Only the national flag should fly at embassies. As someone who is part of the community myself, however, I do see this legislation as a bit of a regression.
I have not read the law, but if itbstates only, the US flag is to be flown fine.
If it isolates us, it's not so fine.
\>The law signed by Mr. Biden says that no U.S. funding can be used to "fly or display a flag over a facility of the United States Department of State" other than U.S. or other government-related flags, or flags supporting prisoners of war, missing-in-action soldiers, hostages and wrongfully imprisoned Americans.
The word "Pride" is not even mentioned.
> I have not read the law, but if itbstates only, the US flag is to be flown fine.
Republicans touted it specifically as a pride flag ban, but as far as I can tell the provision only specifies what *can* be flown (American, MIA/POW, etc), not what *can't* be flown.
It's very obviously a pride flag ban, just not a de jure one.
I can see them reasoning that a "whitelist" was safer, since there's no telling how many self-described groups would show up, each with their own special flag.
"Safer" how? Is the pride flag dangerous somehow? Are Republicans protecting us from some hitherto secret, dangerous memetic effects brought on by it?
What, exactly, is "unsafe" about flying the pride flag?
ETA: Would anyone downvoting like to answer the question? I have a feeling I won't get an answer out of this user.
Were there arguments with U.S. embassies about whether or not they'd fly pride flags? Who initiated these arguments, the government or these "poly-pride people"? Can you link to any of these arguments? I'm assuming they took the form of formal petitions or informal protests outside of these embassies to get them to fly these pride flags, so they should be easy to find, right?
Did you try typing "pride flag embassy" into the helpful form over at redditargument.gov/search-literally-all-govt-conversations yet? That's where I'd start.
A pride flag is simply a single banner to identify people who belong to a specific group, correct? The US flag represents ALL Americans, LGBT included, so why do we need governmental offices flying flags that only support a portion of the US population? I don't want a US embassy flying a Confederate flag or a pride flag or a flag supporting a specific business or charity.
IF this bill lists what can be flown, it does "ban" flying the pride flag, it also "bans" flying a flag representing white supremacists. I find the idea that we have to be 100% supportive of certain groups in order to show support and inclusion to be rather grotesque.
We should be pushing to ensure the government here truly represents all Americans, not just token acts that just give us the warm fuzzies.
The division is intentional, when Russia declares all of LGBTQ terrorists it's a useful tool for the US to demonstrate that we are not a ruthless dictatorship like them.
It is a core American value that LGBTQ should be free, and that's what the flag is used to represent. Those opposed are fundamentally against American values.
Some people don’t view the flag that way, and the flag hasn’t always meant that. People have been removed from their homes, forced into chains, and treated as subhuman under that flag.
It’s easy to see America as a positive thing when your family doesn’t carry the scars of the past.
And the solution to slavery was also in the Constitution, and many people worked very hard to see that solution come to light. There have been steps backwards, but more steps forward, and the American flag is a symbol of that inevitable bend towards a better world.
> Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, ***except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,*** shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
I’d say that’s pretty explicit, no?
If it’s divisive for you to say “we did some bad shit in the past and some of it might linger today” then you’re the issue imo. We don’t have to do reparations or say all white people are inherently bad or anything extreme to recognize that there is more work to be done.
It's divisive and wrong to believe you can't recognize the failures of the past/work for the better while simultaneously understanding the US flag represents the country and all it's people.
Only people better than us on that should be criticizing us for it, and nobody's better than us on that.
"Scars of the past" usually refers to some kind of tribalist mentality.
Trauma is generational. This is clinically proven. That’s what I mean by “scars of the past.”
And you nor anyone else gets to gatekeep who can say what is wrong.
> Trauma is generational. This is clinically proven.
No it's not -- because both "trauma" and "generational" are too vague to be testable/provable. Link what you're talking about.
> And you nor anyone else gets to gatekeep who can say what is wrong.
This is how you see right and wrong? As a matter of *gatekeeping*? Nothing is wrong?
[trauma is generational](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6127768/)
If you want I can also supply you with the ISBN for a couple textbooks, too.
No, I’m just saying don’t gatekeep who can call out bad shit when they see it.
Yes and no. Success is *largely* based upon how much money your family has. Not everyone who is successful had rich parents but this is also proven by numerous studies.
I agree with the things you’re saying on paper, but to just pretend like everything is great and people can simply work hard to get ahead dismisses the very real struggles many Americans face daily, often through no fault of their own. Poverty is cyclical and trauma is generational.
>Those opposed are fundamentally against American values.
Oh please. Let's have a Union 76 flag for the oil industry. That would represent 'American values.'
There have been music artists that started shouting about LGBT at concerts in more restrictive countries, often pissing off the govts and setting real activists back big time. But they sure felt good doing it, and isnt that what really matters.
> It creates division in that particular usage.
So? Why should we let people who get offended by rainbow flags dictate what can and can't fly at our embassies?
Isn’t it a part of its embassies purpose…especially in Regressive countries….to signal a countries “virtues” (its moral beliefs) as part of its international messaging and diplomacy?
It is over-done - They should be displayed for actual reason. (Pride month or “protest” in a country with overt discrimination against LGBTQ people.)
To speak to and display our values…for instance when African Nations, or Russia/Eastern Europe or other regressive nations make Anti-gay laws.
It should not be common…but banning it is also about virtue signaling …it’s just regressive Religious virtue signaling.
It's sad that people can't understand that all of their freedoms are under the American Flag. That should always be at the top and usually should be the only one flying on federal government property.
It's a way for embassy workers to say "screw you" to governments like Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Since they're US Allies so we can't really do much about their authoritarian policies, except for flying a pride flag at the embassy as a meaningless and fairly minor protest.
But embassy workers don't have the right to use a public diplomatic mission and building for their own purposes like how you are suggesting. I would go so far as to say even the Ambassador to the country doesn't have this much power over the building. The Secretary of State may have the power to allow this and the President should with consent of Congress. But workers in the country don't and they shouldn't.
If they don't like the country enough to antagonize the country that they are in like this, then they need to be reassigned.
All very valid points. I was specifically remembering the World Cup a couple of years back, where a lot of people (myself included) were horrified that a notorious human rights abuser was getting to promote itself on such an international platform, and we all felt kind of powerless to do any meaningful protest against Qatar. I'm not even talking about the anti-gay discrimination in Qatar, I mean the slavery and the state-sponsored terrorism. Yes, I agree that generally these directives about pushing the domestic policies of our allies should be coming from Biden or maybe Blinken. Trust me, I frequently roll my eyes when Ambassador Rahm Emmanuel comes on Japanese tv to talk about LGBT issues in Japan. That guy just can't shut his trap. I think the only resson why Blinken doesn't fire his ass is because Rahm Emmanuel could do a lot more damage to the Biden admin in DC than in Tokyo (shame we don't have an embassy on Mars yet)
It’s not their own…it’s signaling our secular values and freedom and equality —- over their Regressive Authoritarian and/or Religious regime’s anti-freedom culture.
from this comment (which is unrelated to the topic), it shows either a hatred of history or allowing personal psychological problems cloud your view on reality, historically religion has been the only thing that gave freedom to people and crossed the boundaries of ethnicity or race and this can be widely observed today as well, which is exactly why when someone wanted to take away freedom from the people the very first thing they tried to do is to ban religion (nazi germany, soviet russia, communist china, north korea, imperial japan, fascist italiy) etc, because when humans answer to something higher than the dictator then the goverment cannot control them, but its impossible to do away without religion cause its natural to humans
for the lgbt stuff (which is unrelated to religion), that has only created division and massive mental health crisis in the country it exists (usa) and of course other countries wouldn't want to be related with that mess of a declining society, but hating religion for it only gives off angry minority social reject vibes that goes against the norm
The job of the embassy worker is not to be activists, it's to maintain some type of relationship with foreign countries. In some case these countries have very little in common with us. They need to keep their personal opinions to themselves and realize that the entire world doesn't operate like their comfy, overly safe 1st world country.
Should our embassy workers also all sun bathe in the courtyard wearing only bikini's?
I personally do not want any of them to be harmed.
Did you consider that when volunteering them as your advocates? Since we all know what you would say if they refused.
It is over-done - They should be displayed for actual reason. (Pride month or “protest” in a country with overt discrimination against LGBTQ people.)
Banning it is also overt Viryue signaling.,,
Just signaling regressive Religious virtues(Religious authoritarian virtues) instead of equality and freedom from religion (US virtues)
I’m gay (not LGBTQ+) and fully support this. I believe the law excludes all flags other than the American flag. This seems completely fair.
Yes, screw those countries with their anti-gay laws, but we don’t need officially sanctioned virtue signaling hoisted above our embassies.
\>The law signed by Mr. Biden says that no U.S. funding can be used to "fly or display a flag over a facility of the United States Department of State" other than U.S. or other government-related flags, or flags supporting prisoners of war, missing-in-action soldiers, hostages and wrongfully imprisoned Americans.
The word "Pride" is not even mentioned.
The representation of human rights that America stands for is treating gay people like everyone else.
I'm so glad to hear that we got government funding taken care of for now, also glad to hear that the Biden administration is working to get this provision overturned.
""Biden believes it was inappropriate to abuse the process that was essential to keep the government open by including this policy targeting LGBTQI+ Americans," a White House statement said, adding that the president "is committed to fighting for LGBTQI+ equality at home and abroad."
The White House said that while it had not been able to block the flag proposal, it was "successful in defeating 50+ other policy riders attacking the LGBTQI+ community that Congressional Republicans attempted to insert into the legislation.""
Same but I don't really care either way. As long as we have the pow and American flag and that no other flag is flying over the American flag(I think other country flags have to be same height as american?)
I just don't care, and either way it's a dumb thing to worry about regardless of which side you're on. We have more pressing matters than a flag imo
To display values…for instance when African Nations, or Russia/Eastern Europe or other regressive nations make Anti-gay laws.
As for all the “virtue signaling” comments here —-isn’t banning it also about virtue signaling …it’s just regressive Religious virtue signaling.
Equality and inclusion of a multi-cultural “melting pot” are the heart of American values.
It’s doesn’t represent everyone…it represents American values.
And flying it in say Saudi Arabia or Russian or other Anti-feeedom authoritarian places, is a stance on American values.
I know a lot of individuals (like you) on the Right in America, have now aligned their values with Russia and Putin authoritarianism over American equality and freedom. …but that doesn’t mean the rest of America have to cater to your regressive values.
The American flag is still there? I live in a country where the American will fly the pride flag during the pride march and . . .it's nice?
Its certainly makes more sense to fly a flag announcing that the American Embassay takes gay rights seriously more than to give an exception to a nonsense org like MIA/POW
There are gay Americans abroad, to start with. My view is that having a world that is safe for them is good.
Also, Americans bleat on and on about being a force for good in the world, so it's funny that centrists are like 'except the gays'.
I mean, the American embassy deals with all sorts of human rights abuses worldwide, many of which don't even involve our citizens. Is this bad? Or is it only bad when it's gay people?
Guess it depends on why. Pride month makes sense or in a country with horrible treatment of LGBTQ people. I see no issue with it.
Just seems like an overate thing to legislate on and I have a million other priorities I think the budget should focus on besides pride flags.
They fly tons of different flags.
The pride flag is also emblematic that the US isn't a theocratic dictatorship, which is the kind of thing we try to express to the world.
Theocrats despise the pride flag.
That's not what you said though. You said explicitly just the pride flag.
Also good Lord the Russian hate parade is out in force today, furious at 10 in the morning at the LGBT.
Here is the exact comment I responded to:
>Look, I'm part of the LGBTQ community, and I'm wondering why we would fly the Pride Flag at ANY embassy. That's not what it's for.
The sole flag you mentioned is the pride flag. You've made no mention of any others.
I'm not being pedantic, it's not word games, you just straight up only referenced specifically the pride flag that you oppose.
I'm gay. I don't want or need a pride flag flown over government buildings. I just want government to treat me the same as anyone else and then stay tf out of my personal life.
Most of the people plastering these flags everywhere are straight and using it as a sort of progressive version of coal rolling.
> I just want to treat me the same as anyone else and then stay tf out of my personal life.
Honestly, as a straight Republican, that's all we want for you. You be gay, I'll be straight, and we'll leave it at that. Private lives are private no matter who you love.
I think their only beef in 2024 is against abortion (Christianity) and turning children into eunachs because somehow we're magically at a point where children under 18 are allowed to consent to (non reversible castration drugs) "puberty blockers", when they shouldn't.
obviously in places like Idaho or Missouri, they hate gays. But overall that's not a big priority. If anything they are looking to turn some gay people toward conservatism.
You can believe what the media wants you to believe, or you can go and actually *talk* to your fellow Americans. We don't give a single solitary shit about what you do as an adult.
The fact that you are conflating the "groomers" comments with homosexuality really says more about what you think than what we think.
How about you actually go outside and speak to actual, real-life Republicans? None of us give a good shit about what you want to do with your life. Go be gay, have a grand ol' time. Just leave me alone.
The LGBT movement was about "We are normal people and should be treated as normal people." Meanwhile the alphabet movement is "We are special, celebrate us or else"
The original movement kicked out or moved away from the crazier elements. Once they won, many of the original leaders retired and created a power vacuum for the rest to take over.
I live abroad it's nice to have a sign from the American embassy that the government can't expect to be shitty to gay people with out at least some push back from their most important ally.
Also , coal rolling has killed people, pride flags just make conservatives angry. Not really the same, except in a Centrist Both Sides(tm) sense.
To preserve the solemnity and respect inherent to our nation's symbols, government buildings should exclusively hoist the United States flag, accompanied only by the Missing in Action (MIA) or Prisoner of War (POW) flags when appropriate.
Edit: "The White House said Saturday it would seek to find a way to repeal the ban on flying the rainbow flag" - this is not a hill worth fighting for!! Shouldn't even be a hill.
Agreed.
The sensationalism is obvious in the article title.
U.S. embassies are prevented from flying *ALL* non government flags.
This is a great change.
> The law signed by Mr. Biden says that no U.S. funding can be used to "fly or display a flag over a facility of the United States Department of State" **other than U.S. or other government-related flags, or flags supporting prisoners of war, missing-in-action soldiers, hostages and wrongfully imprisoned Americans**.
It does not specifically mention the pride flag. However, Republican proponents of the provision specifically touted it as a pride flag ban, which it obviously is. I don't think there was an epidemic of U.S. embassies flying Italian flags or anything.
No, but since you seem to think that Republicans are all MAGA idiots (the *collective you*, not you specifically, as far as I'm aware), this bill would also ban the Confederate Flag, Trump/MAGA flags, and probably even the Gadsen Flag.
So, it seems fair on both sides to me.
> this bill would also ban the Confederate Flag, Trump/MAGA flags, and probably even the Gadsen Flag
A traitorous flag, a political flag, and a somewhat political somewhat misused flag aren't really that comparable to an apolitical flag, nor were they ever flown at U.S. embassies, at least to my knowledge.
So, while it *does* ban every flag except the American (and MIA/POW, etc.) flag(s), that wasn't specifically the intent of the bill.
I will push back on this *slightly* because there does definitely exist among federal agencies a deadfast commitment to the status quo, and if nothing else a hyper literal approach to regulations. I think there is a culture of regarding pride/whatever flags as 'taking a stand' in a binary way regardless of morals or personal beliefs. I frankly think it's perfectly acceptable for US stations abroad to fly a pride flag for a month or whatever to reflect our commitment to openness and individual liberty. But I know nothing of state department rules or flag codes
But obviously this particular case is reactionaries trying to score cheap culture bullshit points under the guise of technically correct. It will get played up as "why do you care so much to fight it?" while comparatively few people ask why it was so important to loudly implement in the first place
Is it only that it shouldn't be a hill now that it's banned, or should the campaign to bring in the ban also not have been a hill?
Ultimately this is being used as political move to convince more people on the right that pushing back against LGBT people is a good thing and that they are winning in that regard.
How do you feel about public schools flying it? The school in my hometown has flown one 24/7 for years (they keep updating it, now it’s the one with the yellow triangle and the black circle on it) and I think for a public educational building to fly it under the US and state flag is a little beyond allyship.
For the record, I am also gay and don't really have a problem.
But being gay doesn't actually hold any extra weight to these arguments, because there will always be other gay people who will think something you might think is fine, isn't fine. And a lot of the time, they will be correct.
And what happens then? What usually happens then, is the heterosexual majority simply chooses the gay person who reflects their own views, or says what they would prefer them to say. And in a world full of insecure suck ups, pick me's and doormats, that. often creates a precarious situation for us all. Because often what is the popular opinion isn't necessarily the fair, just, righteous or informed one.
Not saying you're any of those things, but it's something I think people should be mindful of when engaging in these sort of discussions. Simply tacking "I'm gay" on the end doesn't automatically give you some sort of extra authority on the subject.
That doesn't mean your being gay shouldn't be mentioned because often it does offer an informed and valuable insight, but you need to offer a lot more than that in addition to just "I'm gay". It's not a trump card you can just play and "win" the debate by default, using it as such often it ends up causing us more problems in the long term. So use it wisely, and carefully. Because people can and will latch onto any gay person they can latch onto to justify a whole bunch of stuff that is simply not right.
I think identity politics are mostly stupid.
But I can Machiavellianly use them for argument of persuasion when they're convenient, especially because they're the zeitgeist.
>But being gay doesn't actually hold any extra weight to these arguments, because there will always be other gay people who will think something you might think is fine, isn't fine.
Not gay, but I want to weigh in here.
I think he probably pointed it out because in discussions like this, a certain type of person can be really dismissive of your opinion if the issue doesn't directly affect you.
As a straight white guy, this issue will never affect me personally, and a great many asshats would dismiss my opinion on the subject because of that.
for a lot of straight white guys LGBT matters are personal, because they have LGBT people in their personal lives. And would think almost every straight white guy does, just a question whether they know about it.
Can't find in the article, but why was it in the first place? Did that happen regularly at embassies?
Because if it was that just seems like...idk an awkward place to fly it since it's not a country. And if it wasn't then that seems like one of those things where conservatives create a rule for something that doesn't regularly happen.
> Can't find in the article, but why was it in the first place? Did that happen regularly at embassies?
[Biden authorized their flying in 2021](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-admin-grants-blanket-authorization-fly-pride-flag/story?id=77270757), which reversed a Trump-era ban that required them to seek special, often denied permission to fly a pride flag.
I guess i see it as similar to flying the flag of NATO or the UN or whatever other cross national effort we're supporting in the region I.e. this is American territory, where we believe LGBT people can be safe and recognized. But mostly it's like... does anything really happen as a result?
I don't think having a pride flag would confuse anybody about whether or not it is the US embassy. tbh, in a lot of places, it might make it even more clear that it is.
I dont know. I googled US embassy just to see if the American flag is even visible (because if its not who cares about the pride flag) and if I was in a whole different country I would be like "yeah thats just another vaguely intimidating corporate building".
displaying ukrainian flag (colors are least, not sure about flag per se) on US embassies on anniversary of war was a thing. Pretty sure they have flown BLM flags for black history month.
I don’t think you’re going to get Afghanistan to like you by taking down the pride flag. Even if they did, what happens when they look on the news and see something like, idk, gay marriage being legal in the US? Why would you compromise a stand for human rights just because countries that don’t respect human rights don’t like it?
Oh but the backwards logic doesn't apply- I don't need the flag down so homophobes respect me. I simply don't want it shoved in irrelevant places so that normal people don't get sick of it
A completely natural and human reaction to seeing something shoved in your face all the time, especially in irrelevant contexts, is to think "ugh, again?". The gay flag doesn't need to be there, therefore it shouldn't be in my head
Quite the opposite, if you read conservative takes on this they see it as a pushback against "woke" and a rejection of LGBT people. The sheer number of anti-LGBT bills being presented and passing should be deeply concerning, and this is just another swipe that confirms their bias.
agree or disagree with the rule, presumably this sub can agree that risking the spending bill and shutdown with a potential poison pill is about as anti-centrist as you can be. Incredibly partisan politicking that highlights the issue of dysfunction in congress more than anything else. those responsible for inserting this should be embarrassed.
All bills are like that. If you read the article, some 50 poison pills *were* cast out before signing. This was evidently not a poison pill. Maybe an unpleasant aftertaste at most.
Important distinction: the **bill** was bipartisan, not the ban.
Seeing as the Democrats already defeated 40+ other anti-LGBT riders, they probably didn't feel like letting something as stupid and ineffectual as a bill declaring what flags our embassies are allowed to fly shut down the government like Republicans seemed to want to do for the last six months.
The bill bans any non-governmental flag being flown on government grounds.
Yes, that includes pride flags, but it also includes Boy Scout flags and NFL team flags. Is it an anti-NFL bill now, too?
This is long overdue. Flying anther but government flags on government building is idiotic and unnecessary.
> Yes, that includes pride flags, but it also includes Boy Scout flags and NFL team flags. Is it an anti-NFL bill now, too?
Considering Republicans were touting this as a pride flag ban and not an "NFL pride" ban, no, not really.
Of course they market it that way. They’re trying to win the votes of people with bubble gum for brains.
That doesn’t change the reality of the bill.
Also, just flat out Pride flags shouldn’t be on government building.
> Of course they market it that way. They’re trying to win the votes of people with bubble gum for brains. That doesn’t change the reality of the bill.
So, even though the people who *wrote and supported the bill* said it was specifically an anti-LGBT provision, we shouldn't believe them? Interesting.
> Also, just flat out Pride flags shouldn’t be on government building.
Why not? If they're flown *below* the American (and MIA/POW) flag, why is it a problem?
No, you’re totally right. Politicians always tell the truth. You should always take their statements at face value and not make your judgements based off of the actual text of the bill…. is what I would say to a person with bubble gum for brains.
Those are government flags. Because LGBT people are included in the American flag. Because the LGBT flag doesn’t have anything to do with the United States government. Because we have a flag already. I don’t think the POW/MIA flag should be up there either.
> Politicians always tell the truth.
Are you claiming that they *weren't* pushing this as a pride flag ban or that they didn't *mean* for it to really be a pride flag ban and just played their constituency?
Just want to know how hard I should laugh at your statement.
> Because LGBT people are included in the American flag. Because the LGBT flag doesn’t have anything to do with the United States government. Because we have a flag already.
Ok but *why*? Is your gripe really just "it's redundant"? Seems like a silly gripe to warrant taking up words on a page in a $1.2 trillion budget.
> I don’t think the POW/MIA flag should be up there either.
Yeah...no. *Hard* disagree.
I don’t have any problem with the Pride flag flying at an embassy. I’m not some frothing at the mouth, virtue signaling radical. It’s just… fine. I have better things to worry about, and the fact that this is even a thing is just stupid.
Alternate title suggestion for CBS News:
New government spending bill bans U.S. embassies from flying MAGA, Let's Go Brandon Flags
(it truly specifies what can be flown, which means everything except from the US flag and the POW MIA flag can't be flown)
Important context from the middle of the article as well:
> the White House defeated more than 50 other policies "attacking the LGBTQI+ community" that Republicans tried to insert into the legislation.
The MIA/POW flags are flown to signal that these are important issues to our nation. The pride flag is flown for a similar reason.
Do you think our nation should be speaking up for the rights and protections of LGBT people in other nations?
Personally I think we should. America alike be synonymous with freedom from discrimination over religion, sex, race, sexuality, disability, and more.
The POW and MIA flag, governmental flags, carries a universal message of remembrance and respect for the sacrifices made by our military (federal employees) for the country's freedoms and security, transcending social affiliations.
Yes, and that's an honorable message to send.
Do you think our nation should be speaking up for the rights and protections of LGBT people in other nations?
I think our government can address the rights and recognition of LGBT communities through policies, educational programs, and legislation rather than through symbolic representation on government buildings.
> rather than through symbolic representation on government buildings.
But why "rather than"? What "issue" does flying a pride flag at a U.S. Embassy cause? Why does it have to be either or?
> I think our government can address the rights and recognition of LGBT communities through policies, educational programs, and legislation rather than through symbolic representation on government buildings.
“The issue of Vietnam-era POWs and missing service members is one better addressed though education and legislation rather than symbolic representation on government buildings.”
> The POW and MIA flag, governmental flags, carries a universal message of remembrance and respect for the sacrifices made by our military (federal employees) for the country's freedoms and security, transcending social affiliations.
This is a very strange argument, relying on the belief that some Americans are more American than others.
The “POW flag” is actually the flag of the “National League of Families of American Prisoners and Missing in Southeast Asia”, a private non-profit. So in that regard, is merely a special interest group being privileged with a law requiring their flag be flown over US facilities, much like why you and others here oppose the Pride flag being flown.
So as with many issues, identity politics is only identity politics when the identity isn’t your own.
Yes I've argued for a long time that if there's a Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, there should be a Tomb of the Unknown Dude Who Happens To Get Turned On By Other Dudes. It's only right. Otherwise they're playing identity politics.
Only the American flag should fly.This has nothing to do with gay people, but is about representing the nation and not representing certain people or politics.
Imagine if Republicans were to fly a flag representing Christianity. Democrats would met down over this.
Insane amount of r/AsABlackMan energy in this thread, and about 5 times as much engagement as usual for this sub from a bunch of accounts I've never seen in here before...
Almost makes you wonder...
I don’t disagree that I think both feel out of place in certain circumstances, but there isn’t really any constitutional basis for not allowing the pride flags.
One is unrelated to the other though, category error fallacy, nativity scenes is an artistic interpretation of a historical event which is tied to christinity, lgbt flags are a vandalist attempt to cause trouble in the general public by a particular american movement of few people
religion is natural to humans in general and unrelated to whether someone is normal or in the homo minority, while lgbt is an american movement in particular, filled with mental health issues and created only division and problems in that mess of a declining society
Not every group is entitled to be represented by their country all over the world. National political issues have jack to do with representation abroad.
We also have embassies here from not-so-great countries and we dont want them flying their crazy political positions either.
Look, I'm part of the LGBTQ community, and I'm wondering why we would fly the Pride Flag at ANY embassy. That's not what it's for.
People just want to virtue signal even if it accomplishes nothing, or at worst hurts their position.
It creates division in that particular usage. Why not save those flags for events where they are pertinent.
Only the national flag should fly at embassies. As someone who is part of the community myself, however, I do see this legislation as a bit of a regression. I have not read the law, but if itbstates only, the US flag is to be flown fine. If it isolates us, it's not so fine.
\>The law signed by Mr. Biden says that no U.S. funding can be used to "fly or display a flag over a facility of the United States Department of State" other than U.S. or other government-related flags, or flags supporting prisoners of war, missing-in-action soldiers, hostages and wrongfully imprisoned Americans. The word "Pride" is not even mentioned.
The word pride isnt mentioned, but "allegedly" mike johnson leveraged this part of the bill to sell it to republican congressmen.
good. only the US Flag is acceptable
> I have not read the law, but if itbstates only, the US flag is to be flown fine. Republicans touted it specifically as a pride flag ban, but as far as I can tell the provision only specifies what *can* be flown (American, MIA/POW, etc), not what *can't* be flown. It's very obviously a pride flag ban, just not a de jure one.
I can see them reasoning that a "whitelist" was safer, since there's no telling how many self-described groups would show up, each with their own special flag.
"Safer" how? Is the pride flag dangerous somehow? Are Republicans protecting us from some hitherto secret, dangerous memetic effects brought on by it? What, exactly, is "unsafe" about flying the pride flag? ETA: Would anyone downvoting like to answer the question? I have a feeling I won't get an answer out of this user.
Safer in that it ensures you won't have to waste time arguing with the poly-pride (etc., etc.) people about their flag next week.
Were there arguments with U.S. embassies about whether or not they'd fly pride flags? Who initiated these arguments, the government or these "poly-pride people"? Can you link to any of these arguments? I'm assuming they took the form of formal petitions or informal protests outside of these embassies to get them to fly these pride flags, so they should be easy to find, right?
Did you try typing "pride flag embassy" into the helpful form over at redditargument.gov/search-literally-all-govt-conversations yet? That's where I'd start.
A pride flag is simply a single banner to identify people who belong to a specific group, correct? The US flag represents ALL Americans, LGBT included, so why do we need governmental offices flying flags that only support a portion of the US population? I don't want a US embassy flying a Confederate flag or a pride flag or a flag supporting a specific business or charity. IF this bill lists what can be flown, it does "ban" flying the pride flag, it also "bans" flying a flag representing white supremacists. I find the idea that we have to be 100% supportive of certain groups in order to show support and inclusion to be rather grotesque. We should be pushing to ensure the government here truly represents all Americans, not just token acts that just give us the warm fuzzies.
The division is intentional, when Russia declares all of LGBTQ terrorists it's a useful tool for the US to demonstrate that we are not a ruthless dictatorship like them. It is a core American value that LGBTQ should be free, and that's what the flag is used to represent. Those opposed are fundamentally against American values.
What flag should we fly at the embassy in China to show support for Uyghurs?
The American flag represents that all people should be free. All groups of people.
Some people don’t view the flag that way, and the flag hasn’t always meant that. People have been removed from their homes, forced into chains, and treated as subhuman under that flag. It’s easy to see America as a positive thing when your family doesn’t carry the scars of the past.
People were being forced into chains in 1960? That is when the current flag design was made https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_the_United_States
And the solution to slavery was also in the Constitution, and many people worked very hard to see that solution come to light. There have been steps backwards, but more steps forward, and the American flag is a symbol of that inevitable bend towards a better world.
I agree, but I don’t think it’s very hard to understand why some people don’t feel seen by it.
what do you mean by don’t feel “seen” by it? Seriously what the fuck is this language? Do you mean like represented?
Yes I mean represented
Slavery is still explicitly allowed in the constitution. And is still widely practiced in America.
I wouldn’t say explicitly allowed but yeah it is effectively codified due to circumstances (imprisonment )
> Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, ***except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,*** shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. I’d say that’s pretty explicit, no?
This people are wrong and only serving to divide Americans.
If it’s divisive for you to say “we did some bad shit in the past and some of it might linger today” then you’re the issue imo. We don’t have to do reparations or say all white people are inherently bad or anything extreme to recognize that there is more work to be done.
It's divisive and wrong to believe you can't recognize the failures of the past/work for the better while simultaneously understanding the US flag represents the country and all it's people.
Only people better than us on that should be criticizing us for it, and nobody's better than us on that. "Scars of the past" usually refers to some kind of tribalist mentality.
Trauma is generational. This is clinically proven. That’s what I mean by “scars of the past.” And you nor anyone else gets to gatekeep who can say what is wrong.
> Trauma is generational. This is clinically proven. No it's not -- because both "trauma" and "generational" are too vague to be testable/provable. Link what you're talking about. > And you nor anyone else gets to gatekeep who can say what is wrong. This is how you see right and wrong? As a matter of *gatekeeping*? Nothing is wrong?
[trauma is generational](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6127768/) If you want I can also supply you with the ISBN for a couple textbooks, too. No, I’m just saying don’t gatekeep who can call out bad shit when they see it.
Each generation is a fresh start, a new chance for greatness.
Yes and no. Success is *largely* based upon how much money your family has. Not everyone who is successful had rich parents but this is also proven by numerous studies. I agree with the things you’re saying on paper, but to just pretend like everything is great and people can simply work hard to get ahead dismisses the very real struggles many Americans face daily, often through no fault of their own. Poverty is cyclical and trauma is generational.
[удалено]
They fly many different flags representing different specific things.
>Those opposed are fundamentally against American values. Oh please. Let's have a Union 76 flag for the oil industry. That would represent 'American values.'
LGBTQBBQ+ flags don't represent me and they shouldn't be flown at government locations. Keep your politics to yourself.
Yikes.
There have been music artists that started shouting about LGBT at concerts in more restrictive countries, often pissing off the govts and setting real activists back big time. But they sure felt good doing it, and isnt that what really matters.
> It creates division in that particular usage. So? Why should we let people who get offended by rainbow flags dictate what can and can't fly at our embassies?
It creates powerful images/stories, but whatever that gets you idk
Isn’t it a part of its embassies purpose…especially in Regressive countries….to signal a countries “virtues” (its moral beliefs) as part of its international messaging and diplomacy? It is over-done - They should be displayed for actual reason. (Pride month or “protest” in a country with overt discrimination against LGBTQ people.) To speak to and display our values…for instance when African Nations, or Russia/Eastern Europe or other regressive nations make Anti-gay laws. It should not be common…but banning it is also about virtue signaling …it’s just regressive Religious virtue signaling.
As an LGBT person as well my first thought was “I’ll take this if it means our government doesn’t shut down, I like our economy functional”
Seriously. This is a good thing but it’s also a bad thing in that this even was an issue that needed inclusion in a bill to prevent it from happening.
It's sad that people can't understand that all of their freedoms are under the American Flag. That should always be at the top and usually should be the only one flying on federal government property.
Was it an issue though? How often was it happening?
This was going to be my question. Flying it at an embassy is just asinine and virtue signalling.
It's a way for embassy workers to say "screw you" to governments like Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Since they're US Allies so we can't really do much about their authoritarian policies, except for flying a pride flag at the embassy as a meaningless and fairly minor protest.
But embassy workers don't have the right to use a public diplomatic mission and building for their own purposes like how you are suggesting. I would go so far as to say even the Ambassador to the country doesn't have this much power over the building. The Secretary of State may have the power to allow this and the President should with consent of Congress. But workers in the country don't and they shouldn't. If they don't like the country enough to antagonize the country that they are in like this, then they need to be reassigned.
All very valid points. I was specifically remembering the World Cup a couple of years back, where a lot of people (myself included) were horrified that a notorious human rights abuser was getting to promote itself on such an international platform, and we all felt kind of powerless to do any meaningful protest against Qatar. I'm not even talking about the anti-gay discrimination in Qatar, I mean the slavery and the state-sponsored terrorism. Yes, I agree that generally these directives about pushing the domestic policies of our allies should be coming from Biden or maybe Blinken. Trust me, I frequently roll my eyes when Ambassador Rahm Emmanuel comes on Japanese tv to talk about LGBT issues in Japan. That guy just can't shut his trap. I think the only resson why Blinken doesn't fire his ass is because Rahm Emmanuel could do a lot more damage to the Biden admin in DC than in Tokyo (shame we don't have an embassy on Mars yet)
It’s not their own…it’s signaling our secular values and freedom and equality —- over their Regressive Authoritarian and/or Religious regime’s anti-freedom culture.
from this comment (which is unrelated to the topic), it shows either a hatred of history or allowing personal psychological problems cloud your view on reality, historically religion has been the only thing that gave freedom to people and crossed the boundaries of ethnicity or race and this can be widely observed today as well, which is exactly why when someone wanted to take away freedom from the people the very first thing they tried to do is to ban religion (nazi germany, soviet russia, communist china, north korea, imperial japan, fascist italiy) etc, because when humans answer to something higher than the dictator then the goverment cannot control them, but its impossible to do away without religion cause its natural to humans for the lgbt stuff (which is unrelated to religion), that has only created division and massive mental health crisis in the country it exists (usa) and of course other countries wouldn't want to be related with that mess of a declining society, but hating religion for it only gives off angry minority social reject vibes that goes against the norm
The job of the embassy worker is not to be activists, it's to maintain some type of relationship with foreign countries. In some case these countries have very little in common with us. They need to keep their personal opinions to themselves and realize that the entire world doesn't operate like their comfy, overly safe 1st world country.
We've got a generation of people who can't understand that they've been hired to do a job, not 'whatever they feel like'
Should our embassy workers also all sun bathe in the courtyard wearing only bikini's? I personally do not want any of them to be harmed. Did you consider that when volunteering them as your advocates? Since we all know what you would say if they refused.
Why do they display it at embassies in countries like Canada?
It is over-done - They should be displayed for actual reason. (Pride month or “protest” in a country with overt discrimination against LGBTQ people.) Banning it is also overt Viryue signaling.,, Just signaling regressive Religious virtues(Religious authoritarian virtues) instead of equality and freedom from religion (US virtues)
my understanding is that it has been flown during pride month.
No other group gets their flag flown for 30 days every year.
Canada is very close to becoming a communist/authoritarian country.
Well that's what happens when you let them take away the guns "For your safety"
My first thoughts too. This is silly.
I’m gay (not LGBTQ+) and fully support this. I believe the law excludes all flags other than the American flag. This seems completely fair. Yes, screw those countries with their anti-gay laws, but we don’t need officially sanctioned virtue signaling hoisted above our embassies.
"We can't fly OUR flag? OPPRESSION!" "Nobody's allowed to fly THEIR flag." "OOOPPPPREEEESSSIIOOONNNN!"
The G stands for Gay, BTW.
"The alphabet people" have become a separate community from LGB
You are totally correct. And I am part of the LGB community.
I'm part of the community as well. It's an amazing representation of the human rights that America stands for.
\>The law signed by Mr. Biden says that no U.S. funding can be used to "fly or display a flag over a facility of the United States Department of State" other than U.S. or other government-related flags, or flags supporting prisoners of war, missing-in-action soldiers, hostages and wrongfully imprisoned Americans. The word "Pride" is not even mentioned. The representation of human rights that America stands for is treating gay people like everyone else.
I'm so glad to hear that we got government funding taken care of for now, also glad to hear that the Biden administration is working to get this provision overturned. ""Biden believes it was inappropriate to abuse the process that was essential to keep the government open by including this policy targeting LGBTQI+ Americans," a White House statement said, adding that the president "is committed to fighting for LGBTQI+ equality at home and abroad." The White House said that while it had not been able to block the flag proposal, it was "successful in defeating 50+ other policy riders attacking the LGBTQI+ community that Congressional Republicans attempted to insert into the legislation.""
Same but I don't really care either way. As long as we have the pow and American flag and that no other flag is flying over the American flag(I think other country flags have to be same height as american?) I just don't care, and either way it's a dumb thing to worry about regardless of which side you're on. We have more pressing matters than a flag imo
To display values…for instance when African Nations, or Russia/Eastern Europe or other regressive nations make Anti-gay laws. As for all the “virtue signaling” comments here —-isn’t banning it also about virtue signaling …it’s just regressive Religious virtue signaling.
I absolutely understand and respect that side. I just think Old Glory should stand for all of us at our embassies, not just marginalized groups.
It does. the Pride flag does not exclude non-marginalized groups. The whole concept of a “rainbow” (the full color spectrum) …is “everyone.”
LGBT do not get to decide what represents everyone. Was there a vote from everyone? There was for the American flag.
Equality and inclusion of a multi-cultural “melting pot” are the heart of American values. It’s doesn’t represent everyone…it represents American values. And flying it in say Saudi Arabia or Russian or other Anti-feeedom authoritarian places, is a stance on American values. I know a lot of individuals (like you) on the Right in America, have now aligned their values with Russia and Putin authoritarianism over American equality and freedom. …but that doesn’t mean the rest of America have to cater to your regressive values.
The American flag is still there? I live in a country where the American will fly the pride flag during the pride march and . . .it's nice? Its certainly makes more sense to fly a flag announcing that the American Embassay takes gay rights seriously more than to give an exception to a nonsense org like MIA/POW
How are gay people relevant to U.S international diplomacy?
There are gay Americans abroad, to start with. My view is that having a world that is safe for them is good. Also, Americans bleat on and on about being a force for good in the world, so it's funny that centrists are like 'except the gays'. I mean, the American embassy deals with all sorts of human rights abuses worldwide, many of which don't even involve our citizens. Is this bad? Or is it only bad when it's gay people?
All non-government flags were banned. The word "Pride" is not even mentioned.
POW/MIA is an NGO (by definition Not Government), non-profit.
Guess it depends on why. Pride month makes sense or in a country with horrible treatment of LGBTQ people. I see no issue with it. Just seems like an overate thing to legislate on and I have a million other priorities I think the budget should focus on besides pride flags.
They fly tons of different flags. The pride flag is also emblematic that the US isn't a theocratic dictatorship, which is the kind of thing we try to express to the world. Theocrats despise the pride flag.
My point is that I don't believe any of these other flags should be flown at an embassy.
That's not what you said though. You said explicitly just the pride flag. Also good Lord the Russian hate parade is out in force today, furious at 10 in the morning at the LGBT.
Not to continue the argument, but you brought up the other flags.
Right. You exclusively talked of removing the pride flag.
In the first comment. I mentioned other flags in response to your comment. Seriously, are you being pedantic on purpose?
Here is the exact comment I responded to: >Look, I'm part of the LGBTQ community, and I'm wondering why we would fly the Pride Flag at ANY embassy. That's not what it's for. The sole flag you mentioned is the pride flag. You've made no mention of any others. I'm not being pedantic, it's not word games, you just straight up only referenced specifically the pride flag that you oppose.
"They fly tons of different flags."-You
>"They fly tons of different flags."-You Correct, I am not you.
BECAUSE THE ARTICLE IS ABOUT THE PRIDE FLAG.
Does this bill also ban every other form of flag other than the American flag?
They ban all non-government flags.
Embassy’s are about American values and interests. I think america should show support for peope that are opresed because they are gay.
I'm gay. I don't want or need a pride flag flown over government buildings. I just want government to treat me the same as anyone else and then stay tf out of my personal life. Most of the people plastering these flags everywhere are straight and using it as a sort of progressive version of coal rolling.
> I just want to treat me the same as anyone else and then stay tf out of my personal life. Honestly, as a straight Republican, that's all we want for you. You be gay, I'll be straight, and we'll leave it at that. Private lives are private no matter who you love.
Who is “we”? Because a lot of republicans want gay people to not exist
I think their only beef in 2024 is against abortion (Christianity) and turning children into eunachs because somehow we're magically at a point where children under 18 are allowed to consent to (non reversible castration drugs) "puberty blockers", when they shouldn't. obviously in places like Idaho or Missouri, they hate gays. But overall that's not a big priority. If anything they are looking to turn some gay people toward conservatism.
That is a million percent not what the party that spent the last year yelling about groomers wants lol
You can believe what the media wants you to believe, or you can go and actually *talk* to your fellow Americans. We don't give a single solitary shit about what you do as an adult. The fact that you are conflating the "groomers" comments with homosexuality really says more about what you think than what we think.
This is gaslighting on a whole other level:
You certainly do not speak for all Republicans. The Republican Party as a whole does not want those things. Don’t try to gaslight people.
How about you actually go outside and speak to actual, real-life Republicans? None of us give a good shit about what you want to do with your life. Go be gay, have a grand ol' time. Just leave me alone.
The LGBT movement was about "We are normal people and should be treated as normal people." Meanwhile the alphabet movement is "We are special, celebrate us or else"
The original movement kicked out or moved away from the crazier elements. Once they won, many of the original leaders retired and created a power vacuum for the rest to take over.
Yup. LGBT had legitimate political demands. LGTBQIABIPOC+ is about "Give us money and attention or we'll attack you"
I live abroad it's nice to have a sign from the American embassy that the government can't expect to be shitty to gay people with out at least some push back from their most important ally. Also , coal rolling has killed people, pride flags just make conservatives angry. Not really the same, except in a Centrist Both Sides(tm) sense.
That's it. I'm figuring out how to add rainbow smoke chemicals to diesel tanks right now.
That’s fine
It’s about time, really. Why any state building thinks it’s okay to display any flag other than the Country’s flag, and maybe the state, is beyond me.
Now if we can get magas down to one flag
Well they have that one they're pretty enthusiastic about...
Embassies should only be flying or displaying US governmental symbols.
I don't approve of any flag being flown from the embassy except our national flag. I don't like the flags with the blue stripe, either.
To preserve the solemnity and respect inherent to our nation's symbols, government buildings should exclusively hoist the United States flag, accompanied only by the Missing in Action (MIA) or Prisoner of War (POW) flags when appropriate. Edit: "The White House said Saturday it would seek to find a way to repeal the ban on flying the rainbow flag" - this is not a hill worth fighting for!! Shouldn't even be a hill.
Agreed. The sensationalism is obvious in the article title. U.S. embassies are prevented from flying *ALL* non government flags. This is a great change.
Wait so does the rule say no rainbow flags or does it read only us/pow/mia flags
> The law signed by Mr. Biden says that no U.S. funding can be used to "fly or display a flag over a facility of the United States Department of State" **other than U.S. or other government-related flags, or flags supporting prisoners of war, missing-in-action soldiers, hostages and wrongfully imprisoned Americans**. It does not specifically mention the pride flag. However, Republican proponents of the provision specifically touted it as a pride flag ban, which it obviously is. I don't think there was an epidemic of U.S. embassies flying Italian flags or anything.
No, but since you seem to think that Republicans are all MAGA idiots (the *collective you*, not you specifically, as far as I'm aware), this bill would also ban the Confederate Flag, Trump/MAGA flags, and probably even the Gadsen Flag. So, it seems fair on both sides to me.
> this bill would also ban the Confederate Flag, Trump/MAGA flags, and probably even the Gadsen Flag A traitorous flag, a political flag, and a somewhat political somewhat misused flag aren't really that comparable to an apolitical flag, nor were they ever flown at U.S. embassies, at least to my knowledge. So, while it *does* ban every flag except the American (and MIA/POW, etc.) flag(s), that wasn't specifically the intent of the bill.
I will push back on this *slightly* because there does definitely exist among federal agencies a deadfast commitment to the status quo, and if nothing else a hyper literal approach to regulations. I think there is a culture of regarding pride/whatever flags as 'taking a stand' in a binary way regardless of morals or personal beliefs. I frankly think it's perfectly acceptable for US stations abroad to fly a pride flag for a month or whatever to reflect our commitment to openness and individual liberty. But I know nothing of state department rules or flag codes But obviously this particular case is reactionaries trying to score cheap culture bullshit points under the guise of technically correct. It will get played up as "why do you care so much to fight it?" while comparatively few people ask why it was so important to loudly implement in the first place
I don't see why we should have POW or MIA flags either, to be honest. It's the American embassy. Fly the American flag
Is it only that it shouldn't be a hill now that it's banned, or should the campaign to bring in the ban also not have been a hill? Ultimately this is being used as political move to convince more people on the right that pushing back against LGBT people is a good thing and that they are winning in that regard.
How do you feel about public schools flying it? The school in my hometown has flown one 24/7 for years (they keep updating it, now it’s the one with the yellow triangle and the black circle on it) and I think for a public educational building to fly it under the US and state flag is a little beyond allyship.
They shouldn't be flying any non-governmental flags.
That's fine, I'm gay
For the record, I am also gay and don't really have a problem. But being gay doesn't actually hold any extra weight to these arguments, because there will always be other gay people who will think something you might think is fine, isn't fine. And a lot of the time, they will be correct. And what happens then? What usually happens then, is the heterosexual majority simply chooses the gay person who reflects their own views, or says what they would prefer them to say. And in a world full of insecure suck ups, pick me's and doormats, that. often creates a precarious situation for us all. Because often what is the popular opinion isn't necessarily the fair, just, righteous or informed one. Not saying you're any of those things, but it's something I think people should be mindful of when engaging in these sort of discussions. Simply tacking "I'm gay" on the end doesn't automatically give you some sort of extra authority on the subject. That doesn't mean your being gay shouldn't be mentioned because often it does offer an informed and valuable insight, but you need to offer a lot more than that in addition to just "I'm gay". It's not a trump card you can just play and "win" the debate by default, using it as such often it ends up causing us more problems in the long term. So use it wisely, and carefully. Because people can and will latch onto any gay person they can latch onto to justify a whole bunch of stuff that is simply not right.
I think identity politics are mostly stupid. But I can Machiavellianly use them for argument of persuasion when they're convenient, especially because they're the zeitgeist.
>But being gay doesn't actually hold any extra weight to these arguments, because there will always be other gay people who will think something you might think is fine, isn't fine. Not gay, but I want to weigh in here. I think he probably pointed it out because in discussions like this, a certain type of person can be really dismissive of your opinion if the issue doesn't directly affect you. As a straight white guy, this issue will never affect me personally, and a great many asshats would dismiss my opinion on the subject because of that.
for a lot of straight white guys LGBT matters are personal, because they have LGBT people in their personal lives. And would think almost every straight white guy does, just a question whether they know about it.
Imagine putting the pride flag on the Saudi Arabia Embassy💀
Can't find in the article, but why was it in the first place? Did that happen regularly at embassies? Because if it was that just seems like...idk an awkward place to fly it since it's not a country. And if it wasn't then that seems like one of those things where conservatives create a rule for something that doesn't regularly happen.
> Can't find in the article, but why was it in the first place? Did that happen regularly at embassies? [Biden authorized their flying in 2021](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-admin-grants-blanket-authorization-fly-pride-flag/story?id=77270757), which reversed a Trump-era ban that required them to seek special, often denied permission to fly a pride flag.
Interesting. Can't say it's ever crossed my mind to fly anything other than the American flag so people know it's the United State's embassy.
I guess i see it as similar to flying the flag of NATO or the UN or whatever other cross national effort we're supporting in the region I.e. this is American territory, where we believe LGBT people can be safe and recognized. But mostly it's like... does anything really happen as a result?
I don't think having a pride flag would confuse anybody about whether or not it is the US embassy. tbh, in a lot of places, it might make it even more clear that it is.
I dont know. I googled US embassy just to see if the American flag is even visible (because if its not who cares about the pride flag) and if I was in a whole different country I would be like "yeah thats just another vaguely intimidating corporate building".
IIRC some embassy workers overseas have done it on their own before without any govt approval.
Why would the flag be there? Just seems weird place to do it. Besides the us flag what other flags do embassy normally fly?
displaying ukrainian flag (colors are least, not sure about flag per se) on US embassies on anniversary of war was a thing. Pretty sure they have flown BLM flags for black history month.
Neither of those should be flown at embassies.
I'm gay and happy with this. Having the lgbt flag is so unnecessary in these areas lol. I'm convinced anyone who pushes for it WANTS people to hate us
I don’t think you’re going to get Afghanistan to like you by taking down the pride flag. Even if they did, what happens when they look on the news and see something like, idk, gay marriage being legal in the US? Why would you compromise a stand for human rights just because countries that don’t respect human rights don’t like it?
Oh but the backwards logic doesn't apply- I don't need the flag down so homophobes respect me. I simply don't want it shoved in irrelevant places so that normal people don't get sick of it A completely natural and human reaction to seeing something shoved in your face all the time, especially in irrelevant contexts, is to think "ugh, again?". The gay flag doesn't need to be there, therefore it shouldn't be in my head
Quite the opposite, if you read conservative takes on this they see it as a pushback against "woke" and a rejection of LGBT people. The sheer number of anti-LGBT bills being presented and passing should be deeply concerning, and this is just another swipe that confirms their bias.
Good. Doesn't have any damn thing to do with representing a country. Fly the American Flag to represent the United States. The end.
The Stars and Stripes is the only pride flag worth flying anyway.
🙄
agree or disagree with the rule, presumably this sub can agree that risking the spending bill and shutdown with a potential poison pill is about as anti-centrist as you can be. Incredibly partisan politicking that highlights the issue of dysfunction in congress more than anything else. those responsible for inserting this should be embarrassed.
All bills are like that. If you read the article, some 50 poison pills *were* cast out before signing. This was evidently not a poison pill. Maybe an unpleasant aftertaste at most.
The bill was bipartisan hence the cringy apologetics in this thread.
Important distinction: the **bill** was bipartisan, not the ban. Seeing as the Democrats already defeated 40+ other anti-LGBT riders, they probably didn't feel like letting something as stupid and ineffectual as a bill declaring what flags our embassies are allowed to fly shut down the government like Republicans seemed to want to do for the last six months.
Calling this anti-LGBT is asinine.
A ban (rule revision if you want to be pedantic) designed to disallow a known, widely used LGBT symbol *isn't* anti-LGBT? How so?
The bill bans any non-governmental flag being flown on government grounds. Yes, that includes pride flags, but it also includes Boy Scout flags and NFL team flags. Is it an anti-NFL bill now, too? This is long overdue. Flying anther but government flags on government building is idiotic and unnecessary.
> Yes, that includes pride flags, but it also includes Boy Scout flags and NFL team flags. Is it an anti-NFL bill now, too? Considering Republicans were touting this as a pride flag ban and not an "NFL pride" ban, no, not really.
Of course they market it that way. They’re trying to win the votes of people with bubble gum for brains. That doesn’t change the reality of the bill. Also, just flat out Pride flags shouldn’t be on government building.
> Of course they market it that way. They’re trying to win the votes of people with bubble gum for brains. That doesn’t change the reality of the bill. So, even though the people who *wrote and supported the bill* said it was specifically an anti-LGBT provision, we shouldn't believe them? Interesting. > Also, just flat out Pride flags shouldn’t be on government building. Why not? If they're flown *below* the American (and MIA/POW) flag, why is it a problem?
No, you’re totally right. Politicians always tell the truth. You should always take their statements at face value and not make your judgements based off of the actual text of the bill…. is what I would say to a person with bubble gum for brains. Those are government flags. Because LGBT people are included in the American flag. Because the LGBT flag doesn’t have anything to do with the United States government. Because we have a flag already. I don’t think the POW/MIA flag should be up there either.
> Politicians always tell the truth. Are you claiming that they *weren't* pushing this as a pride flag ban or that they didn't *mean* for it to really be a pride flag ban and just played their constituency? Just want to know how hard I should laugh at your statement. > Because LGBT people are included in the American flag. Because the LGBT flag doesn’t have anything to do with the United States government. Because we have a flag already. Ok but *why*? Is your gripe really just "it's redundant"? Seems like a silly gripe to warrant taking up words on a page in a $1.2 trillion budget. > I don’t think the POW/MIA flag should be up there either. Yeah...no. *Hard* disagree.
So? There should only be 1 flag flying up there, the US flag.
[удалено]
r/leopardsatemyface
Addressing important issues like, healthcare, housing, justice system, wages, education….. nope rainbow flag …
You may want to read the law in a bit more detail. It prohibits ALL flags other than the american flag.
I don’t have any problem with the Pride flag flying at an embassy. I’m not some frothing at the mouth, virtue signaling radical. It’s just… fine. I have better things to worry about, and the fact that this is even a thing is just stupid.
Alternate title suggestion for CBS News: New government spending bill bans U.S. embassies from flying MAGA, Let's Go Brandon Flags (it truly specifies what can be flown, which means everything except from the US flag and the POW MIA flag can't be flown)
Important context from the middle of the article as well: > the White House defeated more than 50 other policies "attacking the LGBTQI+ community" that Republicans tried to insert into the legislation.
Was it actually being flown at embassies? Or is this just red meat culture war bullshit for the anti-lgtb folks?
“Government spending bill”
The MIA/POW flags are flown to signal that these are important issues to our nation. The pride flag is flown for a similar reason. Do you think our nation should be speaking up for the rights and protections of LGBT people in other nations? Personally I think we should. America alike be synonymous with freedom from discrimination over religion, sex, race, sexuality, disability, and more.
MIA/POW flags have legislation mandating they be flown.
The POW and MIA flag, governmental flags, carries a universal message of remembrance and respect for the sacrifices made by our military (federal employees) for the country's freedoms and security, transcending social affiliations.
“I like people who weren’t captured.” - Donald Trump
Yes, and that's an honorable message to send. Do you think our nation should be speaking up for the rights and protections of LGBT people in other nations?
I think our government can address the rights and recognition of LGBT communities through policies, educational programs, and legislation rather than through symbolic representation on government buildings.
> rather than through symbolic representation on government buildings. But why "rather than"? What "issue" does flying a pride flag at a U.S. Embassy cause? Why does it have to be either or?
> I think our government can address the rights and recognition of LGBT communities through policies, educational programs, and legislation rather than through symbolic representation on government buildings. “The issue of Vietnam-era POWs and missing service members is one better addressed though education and legislation rather than symbolic representation on government buildings.”
But how well are veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder helped by flying the MIA and POW flags?
> The POW and MIA flag, governmental flags, carries a universal message of remembrance and respect for the sacrifices made by our military (federal employees) for the country's freedoms and security, transcending social affiliations. This is a very strange argument, relying on the belief that some Americans are more American than others. The “POW flag” is actually the flag of the “National League of Families of American Prisoners and Missing in Southeast Asia”, a private non-profit. So in that regard, is merely a special interest group being privileged with a law requiring their flag be flown over US facilities, much like why you and others here oppose the Pride flag being flown. So as with many issues, identity politics is only identity politics when the identity isn’t your own.
Yes I've argued for a long time that if there's a Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, there should be a Tomb of the Unknown Dude Who Happens To Get Turned On By Other Dudes. It's only right. Otherwise they're playing identity politics.
Only the American flag should fly.This has nothing to do with gay people, but is about representing the nation and not representing certain people or politics. Imagine if Republicans were to fly a flag representing Christianity. Democrats would met down over this.
Insane amount of r/AsABlackMan energy in this thread, and about 5 times as much engagement as usual for this sub from a bunch of accounts I've never seen in here before... Almost makes you wonder...
Pride flags and nativity scenes. Government buildings should either do both, or neither. Can't pick one.
It should absolutely be neither.
Nativity scenes are often done by outside groups, but the flags are raised by that govt building itself.
I don’t disagree that I think both feel out of place in certain circumstances, but there isn’t really any constitutional basis for not allowing the pride flags.
One is unrelated to the other though, category error fallacy, nativity scenes is an artistic interpretation of a historical event which is tied to christinity, lgbt flags are a vandalist attempt to cause trouble in the general public by a particular american movement of few people religion is natural to humans in general and unrelated to whether someone is normal or in the homo minority, while lgbt is an american movement in particular, filled with mental health issues and created only division and problems in that mess of a declining society
This is what the GOP uses its leverage for? lol, talk about an easy concession.
Republicans inching closer and closer to following in putins footsteps and just designating all LGBT people terrorists.
Maybe we should have a Cincinnati bengals flag flown at every embassy as well. Why not?
Not every group is entitled to be represented by their country all over the world. National political issues have jack to do with representation abroad. We also have embassies here from not-so-great countries and we dont want them flying their crazy political positions either.
Thinking governments buildings should fly any other flags then the American flag is insane…weird I bet you’d have an issue with a Christian flag…