"Progressivism" being forced on Mississippi (Jackson, West: renters, gated)

[Mouldy Old Schmo]

One reason I like Mississippi is that most of its people don't seem to follow the Whig view of history which is that the future is always better than the present. Here's an example of people trying to force that "progressive" mindset down our gullet:

Lesbian demands commitment ceremony at Mississippi ag museum | The Clarion-Ledger | clarionledger.com

[DiogenesofJackson]

I agree, most Mississippians don't seem to follow the whig historiographical interpretation of history that human events is a steady march of progress toward further enlightenment, reason, and understanding. No, Mississippians, by and large, purport that the past was better than the future--a past that included a political economy in which people on the lowest rungs of society performed forced labor for a minority of wealthy elites for their own self-aggrandizement.

Yes, things were indeed better in the past if you were among those wealthy elites who had underlings performing your labor so that you could get amazingly rich and work poor souls to death in the process.

Seriously, anyone purporting that things were better in the past, i.e. human values were better in the past, really has no idea what they are saying. At the very least, and I know this isn't a human value, but I know the past was worse than the present because air conditioning didn't come to Mississippi in an affordable form until the 1950s and 1960s. I mean, if you like Mississippi devoid of air conditioning, then I guess you could say the past was indeed better than today!

[tblackwell99]

Originally Posted by Mouldy Old Schmo

One reason I like Mississippi is that most of its people don't seem to follow the Whig view of history which is that the future is always better than the present. Here's an example of people trying to force that "progressive" mindset down our gullet:

Lesbian demands commitment ceremony at Mississippi ag museum | The Clarion-Ledger | clarionledger.com

No one is forcing you to attend the ceremony. What exactly is being forced down your gullet?

[Mouldy Old Schmo]

Originally Posted by tblackwell99

No one is forcing you to attend the ceremony. What exactly is being forced down your gullet?

This is the beginning of an effort to force same-sex "marriage" onto Mississippi! If people are cool with this, they have lost their minds!

[DiogenesofJackson]

Mouldy Old Schmo sent me a nice little private message telling me how he liked my response to this ridiculous thread.

Ah, the "hospitality state" -- you got to love it!

Other than that, I think you were presented with a legitimate question. How's anybody forcing anything down your gullet?

Are you aware that you have the freedom to choose to ignore stuff that you do not like?

[Mouldy Old Schmo]

I typed "our" gullet, meaning that of the people of Mississippi as a whole!
I guess I am too old for this business. I've have read that most young people are cool with SSM. I suppose polygamy will come our way, too.

[Mouldy Old Schmo]

Since a lot of people think sex before marriage is OK, as well as living together before marriage is OK, and that quick and easy divorce is OK, the "what the hell, it's no big deal" attitude of a lot of people who consider themselves "conservative" really bothers me.

[jwkilgore]

I'll let MOS answer independently, but I understood MOS to be speaking figuratively. The managers of the museum don't want to allow gatherings that disagree with their beliefs, and an outside organization is trying to force them to do it anyway. The belief is being forced down the gullet of the managers of the museum. But as MOS apparently is in solidarity with the managers (possibly as a manager or a different location which is used for ceremonies, or possibly just as someone who dislikes the concept of any sort of legitimized homosexual union), if the belief is successfully crammed down the gullet of the museum managers (again, figuratively), then MOS will likewise feel a little bit violated.

Personally I see nothing wrong with a ceremony like this, but I also respect the rights of the museum managers to have control over their facility. Except, if the museum is owned by the state and receives state money, then there's that whole "freedom-of-religion" section the constitution

[DiogenesofJackson]

Originally Posted by jwkilgore

Personally I see nothing wrong with a ceremony like this, but I also respect the rights of the museum managers to have control over their facility. Except, if the museum is owned by the state and receives state money, then there's that whole "freedom-of-religion" section the constitution

The Ag museum is owned by the state and provided for through taxpayer money (and probably some constituent donations). Therefore it's a part of the government and the government in my opinion doesn't have the right to withhold rental services of facilities to potential renters based on their sexual orientation. First of all, how would the museum (and by extension the government of Mississippi, or any government) enforce that policy? Couldn't potential renters merely lie and say that there would be a heterosexual marriage there when in actuality a homosexual "union" was planned all along?

I think it would be more "conservative" for the museum and the government of the state of Mississippi to stay out of people's personal lives and not give a hoot nor holler if lesbians or gay men or heterosexuals wanted to rent the museum's facilities to have a party. I mean, wouldn't real "conservatives" want to rent out the museum's grounds to anyone who could pay the rental fees (provided of course they're going to engage in legal activities, which homosexual unions are legal)?

This is where I think "conservatives" like MOS are full of doo-doo. They preach this limited government, limited government mantra and then when it involves personal things like who one falls in love with--then these so-called "conservatives" start raising cain about how stuff is being forced down one's throat or gullet. In my opinion, a real "conservative" would just choose to ignore controversies generated because two women want to engage in a formal union and have a celebration with their families and friends. After all, most "conservatives" live in their nice little gated enclaves in the suburbs where the only people they see who aren't exactly like them are on TV or in West Jackson (or the "inner" city).

But I digress, I still want to know how something (whatever it is) is being forced down one's throat or the collective throats of Mississippians? Just because two women want to have their celebration at this state-run museum doesn't mean that you have to go out and start dating a member of the same sex. Heck, you don't even have to go to their party! The use of the word "force" in this context is entirely misplaced and erroneous. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. The lesbian couple merely wants their rights as Americans to be upheld by the policies of the museum, and by extension, the state of Mississippi.

You know, I lived in Mississippi during the whole anti-tobacco craze and the controversy associated with community after community enacting smoking restrictions in public buildings. And all these conservatives came out of the woodwork, claiming "they're violating our rights...they're violating our rights." Actually, smoking restrictions in public buildings violates no one's rights. Yet the rental restrictions and policies of the museum and the state of Mississippi are violating the rights of what I'd suspect are two fine people who can probably pay the rental fee and probably pay their taxes. Where's the "conservatives'" outrage over this kind of rights violation?

[Mouldy Old Schmo]

Actually, this conservative lives in a part of Mississippi where most people "aren't exactly like me", if you intend that phrase as code for blacks. BTW, idea that blacks will establish solidarity with gays is bupkes. They tend to oppose SSM more than white folks!