So my Mother went by a local equal-marriage rights rally here in Oregon. Unfortunately I don't have a picture. I did not attend.
On the flag pole, at this state building, under the U.S. flag, was hung on the same halyard a Rainbow Flag.
My mom called me freaking out - claiming that to have such a flag (the rainbow flag) anywhere on the same pole as the American flag was just wrong and Un-American. Her arguments consisted of church vs. state, "this is a christian country", and some classic bigotry.
My argument against her was
1) The gay rights movement is not a religion, so church v. state doesn't apply.
2) I've seen POW flags, and even flags such as the Gadsden flown in a like manner with the U.S. Flag on state property. If the rainbow flag is a political statement, I would argue so too is the Gadsden flag. So the precedent had been set that it's acceptable.
What do you think? Should you be able to fly a Rainbow flag on the same pole beneath the U.S. Flag on state property? Would this also then apply to the Gadsden, or the "Molon Labe" type flags?
Is the Rainbow flag a political statement, if so, do political statements belong hanging with the nations colors? Any statement for that matter?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
The key here is that it was flying underneath the American flag. If it was above, I could see someone getting upset about that. Unfortunately your mother took issue with the symbolism of what the other flag represents.
I really don't care about symbols, I only care about effective policy and people fulfilling their true potential if they choose to do so.
This. So much this. I'm not really sure what there is to debate here. It seems like the typical rhetoric of "worldview X does not align with my worldview, therefore it is inherently bad."
if you had a problem with THIS display (the rainbow flag) - would it only be fair then to object to other symbols like the Gadsden, or Molon Labe, or other such things.
I tried unsuccessfully to show my mom the error of her outrage, but alas, "We are becoming a godless nation, and our enemies see it - that's why they hate us" nonsense just derailed any of my attempts to make her see reason.
To avoid said outrage, maybe no political statement flags should be flown on the same pole as the US flag? But I don't even like that option, it suppresses free speech. So I'd say ALL such flags are allowed, then we have equality of views.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
But I don't even like that option, it suppresses free speech.
Choosing not to do something is not suppressing your free speech or restricting your rights. You're well within your rights to go up to your boss at work and tell him you hate him and that he's an idiot, but he's well within his rights to start hating you for that.
You can fly a Nazi flag right above the American flag on the flagpole at your house, but rest assured people might be pissed at that.
We're not talking about flying things at my house. This was a flag pole at a state building.
If it was on private property it wouldn't have been compelling at all. Since it was a state building, what is the implications of flying political agenda flags alongside the US flag?
see my first post for my main input.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
The Constitution guarantees the separation of church and state, not the separation of politics and state. A state by definition does nothing but politics. The state of Oregon has chosen to identify that its policies are for the freedom of all adults to love and marry whom they choose, which is a valid thing to yoke to the American flag.
Ask your mother if she wishes America to be a "Christian nation" then would she rather it become similar to Iran, a nation that is explicitly Islamic. She'll get a kick out of that one.
The Constitution guarantees the separation of church and state, not the separation of politics and state. A state by definition does nothing but politics. The state of Oregon has chosen to identify that its policies are for the freedom of all adults to love and marry whom they choose, which is a valid thing to yoke to the American flag.
Though the state does nothing but politics by its very nature, there is a paradoxical but nonetheless very real sense that the symbols and trappings of the state should stand somehow "above" all that messy business. I expect you too would feel a certain level of impropriety if a partisan-dominated legislature voted to fly a Republican elephant or Democratic donkey flag right beneath the Stars and Stripes. The idea, generally, is that the symbol represents the state itself, as a structural and procedural entity, rather than the specific policies this entity enacts. The instrument, not the tune.
Naturally, this ideal distinction between procedure and policy gets blurry when you think about it. A basic American procedure like "let's vote on stuff" is, in a different context, quite a radical policy claim. But we're not dealing with carefully considered philosophy here. Symbolism is the domain of simple associations and gut emotional reactions. And in this domain the distinction is both real and purposeful: the symbol is supposed to be something uniting all the citizens of the state, not just those of a particular political, ethical, or ideological opinion. I suspect Mrs. IcecreamMan's distress springs ultimately from her seeing a symbol that she feels represents her tied to another symbol that she very much doesn't. Which is a valid concern, however distastefully she may have chosen to articulate it. So let's be charitable, and examine this concern, rather than get snarky at a woman who isn't even here.
The Constitution guarantees the separation of church and state, not the separation of politics and state. A state by definition does nothing but politics. The state of Oregon has chosen to identify that its policies are for the freedom of all adults to love and marry whom they choose, which is a valid thing to yoke to the American flag.
Ask your mother if she wishes America to be a "Christian nation" then would she rather it become similar to Iran, a nation that is explicitly Islamic. She'll get a kick out of that one.
If you guys can compare Christianity in America to Islam in Iran, then I think I should be able to get away with my "modern day Sweden = Soviet Russia" comparisons.
I have realized that no matter how p.c. people try and be, they are going to offend someone. What is the difference between the confederate flag being flown in some of the southern states, or a rainbow flag signifying gay rights? They both will offend some, but in reality they are just symbols. No different then the Greek symbol the Nazis bastardized and turned it from a symbol of good luck, to a memory of something terrible.
In some ways, offending someone is the American way.
If I was raising the colors over the statehouse, I'd probably restrict myself to the US flag on top and the state flag right below it as a matter of principle. While politicians are free to wave whatever flag they want, I think that state buildings should as a matter of principle try to transcend daily politics. As such I'm OK with a military base having POW flags, or a historical park with the Gadsden flag, but I think that statehouses should just stick to the basics.
People calling something "un-American" is really just them being afraid of it, unsure what to do about it, and not articulating why it upsets them. Calling something un-American is roughly the same thing as me going to work in the morning with the pharmacy looking like a bomb site and saying "what kind of monster did this?"
Given that politicians are the ones responsible for ordering around the people who raise and lower the flag over the statehouse, I don't really think we'll get to see flagpoles free of local politics anytime soon, but that's my 2 cents.
The Constitution guarantees the separation of church and state, not the separation of politics and state. A state by definition does nothing but politics. The state of Oregon has chosen to identify that its policies are for the freedom of all adults to love and marry whom they choose, which is a valid thing to yoke to the American flag.
Ask your mother if she wishes America to be a "Christian nation" then would she rather it become similar to Iran, a nation that is explicitly Islamic. She'll get a kick out of that one.
Well...
Part of the issue stems from the mindset that this IS religious to someone like my mom, and so separation of church and state applies in her opinion.
The Rainbow Flag isn't just "Equal Rights" to someone like her - it's "Sin Is Cool" - which at least explains, if not excuses, her outrage.
Imagine the liberal outcry if someone at a state building flew the http://www.cvsflags.com/christian.cfm on the same pole under the U.S. Flag.
Maybe there wouldn't be an outcry, but just imagine one.
(I've seen those two flown together many times, but on church or private property, I don't think I've ever seen a state do it.)
Now - the separation of church and state is an easy go-to for that objection. The thing is, to people like my mom, the Rainbow Flag might as well be an attack on her beliefs, thus the feelings are similar I'd say.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
It doesn't matter if she gets offended by it due to her own religious beliefs
She's free to believe whatever she wants to believe and the cold hard fact is that LGBT equality is a social issue, it has nothing to do with religion
Now she might feel that it is but she's wrong in doing so
Of course you could argue that the LGBT community should know better than to fly their flag on government proprety considering that the belief that this is a religious issue is rather common in certain areas: you don't get people on your side by pissing them off, even if they are wrong
She's free to believe whatever she wants to believe and the cold hard fact is that LGBT equality is a social issue, it has nothing to do with religion.
I was always under the impression that one of the fundemental reason(s) this is an issue is because of the religious implications of homosexuality.
I was always under the impression that one of the fundemental reason(s) this is an issue is because of the religious implications of homosexuality.
Well, it is.
But, as is often the case, things that have a basis in religion often becomes a part of the culture's social/ethical beliefs, and as such they're inseparable.
And in the case of homosexual marriage (especially for men), it just goes against the perceived gender roles established in Western and other dominant cultures.
I support gay rights and am not Christian. Yet, seeing two men together just bothers me.
And, honestly, I didn't even know of the existence of this issue until I got into high school. The most likely reason I find the above strange is simply because I wasn't exposed to gay couples.
It is fairly well established that whatever we're not familiar with, we tend to find strange at best, fear at worst.
The Constitution guarantees the separation of church and state, not the separation of politics and state. A state by definition does nothing but politics. The state of Oregon has chosen to identify that its policies are for the freedom of all adults to love and marry whom they choose, which is a valid thing to yoke to the American flag.
Though the state does nothing but politics by its very nature, there is a paradoxical but nonetheless very real sense that the symbols and trappings of the state should stand somehow "above" all that messy business. I expect you too would feel a certain level of impropriety if a partisan-dominated legislature voted to fly a Republican elephant or Democratic donkey flag right beneath the Stars and Stripes. The idea, generally, is that the symbol represents the state itself, as a structural and procedural entity, rather than the specific policies this entity enacts. The instrument, not the tune.
Naturally, this ideal distinction between procedure and policy gets blurry when you think about it. A basic American procedure like "let's vote on stuff" is, in a different context, quite a radical policy claim. But we're not dealing with carefully considered philosophy here. Symbolism is the domain of simple associations and gut emotional reactions. And in this domain the distinction is both real and purposeful: the symbol is supposed to be something uniting all the citizens of the state, not just those of a particular political, ethical, or ideological opinion. I suspect Mrs. IcecreamMan's distress springs ultimately from her seeing a symbol that she feels represents her tied to another symbol that she very much doesn't. Which is a valid concern, however distastefully she may have chosen to articulate it. So let's be charitable, and examine this concern, rather than get snarky at a woman who isn't even here.
I'm in agreement with this, and ultimately feel it's appropriate that the only flag that should fly at capital buildings, courthouses, Secretary of State and the like is the US flag. At buildings like police stations/firehouses, Army Reserve/National Guard posts and others like this I think it's fine to have flags relative to the buildings' designation whether they be POW/MIA flags, unit flags or anything suitable and relevant to the mission and reason for the building.
The government shouldn't be showcasing support for any social or religious group/issue. I enjoy the Gadsen flag but it's not appropriate to have on the flagpoles of official state buildings, regardless of its history. Same goes for these gay pride flags or really anything else. There needs to be an end to this and any derivative of the picking winners and losers game that is played.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CAMILLA: You, sir, should unmask.
STRANGER: Indeed?
CASSILDA: Indeed it's time. We all have laid aside disguise but you.
STRANGER: I wear no mask.
CAMILLA: (Terrified, aside to Cassilda.) No mask? No mask!
For the first week of Pride month the rainbow flag flew on a flag pole in downtown Buffalo next to the American flag and no one freaked out. There was even a ceremony for the flag raising. I'm not saying that Buffalo is not a tolerant place though, with several unsolved LGBT murders in 2013 and a general atmosphere of fear and intolerance for LGBT people from the substantial Catholic and Lutheran communities.
I actually had a similar issue recently. I'm the vice-president of Fabulous Friends of WNY, a LGBT social organization dedicated to bringing the community together outside the bar scene, and we marched in our 1st Pride parade in June. One of our members became ill right before the parade and so her wife asked us to carry her flag, which is a mix of the American flag and the rainbow flag, and we naturally agreed. I've used a picture from Pride for our Craigslist ad for ages and then I got an email about it last month. The guy felt we had violated the flag itself and dishonored veterans. Which is funny because the flag belonged to a veteran!
i really dont mind that you are gay/bi/lesbian hell I'm bi my self, it just what you did to the US flag with the rainbow colors on it with the stars back ground that is SO worgn I hate it so many men and now woman have fight for that back ground and it as NO right to mixed with anything othere then the red and white. it very downgrading to the ones who put ther life on the line. dont let me see you with it thats all Iam saying
love be with you
i really dont mind that you are gay/bi/lesbian hell I'm bi my self, it just what you did to the US flag with the rainbow colors on it with the stars back ground that is SO worgn I hate it so many men and now woman have fight for that back ground and it as NO right to mixed with anything othere then the red and white. it very downgrading to the ones who put ther life on the line. dont let me see you with it thats all Iam saying
love be with you
Plus, it kicks seven of the original States out of the Union. For shame!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Tell your mom that our founding fathers wanted a separation of church and state, and we can't have laws because of religious reasons. Sounds like she wants a theocracy.
i really dont mind that you are gay/bi/lesbian hell I'm bi my self, it just what you did to the US flag with the rainbow colors on it with the stars back ground that is SO worgn I hate it so many men and now woman have fight for that back ground and it as NO right to mixed with anything othere then the red and white. it very downgrading to the ones who put ther life on the line. dont let me see you with it thats all Iam saying
love be with you
Plus, it kicks seven of the original States out of the Union. For shame!
Bunch of em got married, merged territories, its legit, promise
I think the person altering the US Flag is doing a disservice to the symbolism of the flag and their cause. To me it kind of implies the US flag does not already repersent them (which I believe it does) and it lowers the significance of the US flag. The flag should not be a political tool but rather a symbol of the country as a whole irrelevant the internal poltics of the country. I do not think it's a a disservice to servicemen though. I'm not sure anyone has died for a flag but rather died for what the flag repersents.
Is the US flag really such a weak symbol that someone making a gay pride version can hurt it?
No. But, that version *can* disrespect it. Which is what the person who e-mailed Bitsy was complaining about. There is something very real and compelling about the argument "thousands have fought and died for that symbol, and you are altering it in a way that disrespects them". Granted, it's on the person asserting that to show that the alteration is actually disrespectful, but if a prima facie case of disrespect can be established I think the argument not to make the modification is compelling.
(That is not to say I think the modification should be prohibited, free speech and all that. Just that I think the person making it should recognize that it is disrespectful and counterproductive, and maybe they shouldn't do it.)
On the specific topic of the thread, I tend to think that it is not the government's job to push ideological change on the populace, but the populace's job to push ideological change on the government. I recognize that in certain instances it becomes necessary (i.e. ending slavery) for the government to force ideological changes small portions of the populace, when the larger populace agrees with the ideological change. I'm not sure thats the case here, but I have not seen any poll numbers so I can't talk to the specifics.
There is something to be said for isolating the symbol of our nation from symbols representing ideological agendas. It may be inaccurate to say our government is separate from them, but is certainly not inaccurate to say our government should strive to be separate from them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
On the flag pole, at this state building, under the U.S. flag, was hung on the same halyard a Rainbow Flag.
My mom called me freaking out - claiming that to have such a flag (the rainbow flag) anywhere on the same pole as the American flag was just wrong and Un-American. Her arguments consisted of church vs. state, "this is a christian country", and some classic bigotry.
My argument against her was
1) The gay rights movement is not a religion, so church v. state doesn't apply.
2) I've seen POW flags, and even flags such as the Gadsden flown in a like manner with the U.S. Flag on state property. If the rainbow flag is a political statement, I would argue so too is the Gadsden flag. So the precedent had been set that it's acceptable.
What do you think? Should you be able to fly a Rainbow flag on the same pole beneath the U.S. Flag on state property? Would this also then apply to the Gadsden, or the "Molon Labe" type flags?
Is the Rainbow flag a political statement, if so, do political statements belong hanging with the nations colors? Any statement for that matter?
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
This. So much this. I'm not really sure what there is to debate here. It seems like the typical rhetoric of "worldview X does not align with my worldview, therefore it is inherently bad."
UAzami, Locus of All KnowledgeU
BMarrow-Gnawer, Crime Lord of ComboB
WBRTariel, Hellraiser StaxWBR
Annul is really good in EDH
if you had a problem with THIS display (the rainbow flag) - would it only be fair then to object to other symbols like the Gadsden, or Molon Labe, or other such things.
I tried unsuccessfully to show my mom the error of her outrage, but alas, "We are becoming a godless nation, and our enemies see it - that's why they hate us" nonsense just derailed any of my attempts to make her see reason.
To avoid said outrage, maybe no political statement flags should be flown on the same pole as the US flag? But I don't even like that option, it suppresses free speech. So I'd say ALL such flags are allowed, then we have equality of views.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Choosing not to do something is not suppressing your free speech or restricting your rights. You're well within your rights to go up to your boss at work and tell him you hate him and that he's an idiot, but he's well within his rights to start hating you for that.
You can fly a Nazi flag right above the American flag on the flagpole at your house, but rest assured people might be pissed at that.
If it was on private property it wouldn't have been compelling at all. Since it was a state building, what is the implications of flying political agenda flags alongside the US flag?
see my first post for my main input.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Ask your mother if she wishes America to be a "Christian nation" then would she rather it become similar to Iran, a nation that is explicitly Islamic. She'll get a kick out of that one.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Naturally, this ideal distinction between procedure and policy gets blurry when you think about it. A basic American procedure like "let's vote on stuff" is, in a different context, quite a radical policy claim. But we're not dealing with carefully considered philosophy here. Symbolism is the domain of simple associations and gut emotional reactions. And in this domain the distinction is both real and purposeful: the symbol is supposed to be something uniting all the citizens of the state, not just those of a particular political, ethical, or ideological opinion. I suspect Mrs. IcecreamMan's distress springs ultimately from her seeing a symbol that she feels represents her tied to another symbol that she very much doesn't. Which is a valid concern, however distastefully she may have chosen to articulate it. So let's be charitable, and examine this concern, rather than get snarky at a woman who isn't even here.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
That's an important distinction, of course. Whether it's the rainbow flag or Molon Labe or Gadsden, it does seem presumptuous.
If you guys can compare Christianity in America to Islam in Iran, then I think I should be able to get away with my "modern day Sweden = Soviet Russia" comparisons.
In some ways, offending someone is the American way.
People calling something "un-American" is really just them being afraid of it, unsure what to do about it, and not articulating why it upsets them. Calling something un-American is roughly the same thing as me going to work in the morning with the pharmacy looking like a bomb site and saying "what kind of monster did this?"
Given that politicians are the ones responsible for ordering around the people who raise and lower the flag over the statehouse, I don't really think we'll get to see flagpoles free of local politics anytime soon, but that's my 2 cents.
Well...
Part of the issue stems from the mindset that this IS religious to someone like my mom, and so separation of church and state applies in her opinion.
The Rainbow Flag isn't just "Equal Rights" to someone like her - it's "Sin Is Cool" - which at least explains, if not excuses, her outrage.
Imagine the liberal outcry if someone at a state building flew the http://www.cvsflags.com/christian.cfm on the same pole under the U.S. Flag.
Maybe there wouldn't be an outcry, but just imagine one.
(I've seen those two flown together many times, but on church or private property, I don't think I've ever seen a state do it.)
Now - the separation of church and state is an easy go-to for that objection. The thing is, to people like my mom, the Rainbow Flag might as well be an attack on her beliefs, thus the feelings are similar I'd say.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
She's free to believe whatever she wants to believe and the cold hard fact is that LGBT equality is a social issue, it has nothing to do with religion
Now she might feel that it is but she's wrong in doing so
Of course you could argue that the LGBT community should know better than to fly their flag on government proprety considering that the belief that this is a religious issue is rather common in certain areas: you don't get people on your side by pissing them off, even if they are wrong
I was always under the impression that one of the fundemental reason(s) this is an issue is because of the religious implications of homosexuality.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Well, it is.
But, as is often the case, things that have a basis in religion often becomes a part of the culture's social/ethical beliefs, and as such they're inseparable.
And in the case of homosexual marriage (especially for men), it just goes against the perceived gender roles established in Western and other dominant cultures.
I support gay rights and am not Christian. Yet, seeing two men together just bothers me.
And, honestly, I didn't even know of the existence of this issue until I got into high school. The most likely reason I find the above strange is simply because I wasn't exposed to gay couples.
It is fairly well established that whatever we're not familiar with, we tend to find strange at best, fear at worst.
I'm in agreement with this, and ultimately feel it's appropriate that the only flag that should fly at capital buildings, courthouses, Secretary of State and the like is the US flag. At buildings like police stations/firehouses, Army Reserve/National Guard posts and others like this I think it's fine to have flags relative to the buildings' designation whether they be POW/MIA flags, unit flags or anything suitable and relevant to the mission and reason for the building.
The government shouldn't be showcasing support for any social or religious group/issue. I enjoy the Gadsen flag but it's not appropriate to have on the flagpoles of official state buildings, regardless of its history. Same goes for these gay pride flags or really anything else. There needs to be an end to this and any derivative of the picking winners and losers game that is played.
STRANGER: Indeed?
CASSILDA: Indeed it's time. We all have laid aside disguise but you.
STRANGER: I wear no mask.
CAMILLA: (Terrified, aside to Cassilda.) No mask? No mask!
I actually had a similar issue recently. I'm the vice-president of Fabulous Friends of WNY, a LGBT social organization dedicated to bringing the community together outside the bar scene, and we marched in our 1st Pride parade in June. One of our members became ill right before the parade and so her wife asked us to carry her flag, which is a mix of the American flag and the rainbow flag, and we naturally agreed. I've used a picture from Pride for our Craigslist ad for ages and then I got an email about it last month. The guy felt we had violated the flag itself and dishonored veterans. Which is funny because the flag belonged to a veteran!
love be with you
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Bunch of em got married, merged territories, its legit, promise
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
No. But, that version *can* disrespect it. Which is what the person who e-mailed Bitsy was complaining about. There is something very real and compelling about the argument "thousands have fought and died for that symbol, and you are altering it in a way that disrespects them". Granted, it's on the person asserting that to show that the alteration is actually disrespectful, but if a prima facie case of disrespect can be established I think the argument not to make the modification is compelling.
(That is not to say I think the modification should be prohibited, free speech and all that. Just that I think the person making it should recognize that it is disrespectful and counterproductive, and maybe they shouldn't do it.)
On the specific topic of the thread, I tend to think that it is not the government's job to push ideological change on the populace, but the populace's job to push ideological change on the government. I recognize that in certain instances it becomes necessary (i.e. ending slavery) for the government to force ideological changes small portions of the populace, when the larger populace agrees with the ideological change. I'm not sure thats the case here, but I have not seen any poll numbers so I can't talk to the specifics.
There is something to be said for isolating the symbol of our nation from symbols representing ideological agendas. It may be inaccurate to say our government is separate from them, but is certainly not inaccurate to say our government should strive to be separate from them.