sneak through our perimeter to visit the women. There were at least two more affairs that went on the entire time we were over there and one of those marriages broke up afterwards. There is no place for sex or sexual tension in a military unit.

And to echo one of TL's excellent points, I personally wouldn't want to shower or room with a man or woman that might find me sexually attractive during a wartime situation. He or she's mind might not be on their job when the chips are down.

[ 07-01-2003, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: Sir Taliesin ]