Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to FIGHTING THE GAY PRIDE PARADE --- AND THEN FIGHTING OFF THE BIBLE THUMPERS
editing
I suppose gay pride can have many manifestations. Assholes are assholes whether gay or straight. My comment to you regards a far loftier subject--the mechanics of writing. Forgive me, I am an obsessive editor-proofreader. To me at least, your blog would be more readable if you took greater care to deal with all the misspellings and typos before you posted. I say this most humbly, and hope you will accept this modest comment in the spirit that is intended. Hemlocker
posted by
Hemlocker
on May 31, 2005 at 10:54 AM
| link to this | reply
Dennison_Mann -- re-iterating over and over again won't make it fit
This is the portion of the posting you must have skipped over to come to your conclusion and why I suggested you are arguing for argument's sake.
"Over the few years it had taken place a disturbing trend began to develop. Parade participants were becoming more outlandish in their behaviour as they strutted through our city's core.
Then it really got out of hand. Nearly half of the parade's participants stripped naked and began performing lewd acts while marching."
Clearly this portion suggests that this event was not shut down because of a few rowdies, it got out of hand over time. This isn't overly subtle, it's in black and white print. However, I don't disagree with most of what you have said, except that trying to apply it to this example doesn't fit.
posted by
gomedome
on May 30, 2005 at 7:27 AM
| link to this | reply
tigerprincess -- it's funny how you mix sympathies in one train of thought
Leviticus is out but the redneck chorus (Adam and Steve) is in. Ultimately they are one and the same in terms of using faith to justify one's inherent prejudices towards homosexuality. Prejudices that are natural and take some effort to overcome, at least for most people. But you did get get the point. If a group is striving for equality they must be governed by the same rules as everyone else.
posted by
gomedome
on May 29, 2005 at 10:19 PM
| link to this | reply
What really bugs me is that
like you alluded to, if straight people did that we would be fined and thrown in jail. However I don't agree with the constant quoting of Leviticus. God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, and in the same way that we don't go throwing our straightness into the faces of those who live an alternative lifestyle, those who do live that lifestyle should offter the same courtesy.
posted by
tigerprincess
on May 29, 2005 at 10:00 PM
| link to this | reply
Not Arguing For Argument's Sake
I simply highlighted the absurdity of this logic: shut down the entire event because some participants broke the law.
As for the Rodney King case, I think the LAPD still operates, don't they? I mean, City Hall didn't shut the entire operation down, did they?
DM
posted by
Dennison..Mann
on May 29, 2005 at 1:58 PM
| link to this | reply
Dennison_Mann -- you seem to be arguing for argument's sake
I did say in this posting that nearly half of the participants stripped naked etc. The figures swell to 60-70% when partial nudity and lewd acts alone are included but all of this is irrelevant, as is your attempt to draw more parrallels that miss the mark. Sports club owners defending the wrong actions of athletes they have multi- million dollar investments in, may well be wrong in of itself but again irrelevant. You must have missed the Rodney King trial, it's verdict and the aftermath. You may be absolutely correct in suggesting another course of action may have served justice better but to shut down a police force because of a few rogue cops?
It may help if we just drop this niggling he said you said. The parade was shut down on the decision of the police for a few very valid reasons. Individual charges of indecent exposure and lewd conduct were never laid as all complaints to them were of a general nature. The parade orgainzers shot themselves in the foot by not at least demonstrating a reconcilliatory attitude. By taking an "it is our right to promote our cause" stance they were in clear violation of their parade permit. The language of which is written right on the back of the very document they apply for. To abbreviate: it is langauge that covers public security and the lawful behaviour of any the specific public gathering's participants. Organizers can be held accountable if it is deemed that they do not at least discourage said behaviour. If they actively promote unlawful behaviour they can be charged as well as the perpetrators. All of this is in place to protect the public. In short if your gathering turns into a zoo you have to demonstrate remedial measures to get another permit for the same gathering. The organizers not only never tried to correct the concerns of the public they were steadfast in their defence of the illegal actions. Hence no permit for them from that point on.
posted by
gomedome
on May 29, 2005 at 1:41 PM
| link to this | reply
Okay...It's Difficult To Perceive The Subtleties When
you don't bother to list them. Either I missed the 60-70% figure or you neglected to publish it. What's more, I have seen owners defend their players even when their players were dead wrong. Latrell Spreewell, Alan Iverson, Roberto Alomar spring to mind immediately. And I've NEVER heard of any police department losing it's headquarters because cops beat the crap out of someone...say like, Rodney King. My point stands. Please cite ONE police department that was shut down due to crooked cops? Hell, even Rizzo's Raiders in Philadelphia operated outside of the law for decades! And next time, try
including the subtleties so that your readers might catch them. DM
posted by
Dennison..Mann
on May 29, 2005 at 11:59 AM
| link to this | reply
Dennison_Mann -- Nice try but I can see that a few minor subleties escaped
you. In any of the instances and examples you have cited, if the organizing or representative body of the perpetrators clearly demonstrate a sympathy or a willingness to accept the illegal behaviour of their members then they get shut down. Have you ever seen the owners of a sports stadium, for example, defend idiots who want to spray beer on the athletes? and it wasn't a few participants, it was about 60-70%. Like I said you missed the mark here, in every example you cite you are speaking of a minority of rogue particpants situation.
posted by
gomedome
on May 29, 2005 at 11:45 AM
| link to this | reply
Great Logic!
A few stupid participants break the law and we oughta shut down the entire event?
Let's see...how many sporting events should be shut down because a few participants ran up into the stands and assaulted spectators? (Or vice versa.)
How many driver's licenses should we remove because some of simply do not know how to drive?
How many political organization should halt operations because they have a history of breaking the law?
How many courthouses should we shut down becauase some judges have no scruples?
How many police departments should we close?
How many corporations should we shut down?
I'm sorry, I just can't agree with this mob mentality that we need to shut down the entire operation because some participants just can't behave themselves. DM
posted by
Dennison..Mann
on May 29, 2005 at 11:33 AM
| link to this | reply
very interesting read.
good for you.
those people were out of line and maybe out of mind, you simply acting on your outrage as a parent and decent citizen. Good job.
posted by
calmcantey75
on May 29, 2005 at 11:29 AM
| link to this | reply