I gather that the mayors of NYC and Boston boycotted their St Patricks Day Parades.

I hate to interrupt a good, foaming-at-the-mouth liberal rant with some facts. but here goes (and remember that I support gay marriage, but I don't like homosexual militant activists).

Guess what? Did you know that gays can absolutely march in the St Patricks Day parade? I bet many of you didn't know that. They just can't march under a "gay" banner, for the simple reason that the St Patricks Day holiday, and the parade, have nothing to do with sexuality. You can look up the meaning of St Patrick, but it's a celebration of affinity and acceptance.

The parade organizers want to keep sex and politics out of it. Is that asking so much? It's not persecution of gays. Similarly, I would not be allowed to march with a banner that says "marriage is between a man and a woman", because that has no business in a St Patricks Day parade.

A gay banner has no more business in a St Patricks Day parade than it has in a Super Bowl parade or in a Memorial Day parade. Does every single public gathering, every single one, have to include an affirmation of acceptance of every group that has been anointed with "victim" status by the left?

Get the facts, and lighten up. We have enough real problems that need addressing, without fabricating claims of hate. I realize that some on the left have made a career out of pointing to anybody who disagrees with them about anything and saying "HATE CRIME"!, but it gets really tiresome.

You make a valid point, it's not supposed to be a political fight, but it's too late for that, both sides have already politicized it. It's on a public street, they should let both sides march.

It's on a public street, they should let both sides march.

Both sides can march. They are just supposed to do it without drawing attention to sexuality. If no one is allowed to draw attention to their sexuality, why is that discriminatory? It's only discriminatory if you allow one group to promote their sexual agenda, but not another group. If all sexual groups are treated equally, as they are in this case, that's not discriminatory.

Where does this stop? Where do we draw the line?

If Petco has an animal adoption event in a public parking lot, do they have to have a big sign that says "we love gays"? If the Red Cross has a blood drive at a public school, do they have to set aside space for gay rights activists? Do the caribou that migrate through the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, have to have signs on their antlers that say "gays have rights, too"?

Of course there is a time and a place to discuss this issue. Does it need to get rubbed in my face every time I set foot on public property?

it's a good point and not disagreeing with you, but as long as they feel victimized (I'm not sure how they are victimized in Mass, however since they can do whatever they want), they are always going to take every opportunity to speak out.

Of course there is a time and a place to discuss this issue. Does it need to get rubbed in my face every time I set foot on public property?

i agree wholeheartedly

SAME thing can be said for the DEA (propaganda)
and all these goody two shoes
that talk about alcohol ...and then they'll say

do we really need another drug out there?
as a way to denounce the cannabis issue

next they'll say: what about the children?
followed by.... Then why don't we just make all drugs legal?

same ole sh it different day
gateway drug crap
total hogwash
schedule one crap

Maybe they should let the Westboro Baptist Church march in the Gay Pride parade....you know....equal access for everybody. Lets see how that rubs them...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe they should let the Westboro Baptist Church march in the Gay Pride parade....you know....equal access for everybody. Lets see how that rubs them...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's right. I've never heard of Christians suing gays for being gay. But there are lots of cases of gays suing Christians for being Christian. This is not about tolerance. It's about 'agree with me or else'.

I support gay marriage. I don't need that agenda shoved in my face everywhere I go.

I support gay marriage. I don't need that agenda shoved in my face everywhere I go.
What is "that agenda?"

-spence

What is "that agenda?"

-spence

The agenda is, "I'm gay, and you better accept that or else". Not many advocacy groups are as in-your-face. And as you can imagine, it bothers me when they sue folks who are simply practicing their religion, when they can easily use another baker/photographer/whatever. It would be nice if the militant activists would display a little bit of the tolerance and empathy that they are demanding from the rest of us.

There is no reason, none whatsoever, for them to be in a tizzy over the St Patricks Day Parade. Why must they express their sexuality at every single podium that is available? Is there nothing else to their entire existence, beyond their sexuality? This is the "agenda" I was referring to, their insistence that every single public event has to have a BIGALA banner. When I march in a parade as a vet, I don't feel the need to carry a sign that says "I'm heterosexual AND YOU BETTER LIKE IT"! I don't need to make my sexuality the main issue every time I leave my house.

What is "that agenda?"

-spence

I'm shocked you aren't aware of this ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The agenda is, "I'm gay, and you better accept that or else". Not many advocacy groups are as in-your-face. And as you can imagine, it bothers me when they sue folks who are simply practicing their religion, when they can easily use another baker/photographer/whatever. It would be nice if the militant activists would display a little bit of the tolerance and empathy that they are demanding from the rest of us.
I love it "militant activists" :love:

One of the groups that wanted to march was comprised of gay veterans. Yea, really...

There is no reason, none whatsoever, for them to be in a tizzy over the St Patricks Day Parade. Why must they express their sexuality at every single podium that is available? Is there nothing else to their entire existence, beyond their sexuality? This is the "agenda" I was referring to, their insistence that every single public event has to have a BIGALA banner. When I march in a parade as a vet, I don't feel the need to carry a sign that says "I'm heterosexual AND YOU BETTER LIKE IT"! I don't need to make my sexuality the main issue every time I leave my house.
It's not about sexuality it's about identity. You seem to have this characterization about gay people like they're all running around in ass-less PVC chaps throwing condoms at little kids.

Perhaps if you had to spend most of your life hiding who you really were you'd think differently.

-spence

As cute as I am, I suprised more gays don't try throwing their agenda in my face. I hope "agenda" isn't a code word.

One of the groups that wanted to march was comprised of gay veterans. Yea, really...


Why didn't they just march with the Veterans group that was already marching...are they a bunch of Hetero-Phobes

I love it "militant activists" :love:

One of the groups that wanted to march was comprised of gay veterans. Yea, really...


It's not about sexuality it's about identity. You seem to have this characterization about gay people like they're all running around in ass-less PVC chaps throwing condoms at little kids.

Perhaps if you had to spend most of your life hiding who you really were you'd think differently.

-spence

"One of the groups that wanted to march was comprised of gay veterans.

Then I have good news for them, they could have marched. I giuess you didn't read the original post. Anyone can march, no one is excluded because of sexuality. They just can't march under a gay banner, as a St Patricks Day parade is not about affirming your personal sexuality.

If you think "militant" is inaccurate, tell that to the Christian business owners who are being persecuted, simply for wanting to act in accordance with their beliefs.

I have great empathy for gays, and I recognize their predicament. But if a St Patricks Day parade asks everyone, including both homosexuaks and heterosexuals, to leave the sexual identity out of it for a couple of hours, then no one is being discriminated against. If I can't hold a sign saying "hooray for heterosexuals", and gays can't hold their own banner, how in God's name is that discriminatory? We're all being treated exactly the same way. A St Patricks Day parade is not a celebration of anyone's sexual identity.

The parade asked all marchers to leave their sexual identities out of it. Only one group had a problem with that.

My "characterization" is that they can't let this one facet of their identity on hold for an hour. That's militant, just like Al Sharpton can't stop seeing racism everywhere he looks. It's tiresome, and it hurts the cause in the long run.

The ironic thing is, St Patrick is celebrated specificlly for his tolerance and acceptance.

Why didn't they just march with the Veterans group that was already marching...are they a bunch of Hetero-Phobes

Because they are "militant". They couldn't just march with veterans, and call themselves "veterans" for an hour. God forbid...

Why didn't they just march with the Veterans group that was already marching...are they a bunch of Hetero-Phobes

I would assume they wanted to self identify and were denied.

-spence

I would assume they wanted to self identify and were denied.

-spence

Why do they need to....I'm positive that nowhere on my DD-214 does it list my sexuality.....it just lists my veteran status.

When people ask me what I was in the Navy, I don't say "Hetero-sexual"....I say "Data Systems Technician".

Face it...they are just doing it to be a bunch of A-Holes

I would assume they wanted to self identify and were denied.

-spence

Well, if any heterosexual groups wanted similar self-validation based on their sexuality, they were also denied. Therfore, there is exactly zero discrimination involved.

Try making that wrong.

If these people want self-identification based entirely on their sexual orientation, there are places and times to do that. There should also be places and times when people who don't give a rat's azz about sexual identity, should not be forced to have it shoved in their faces.

It doesn't need to be front and center, every single second, especially at an event when clearly nobody is being discriminated against, and the underlying theme has absolutely nothing to do with sexuality. As I said, if they can hijack a St Patrick's Day parade, why not demand a gay pride banner at a Red Cross blood drive? What's the difference?

Al Sharpton never, ever stops talking about race. It gets tiresome after a while.

Why do they need to....I'm positive that nowhere on my DD-214 does it list my sexuality.....it just lists my veteran status.

When people ask me what I was in the Navy, I don't say "Hetero-sexual"....I say "Data Systems Technician".

Face it...they are just doing it to be a bunch of A-Holes
Agreed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why do they need to....I'm positive that nowhere on my DD-214 does it list my sexuality.....it just lists my veteran status.

When people ask me what I was in the Navy, I don't say "Hetero-sexual"....I say "Data Systems Technician".

Face it...they are just doing it to be a bunch of A-Holes
Or, they're doing it to change the norm. Jim wouldn't likely be as tolerant as he is if many gay rights advocates hadn't taken risks and pushed for tolerance and inclusion over the past 30 years.

Gay groups want to identify themselves as such not to promote the act of sex, but rather celebrate that they're able to openly be proud of who they are...not what they do. Heterosexuals don't have to worry about this...

You're conflating the act of sex with the identity of sex and as such your analogy sort of blows :hihi:

-spence

Both sides can march. They are just supposed to do it without drawing attention to sexuality. If no one is allowed to draw attention to their sexuality, why is that discriminatory? It's only discriminatory if you allow one group to promote their sexual agenda, but not another group. If all sexual groups are treated equally, as they are in this case, that's not discriminatory.

Where does this stop? Where do we draw the line?

If Petco has an animal adoption event in a public parking lot, do they have to have a big sign that says "we love gays"? If the Red Cross has a blood drive at a public school, do they have to set aside space for gay rights activists? Do the caribou that migrate through the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, have to have signs on their antlers that say "gays have rights, too"?

Of course there is a time and a place to discuss this issue. Does it need to get rubbed in my face every time I set foot on public property?

I have to say that having a "No Sexual Orientation" rule in their "code of conduct" pretty much says "No Openly Gay Demonstrations." I'm as open minded as the next, but when your code of conduct allows motorcycles with girls on the back seats and politicians to walk through touting signs all over the place, then I think you can safely infer that having a strange rule like not being able to outwardly identify your sexuality is forwarding an agenda. You can't have rules that say you are trying to keep sexuality and politics out of a fun day of celebration while openly inviting sexuality and politics for just the stuff you are comfortable with supporting.

I think the advocacy groups and media outlets probably made a bigger deal out of it than they should have, but come on... this "rule" has a purpose.

I personally don't see how a group of homosexual veterans (who more than likely lived their lives in an military culture that forced them to hide their identity) wanting to march in a parade to express their pride and the progress they have made is any different than the politicians who marched with banners saying "Happy St Patricks Day from Congressman blah blah blah."

If they had said they were going to be wearing bikinis and blasting YMCA up and down Broadway while girating on unwilling spectators, I would have approved the rescinded invitation, but they just wanted to march behind a banner and wave at a bunch of happy people, like a lot of other people were allowed to do that day.

Nah.....I'm sticking with my opinion that they are just being A-Holes.

I have to say that having a "No Sexual Orientation" rule in their "code of conduct" pretty much says "No Openly Gay Demonstrations." I'm as open minded as the next, but when your code of conduct allows motorcycles with girls on the back seats and politicians to walk through touting signs all over the place, then I think you can safely infer that having a strange rule like not being able to outwardly identify your sexuality is forwarding an agenda. You can't have rules that say you are trying to keep sexuality and politics out of a fun day of celebration while openly inviting sexuality and politics for just the stuff you are comfortable with supporting.

I think the advocacy groups and media outlets probably made a bigger deal out of it than they should have, but come on... this "rule" has a purpose.

I personally don't see how a group of homosexual veterans (who more than likely lived their lives in an military culture that forced them to hide their identity) wanting to march in a parade to express their pride and the progress they have made is any different than the politicians who marched with banners saying "Happy St Patricks Day from Congressman blah blah blah."

If they had said they were going to be wearing bikinis and blasting YMCA up and down Broadway while girating on unwilling spectators, I would have approved the rescinded invitation, but they just wanted to march behind a banner and wave at a bunch of happy people, like a lot of other people were allowed to do that day.

All great points. You must be a very handsome man.

The ironic thing is that openly gay signs and floats are more than welcome at the parade in Ireland.

-spence

I personally don't see how a group of homosexual veterans (who more than likely lived their lives in an military culture that forced them to hide their identity) wanting to march in a parade to express their pride and the progress they have made

They are free to organize their own parade if they want.....364 other days to choose from....

for a group that is fighting for inclusion they sure as hell are trying to seperate themselves from everybody else....

Perfectly fine Veterans group willing to let them march with them if they want.

Nah.....I'm sticking with my opinion that they are just being A-Holes.

I think you meant militant a-holes.

Fine to get stumbling drunk and pass out on the sidewalk as long as you patronize a local establishment.

But this? Really? Good thing my kids aren't around to witness the sexuality. I don't know how to explain it...Dad, why are those people holding hands on the sign Dad?

-spence

Doesn't bother me....they are still A-Holes :hee:

Or can only Heterosexuals be called A-Holes.....maybe this is their way of forcing acceptance in to the Storied History of A-Holes in America....

The issue isn't that they are gay...the issue is they are trying to force an issue that shouldn't even be an issue in a St Paddy's day Parade.

Jim, U hit the nail on the head with this blog....being a vetran if I can not march with my heterosexual sign Y should gays?.....Spence, I'm only trying to identify myself.

They were not denied ...only request was no signage they refused...to bad

You wanna know the Saddest part.....

There was a contingent of Marathon Survivors that also had an MIT police cruiser trailing it in rememberance for Fallen Officer Sean Collier.....and nobody is saying boo about it.

Sad...

Nah.....I'm sticking with my opinion that they are just being A-Holes.

I think there is some of this going on too, but given the history of intolerance and the recent victories their movement has gotten, I think they felt tired of not being #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&s, figured they'd give it a shot... and as far as attention is concerned, it seems to have worked. And not just in Boston.

I think you meant militant a-holes.

Fine to get stumbling drunk and pass out on the sidewalk as long as you patronize a local establishment.

But this? Really? Good thing my kids aren't around to witness the sexuality. I don't know how to explain it...Dad, why are those people holding hands on the sign Dad?

-spence

Answer this...

Why couldn't they just march with the vets, as vets? Why do they have to make a statement about their sexuality? What harm does it do to leave that aside for one afternoon?

You wanna know the Saddest part.....

There was a contingent of Marathon Survivors that also had an MIT police cruiser trailing it in rememberance for Fallen Officer Sean Collier.....and nobody is saying boo about it.

Sad...

Agreed. It was led by a couple Watertown cruisers too... by far my favorite part of the day. Walked back inside after that... Great tribute

At first I was surprised there weren't more people in the duck boat, but then I thought about it and was surprised that even the two that were in the boat were extremely brave to attend such a public event after such a short time.

I think there is some of this going on too, but given the history of intolerance and the recent victories their movement has gotten, I think they felt tired of not being #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&s, figured they'd give it a shot... and as far as attention is concerned, it seems to have worked. And not just in Boston.

Oh, the gays want "tolerance", do they? Then why do they sue Christian business owners, solely for their religious beliefs? When the government tells a Christian photographer, "go to this gay wedding or we will fine you", please tell me how that's not also persecution? I don't think the government would force a black photographer to take pictures at a Klan rally, and I don't see a shred of difference.

"Tolerance" has very little to do with this. It's about punishing those who are not in complete agreement with you.

Oh, the gays want "tolerance", do they? Then why do they sue Christian business owners, solely for their religious beliefs? When the government tells a Christian photographer, "go to this gay wedding or we will fine you", please tell me how that's not also persecution? I don't think the government would force a black photographer to take pictures at a Klan rally, and I don't see a shred of difference.

"Tolerance" has very little to do with this. It's about punishing those who are not in complete agreement with you.

I can see the point you are trying to make, but using the Klan to make a point is probably not a great idea... they are classified as a known hate group by the US government... I am not a fan of organized religion, but I don't think Christians or Homosexuals are members of hate groups...

Answer this...

Why couldn't they just march with the vets, as vets? Why do they have to make a statement about their sexuality? What harm does it do to leave that aside for one afternoon?
Yea, why can't you just get in the closet for the afternoon.

-spence

"Tolerance" has very little to do with this. It's about punishing those who are not in complete agreement with you.
Oh yea Jim, those gay US Veterans are really trying to stick it to the good God fearing people of South Boston.

Please.

-spence

I would be interested to know what harm a sign could possibly bring to the parade.They are marching as a bunch of gays,why not fly the flag and tell the world who you are?

The Collier part is sad, especially since he was killed by the cops.

There were gay veterans marching in the parade. One marched the entire route with congressman Lynch. He had a couple of ex-marine pieces of apparel on, and was interviewed just before the end of the parade by the media. He did not carry a sign, or make any demonstrative actions about being gay. What was important to him was that he was a marine veteran
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Collier part is sad, especially since he was killed by the cops.

Did I miss something here? He was killed by who?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yea, why can't you just get in the closet for the afternoon.

-spence

Amazing. Do you ever get tired of being wrong? Unfortunately for you, no one here was asking gays to deny being gay, nor was anyone asking them to pretend to be heterosexual. Once again, when everyone knows you are badly losing the argument, instead of admitting the other side has a point, you descend to baseless accusations of hate. In this case, you are accusing someone openly supportive of gay marriage, of being a homophobe. It is a common liberal tactic, and we all know it reeks of desperation, it is a ploy of the thughtless when they are forced to conclude that they cannot defend their position.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Amazing. Do you ever get tired of being wrong? Unfortunately for you, no one here was asking gays to deny being gay, nor was anyone asking them to pretend to be heterosexual. Once again, when everyone knows you are badly losing the argument, instead of admitting the other side has a point, you descend to baseless accusations of hate. In this case, you are accusing someone openly supportive of gay marriage, of being a homophobe. It is a common liberal tactic, and we all know it reeks of desperation, it is a ploy of the thughtless when they are forced to conclude that they cannot defend their position.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
This is a very eloquent paragraph. It's bat#^&#^&#^&#^& crazy but a joy to read.

They wanted to march openly as gay Vets, they were told they couldn't. This isn't rocket science.

Also, there's a reason so many politicians and sponsors don't want to be associated with the parade, because they're in the wrong...

Likely one of the primary reasons you support gay marriage today Jim is because people over the years challenged the norm. Your position is quite hypocritical.

-spence

I can see the point you are trying to make, but using the Klan to make a point is probably not a great idea... they are classified as a known hate group by the US government... I am not a fan of organized religion, but I don't think Christians or Homosexuals are members of hate groups...

Of course you have a point there. My point is, under this administration, there are plenty of examples of Christians being asked to abandon their beliefs (which is blatantly unconstitutional) to advance the agenda of the current administration. This is a bit off-topic, but I'm confident that I'm correct.

In this case, if heterosexuals and homosexuals were both asked to do the same exact thing (no proclamations of sexuality for 2 hours), that cannot be considered to be discriminatory. By definition, 'discrimination' is singling out one group for different treatment. No one can say that is happening here.

If one group is not inclined to consent, then fortunately for them, they have the right to stay home. No one is forcing them to participate in a St Patricks Day parade.

We live in a pluralistic society, and like it or not, it requires a certain degree of assimilation at times. We all have to try and fit in a bit. We can't always get our way, all of the time, in every situation. Most of us learn this by the time we are 6 or 7 years old. In my opinion, this patricular group, is struggling lately with the notion that others have the right to pursue their vision of happiness as well.

Banning gays from the parade would be one thing. Asking them to leave their sexuality aside for 2 hours is not nearly the same thing, despite Spence's desperate attempts to paint it that way.

This is a very eloquent paragraph. It's bat#^&#^&#^&#^& crazy but a joy to read.

They wanted to march openly as gay Vets, they were told they couldn't. This isn't rocket science.

Also, there's a reason so many politicians and sponsors don't want to be associated with the parade, because they're in the wrong...

Likely one of the primary reasons you support gay marriage today Jim is because people over the years challenged the norm. Your position is quite hypocritical.

-spence

The politicians don't march because they have no balls. They lack of moral standard.
It's the same reason the GOP allows Obama to get away with everything. Because he's black they are afraid of being called racist.
When we have a truly colorblind and sexually orientated blind society none of that will matter.
It seems that people that make the issue the most about race and sexual orientation are liberals.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The agenda is, "I'm gay, and you better accept that or else".

I don't think this is accurate Jim...the agenda from the militant activists(sounds scary) is to force society to submit to the idea(maybe it's a theory) that men having sex with other men, marrying and perhaps raising children and women having sex with other women,... marrying and perhaps raising children (not to mention the many possible combinations once you get to bi, tri and whatever comes after that) is the same or "equal to" men and women having sex, marrying and perhaps raising children ....I think the science is settled on this one :)...I think it's widely understood and yes, accepted, that many people are gay or have some other sexual preference different than that which nature's laws have laid out, some of which are increasingly accepted and others more or less to varying degrees and some are found unacceptable(for now), didn't Google or Facebook recently come out with 50 different ways to identify your sexual being recently? seems like a lot, must require a REALLY open mind.. If the parade, and all of society for that matter, is to be truly tolerant of an individual's sexual orientation, shouldn't they(parade organizers) and we(society) be forced to accept and deem equal ALL sexual orientations and not just the most vocal few militant activists, in the interest of fairness?....everyone deserves a float:uhuh: it would be a helluva parade!

also, the constant attempt to frame this as a Gays versus Christians argument is really weak.....there are many gay Christians, there are many non-Christians that do not support gay marriage, there are many gays that don't support gay marriage, there are many Christians that support gay marriage and there are many very left-leaning "tolerant" states where gay marriage can not pass a referendum by the voters

This is a very eloquent paragraph. It's bat#^&#^&#^&#^& crazy but a joy to read.

They wanted to march openly as gay Vets, they were told they couldn't. This isn't rocket science.

Also, there's a reason so many politicians and sponsors don't want to be associated with the parade, because they're in the wrong...

Likely one of the primary reasons you support gay marriage today Jim is because people over the years challenged the norm. Your position is quite hypocritical.

-spence

"there's a reason so many politicians and sponsors don't want to be associated with the parade, because they're in the wrong"

And one of the reasons is that they don't want to have to defend themselves against baseless accusations of intolerance, from the likes of you. That's precisely why you incessantly make these claims when losing an argument, in the hopes that it will shut some people up. It works, especially in the case of people seeking to win elections. That it doesn't have a shred of intellectual honesty, doesn't mean it's not effective.

"Your position is quite hypocritical."

It's not the least hypocritical. It would be hypocritical if I supported the right of heterosexual vets to march as such, but not homosexual vets.

Spence, I have asked this several times, and you keep dodging. I'll do it one more time, and I'll try to go slowly.

If everyone (not just homosexuals) is being asked to set aside sexual identity for an afternoon, how can that be considered to be discriminatory? If every group is being treated exactly the same, where is the discrimination?

You have fun trying to answer that. Hint..., screaming "HATE CRIME!" isn't really answering the question that I asked.

Here, I'll make it asy for you, all you need to do is fill in the blank.

"In this case, homosexuals and heterosexuals are being treated identically. All are welcome to march, and all are asked to leave sexuality out of it. I, Spence, think that's discriminatory because ______________".

I don't think this is accurate Jim...the agenda from the militant activists is to force society to submit to the idea(maybe it's a theory) that men having sex with other men, marrying and perhaps raising children and women having sex with other women,... marrying and perhaps raising children (not to mention the many possible combinations once you get to bi, tri and whatever comes after that) is the same or "equal to" men and women having sex, marrying and perhaps raising children ....I think the science is settled on this one :)...I think it's widely understood and yes, accepted, that many people are gay or have some other sexual preference different than that which nature's laws have laid out, some of which are increasingly accepted and others more or less to varying degrees and some are found unacceptable(for now), didn't Google or Facebook recently come out with 50 different ways to identify your sexual being recently? seems like a lot, must require a REALLY open mind.. If the parade, and all of society for that matter, is to be truly tolerant of an individual's sexual orientation, shouldn't they(parade organizers) and we(society) be forced to accept and deem equal ALL sexual orientations and not just the most vocal few militant activists, in the interest of fairness?....everyone deserves a float:uhuh: it would be a helluva parade!

also, the constant attempt to frame this as a Gays versus Christians argument is really weak.....there are many gay Christians, there are many non-Christians that do not support gay marriage, there are many gays that don't support gay marriage, there are many Christians that support gay marriage and there are many very left-leaning "tolerant" states where gay marriage can not pass a referendum by the voters

"the constant attempt to frame this as a Gays versus Christians argument is really weak"

Tell that to the Christians being sued by gays, simply for being Christian. I don't see any cases of Christians suing gays for being gay.

Asking for acceptance and tolerance is one thing. Asking that everyone else abandon everything they hold dear, every time it conflicts with your own pursuits, is a bit different.

Nothing is ever that simple or consistent. But from where I sit, I don't see a lot of tolerance coming the the most vocal advocates of this group. I don't see them asking for basic acceptance, I see demands that we cater to every whim out of fear of being labeled a homophobe. And I see very little willingness for them to acquiesce to the beliefs of others.

It's a difficult situation, I have no answers. I just don't like being called a hate-monger for seeing both sides.

In this case, if heterosexuals and homosexuals were both asked to do the same exact thing (no proclamations of sexuality for 2 hours), that cannot be considered to be discriminatory. By definition, 'discrimination' is singling out one group for different treatment. No one can say that is happening here.

Why do you think that rule exists in the first place? To keep the annoying heterosexuals from flaunting their pride?

Tell that to the Christians being sued by gays, simply for being Christian. I don't see any cases of Christians suing gays for being gay.

I'm not familiar with this... any external references?

If everyone (not just homosexuals) is being asked to set aside sexual identity for an afternoon, how can that be considered to be discriminatory? If every group is being treated exactly the same, where is the discrimination?

Why are Congressmen allowed to march with banners saying they are congressmen? Why don't they just march with some other group?

When you pick and choose the associations you allow to be displayed in your parade and those choices match an increasingly unpopular side of a hot button human rights issue, whether intentionally or not, you are inviting criticism.

If you looked back on the civil rights movements from the 60's I'm sure you could find a truck load of direct-line comparisons to race in public displays during that time. At the time they probably used the exact same defense, and nowadays history remembers those people as racists.

Why are Congressmen allowed to march with banners saying they are congressmen? Why don't they just march with some other group?

You have to understand that in our day and age congresspeople (be careful--congress(men) could be sexually discriminative now) are more equal than the rest of us. They are a part of the ruling class. They set the agenda and the rules by which we live and the rights that we have.

When you pick and choose the associations you allow to be displayed in your parade and those choices match an increasingly unpopular side of a hot button human rights issue, whether intentionally or not, you are inviting criticism.

Associations, are by definition, a matter of choice. Without choice, association is irrelevant--everyone and everything are all one, without distinction. "Association" without choice loses its distinctive quality and becomes a redundant, unnecessary word.

Human rights issues can be of two kinds: prescribed or unalienable. If they are prescribed, they cannot be denied by "association." On the other hand, if "association" is an unalienable right, it cannot be denied by a prescribed right. So there must be an accommodation between prescribed and unalienable rights. All manner of prescribed rights do not interfere with the unalienable right of association.

Rights of free association, also, must not encroach upon each other. "Gay" rights, insofar as they are unalienable, cannot distort heterosexual rights, whatever those are, insofar as they are unalienable. Gay right to free association must not distort heterosexual, or any other group, right to free association. Each is free to associate on their own terms.

All human rights issues, when they conflict with one another, are hot button issues. Whichever may currently be more "popular" may get better press, but is no less "hot" to the less popular "right." And the latter may very well get criticized, but it is no less a human right.

At least, that is how it used to be.


If you looked back on the civil rights movements from the 60's I'm sure you could find a truck load of direct-line comparisons to race in public displays during that time. At the time they probably used the exact same defense, and nowadays history remembers those people as racists.

The civil rights movements in the 1960's were about human rights. Not the unalienable rights to be black. No one was denying them the right to be black. What they wanted, initially, were the unalienable rights with which humans are endowed. Mostly those individual unalienable rights to free association, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom to possess property. And, as well, the prescribed right of equality before the law.

They weren't interested in joining other than racially defined parades by touting their blackness. If a parade didn't appeal to their values, there was no need to participate. They wanted to enjoy participation in their own parades which celebrated their own culture insofar as that was distinctive from the rest of society. And to join in other parades which celebrated similar values to their own.

Government was not used to promote, initially, specific "black" rights, but to promote equal rights.

A lot of that has changed. There are now set asides, entitlements, and privileges which are targeted to specific groups. This has fostered the notion that government can be used to do so. And this is used as leverage for various groups to get specific treatment at the expense of other groups.

This was accomplished by first blurring the lines of distinction through the rhetoric of equality and fairness. The old unalienable rights were possessed by individuals. Equality in the old system was merely before the law and "fairness" was trumped by individual ability. Unalienable rights stood in the way of "fairness" and equality of outcome. Unalienable rights had to be dissolved and replaced by prescribed rights. Those rights which government prescribed and granted. Only then could true "equality" and fairness be achieved. The lines of distinction were not only to be blurred, but to be obliterated. The great divisive distinctions in gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, etc., etc., would be of little to no importance and replaced with equality. And the great division in wealth would be ameliorated, eventually to be erased. Again, true equality and fairness would be achieved.

Of course, those goals are still a work in progress. That there are actually even greater distinctions of wealth now--but that is only in the top 1%--is merely a bump in the road (even though this has always existed in top down authoritarian systems). And, also, the distinctions among us are even more delineated now, but that is merely because groups have been given a voice to demand. Those who were victims of racism are now the most vocal racists. Those who were gender or sexuality oppressed are now the most vocal and active sexual agenda activists. And we can surely see how that is right and necessary--eventually, we will all be the same and those voices will no longer be necessary.

This all became possible through the centralization of power to the Federal Government at the expense of the power once inherent in the States and the People. And much was done exactly in order to transfer that power. And the rationale for that transformation is to eliminate those problems that were fostered by the supposedly fuzzy notions of unalienable rights, and create a far more supposedly efficient system of governance. Individual "rights" beyond the reach of government is a by-gone nostrum of outdated enlightenment era thinking. The only way to effective "rights" is to define and prescribe them by those experts who have gone beyond a sort of organic "enlightenment" and have been progressively educated in the solution and administration of human needs.

Why do you think that rule exists in the first place? To keep the annoying heterosexuals from flaunting their pride?

But why is that? Why is it easy for one group to avoid public proclamations about their sexuality, and one group struggles with that? Lots of heteresexuals identify pretty closely with being heterosexual, right? Yet, i didn't hear any of them complain about not being able to flaunt their heterosexuality during the parade.

I'm not familiar with this... any external references?

There are currebtly some high-profile cases of Christian bakers, photographers, etc being sued by gays, because they didn't want to provide their services at a gay wedding, for religious purposes. You can google it, if you can't find one, i can find it for you, I'm not making it up.

Why are Congressmen allowed to march with banners saying they are congressmen? Why don't they just march with some other group?

When you pick and choose the associations you allow to be displayed in your parade and those choices match an increasingly unpopular side of a hot button human rights issue, whether intentionally or not, you are inviting criticism.

If you looked back on the civil rights movements from the 60's I'm sure you could find a truck load of direct-line comparisons to race in public displays during that time. At the time they probably used the exact same defense, and nowadays history remembers those people as racists.

"Why are Congressmen allowed to march " For the same reason that vets are allowed to march...because that has nohting to do with sexuality. The fact that congressman can march, would only support your argument, if only heterosexual congressmen were allowed to march, and no one has made that claim.

As far as I can tell, anyone could march, they just wanted to leave sexuality out of it. A small, vocal minority took issue with that, and that's tough cookies for them. I can't park in a handicapped spot just because I like parking close to a building, we all have rules to follow sometimes, and sometimes that means having to set convenience aside.

"When you pick and choose the associations you allow to be displayed "

All associations were allowed to be displayed, as long as they weren't sexual in nature. That cannot be considered discriminatorynot as long as everyone was asked to put sexuality aside. Try as you might, and you are asking tough questions in a respectful way, you cannot make that wrong.

If you looked back on the civil rights movements from the 60's I'm sure you could find a truck load of direct-line comparisons to race in public displays during that time. At the time they probably used the exact same defense, and nowadays history remembers those people as racists.

Not even close. During the time of segregation, blacks were treated differently (different schools, tables at restaurants, seats on the bus, water fountains, etc). That is clearly discriminatory. In this case, from a sexual perspective, everyone was being treated exactly the same.

Some parents, myself included, like to be able to take a 6 year-old to a parade without any references to sexuality. I don't see why that's so much to ask. If someone wants to read "Heather Has Two Mommies" to their 6 year-old, that's their right. That doesn't mean I want to hear it read every single time I take my kids to the library. Do we need to have a reading of that book played over the loudspeakers, 24 hours a day, at the library? Or is it OK, once in a while, if sexuality can be left out of the equation.

You're looking for something sinister here, and it's not there. Gays were perfectly welcome to march, as long as they followed the same exact guidelines that heterosexuals were asked to follow. Despite what Spence thinks, saying "no" to a group of homosexuals, doesn't necessarily make you a hatemonger. And that's what is at play here, we have a group of people who simply don't want to hear the word "no". When my kids act like that, we call them spoiled brats. But we can't chastise homosexuals like that, because once a group has been anointed with "victim" status by the left, then from that point on, nothing is ever their fault, and anyone who criticizes them is a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, an Islamophob, a bigot, or some other kind of hatemonger.

Not even close. During the time of segregation, blacks were treated differently (different schools, tables at restaurants, seats on the bus, water fountains, etc). That is clearly discriminatory.

Were they forced to use different photographers and bakers?

Were they forced to use different photographers and bakers?

OK. So I assume you are saying that if a Christian photographer doesn't want to attend a gay wedding for religious beliefs, he is no better than a segregationist. If that's what you are suggesting, just say it. Why mince words?

Does it matter to you that the constitution explicitly states that people have the right to exercise their religious beliefs? And that the Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted that to mean that the government can't favor any one religion, nor can they denounce any one religion?

Constitution, shmonstitution, as long as we are fashionable and politically correct.

Many people, not you I guess, get nervous when the President is so comfortable with rejecting the parts of the constitution that he doesn't happen to like.

Like Spence, you cannot tell me what's discriminatory with treating everyone exactly the same, so when you have nohting left at all, cry racism. Very original.

If the government can force a Christian photographer to attend a gay wedding, then I presume you would be OK with a law saying that black painters cannot refuse to accommodate a customer who wants to paint a confederate flag on the roof of their house. Aftre all, what's the difference there? Last time I checked, "the South" is not characterized as a hate group. Would you, or would you not, allow a black painter to refuse such a request? And if you would allow him to refuse, please tell me why the Christian photographer doesn't have the same right. And good luck with that.

Were they forced to use different photographers and bakers?

"Forced" is a peculiar word to use in this context. The photographers and bakers didn't "force" them to use different ones. If there was any "force" in making the gay's decision, it was internally applied. The gays "forced" themselves to act in whatever way they acted. Nobody else "forced" them to do so.

"Forced" is a peculiar word to use in this context. The photographers and bakers didn't "force" them to use different ones. If there was any "force" in making the gay's decision, it was internally applied. The gays "forced" themselves to act in whatever way they acted. Nobody else "forced" them to do so.

Correct. Given that there are plenty of photographers who would happily accept, it seems like the "tolerant" thing would have been for the happy couple to say "well, the constitution protects you from being forced to abandon your religious beliefs, so in keeping with the liberal notion of tolerance, I will tolerate your religious beliefs and find another photographer."

What they actually said and did, is something else. Because it'snot about tolerance, it's about doing excatly as they please, exactly when they please, and demonizing anyone who doesn't agree.

OK. So I assume you are saying that if a Christian photographer doesn't want to attend a gay wedding for religious beliefs, he is no better than a segregationist. If that's what you are suggesting, just say it. Why mince words?

I was simply pointing out the similarities in each type of discrimination. I think if you asked the photographers and bakers if they were discriminating based on sexual orientation, they would admit it.

I think anyone who wants to practice their own religious beliefs is more than welcome and that right is protected under the Constitution. Where my personal views (and those of others as well apparently) differ from yours is when those beliefs tread on the civil liberties of others. I think the civil rights movement meant something, and I don't see a difference between discrimination based on the color of one's skin and the sex of the person they choose to love.

Like Spence, you cannot tell me what's discriminatory with treating everyone exactly the same, so when you have nohting left at all, cry racism. Very original.

I think you missed the part where I explained where, exactly, the discrimination with this particular issue (Southie Parade) lies.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I was simply pointing out the similarities in each type of discrimination. I think if you asked the photographers and bakers if they were discriminating based on sexual orientation, they would admit it.

It has been pointed out, over and over, that the so-called "discrimination" was based on a refusal to participate in something their religion prohibited. The bakers and photographers didn't refuse to take photos or bake cakes for the gay's non-wedding occasions, only for same sex weddings. So they were not "discriminating" based on sexual orientation, but in order not to trespass commandments of their religion.

I think anyone who wants to practice their own religious beliefs is more than welcome and that right is protected under the Constitution. Where my personal views (and those of others as well apparently) differ from yours is when those beliefs tread on the civil liberties of others. I think the civil rights movement meant something, and I don't see a difference between discrimination based on the color of one's skin and the sex of the person they choose to love.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't think you and Jim are disagreeing about not treading on civil rights. The problem, which I described in about 10 posts above this is when civil rights conflict. It is true that people have unalienable rights to love who they wish. But they do not have an unalienable right to demand that someone else participate in or facilitate their right to love. They only have the right not to be interfered in their right to love. And in the case of the photographers, bakers, and gays disputes, the photographers not only have unalienable rights to practice their religion when it doesn't interfere with the right of the gays to love who they wish, but their right is specifically encoded in the Constitution. Anti-discrimination rights, for the most part, actually deny one of the parties their right of association, speech, or religion. As such they are rights prescribed by government, and insofar as they force one party to lose their right in favor of the other party, they are not unalienable rights.

The Civil Rights Movement in the 1960's were, as I've stated, not about blacks having the right to be black. It was about establishing the unalienable rights of blacks such as freedom of speech, of religion, of association, of owning property, as well as the constitutionally guaranteed right to equality before the law. But they were not about abrogating others those same rights. It was not about guaranteeing blacks the right to impose their point of view in parades whose purpose is something else.

"the constant attempt to frame this as a Gays versus Christians argument is really weak"

Tell that to the Christians being sued by gays, simply for being Christian. I don't see any cases of Christians suing gays for being gay.



you missed my point, I'm aware of all of those cases, just making the observation that this argument is always framed as Christians(values) vs Gays(rights) (Christians being "told" by their religion to think the way that they do and Gays being the innocent victims of deluded Christian beliefs)...it's hardly the case but an easy perspective to digest especially for the (pot & gay marriage lobby)..there's a good joke there somewhere...

ouch.."the religion of peace"...WIKI

Islam's Views

Islamic Shari'ah law is extracted from both the Qur'an and Muhammad's Sunnah (found in the Hadith and Sira). Islamic jurisprudence are expansion of the laws contained within them by Islamic jurists. Therefore, they are seen as the laws of Allah. You need only look to the rulings under Shari'ah to see the accepted mainstream interpretation of Islam and its commandments to its followers. Homosexuality under this law, is not only a sin, but a punishable crime against God.

In the case of homosexuality, how it is dealt with differs between the four mainline schools of Sunni jurisprudence today, but what they all agree upon is that homosexuality is worthy of a severe penalty.
In the Hanafi school of thought, the homosexual is first punished through harsh beating, and if he/she repeats the act, the death penalty is to be applied.

As for the Shafi`i school of thought, the homosexual receives the same punishment as adultery (if he/she is married) or fornication (if not married). This means, that if the homosexual is married, he/she is stoned to death, while if single, he/she is whipped 100 times. Hence, the Shafi`i compares the punishment applied in the case of homosexuality with that of adultery and fornication.

The Hanafi differentiates between the two acts because in homosexuality, anal sex [something that is prohibited, regardless of orientation] may also be involved, while in adultery [and fornication], the penis/vagina (which are reproductive parts) are involved.
Some scholars, based on the Qur'an and various ahadith, hold the opinion that the homosexual should be thrown from a high building or stoned to death[1] as a punishment for their crime, but other scholars maintain that they should be imprisoned until death. [2]

Another view is that between two males, the active partner is to be lashed a hundred times if he is unmarried, and killed if he is married; whereas the passive partner is to be killed regardless of his marital status.[3]

since Spence has declared the next couple of election cycles to be about pot and gay marriage i guess i'm out, as care less and less about either with each passing day...i'll do what the president is doing and focus on college basketball, bad humor and my next vacation rather than these and other important issues in the world...

I do think that if we're to legalize pot and make permanent gay marriage throughout the land it would be highly discriminatory to not make legal all drugs and not be accepting and accommodating of all sexual orientations....I'm not a pot guy necessarily...it always put me to sleep...but mushrooms and opium sound like fun and I don't see what's so wrong with those...and since the gay lobby includes LGBT under the umbrella it would be wrong to leave anyone out...the bi's should be able to marry one of each...shouldn't they? or as many as required to achieve happiness.....the trans.....well, i'm going to get more confused as we work through the 50 ways to describe your sexual being but it would be easiest to just accept everything....give everyone a float..and their favorite drug...take the gender signs off the bathroom doors at the middle schools so the little girls won't complain that there's a little boy peeing in their bathroom, they'll get used to it.....life would be so much easier:)...I don't want to discriminate against anyone and I don't want to force anyone to do something that they don't want to do.....shouldn't be hard to reconcile...right?

Did I miss something here? He was killed by who?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Friendly fire took his life
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think the civil rights movement meant something, and I don't see a difference between discrimination based on the color of one's skin and the sex of the person they choose to love.



I think you missed the part where I explained where, exactly, the discrimination with this particular issue (Southie Parade) lies.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"I think the civil rights movement meant something"

Everyone agrees with that. Are you implying that Christians don't think the civil rights act meant something? That would be an interesting opinion, since it was the Christian right that led the fight against segregation.

"I don't see a difference between discrimination based on the color of one's skin and the sex of the person they choose to love. "

Here's the difference. Segregationists didn't like black people. They didn't like the people. It didn't matter what blacks did, they were hated by segregationists.

That's not anywhere near the same as a Christian photographer not wanting to attend a gay wedding. Christians don't frown upon homosexuals as people, meaning that Christians don't wish any harm to homosexuals. Some Christians do not condone the act of sodomy.

In thi scase, it's not the person that the Christian objects to, it's the act. Apples and oranges.

The freedoms that our Constitution guarantees, are not only applicable when it's convenient.

Freedom of speech means that an artist can hang a picture of Jesus covered in feces. I don't like that picture, but I recognize the right of the guy to paint it.

Freedom of the press means the Ed Schultz has the right to go on TV and call Laura Ingraham a "right wing slut". I don't like the guy, but I recognize his right to say what he wants.

Freedom of assembly means that the Westboro Baptist Church can say disgusting things at a military funeral. I hate those people, but I recognize their right to gather as they wish.

And like it or not, a Christian photographer has the right not to participate in that which violates his religious beliefs.

If we want to change that, fortunately there are mechanisms to amend the Constitution. But we don't get to ignoree the parts of it that we don't happen to like at the present time.

I don't agree with the Christian photographer. But I don't want his constitutionally-protected freedoms trampled upon, in the name of political corrrectness.

well, i'm going to get more confused as we work through the 50 ways to describe your sexual being but it would be easiest to just accept everything

It would be, and I don't think it would hurt anyone in the process. If someone decides to love someone, and that makes them happy.... then who the hell cares? People live with enough misery and stress from a bunch of other stuff in this world, if they can find happiness and comfort in a relationship with someone other than a member of the opposite sex, I fully support it.

It would be, and I don't think it would hurt anyone in the process. If someone decides to love someone, and that makes them happy.... then who the hell cares? People live with enough misery and stress from a bunch of other stuff in this world, if they can find happiness and comfort in a relationship with someone other than a member of the opposite sex, I fully support it.

But Scott said we should accept everything.

The tradiitonal definition of marriage is 2 people of opposite sex. The notion of gay marriage supposes that there is no reason to limit the definition to "of opposite sex". If you believe that, then why would you limit it two "two"? Why not let three men get married, or twelve men? What's so magical about the number "two"?

I heard someone say once, "to believe in everything, is to believe in nothing". There is some logic to this.

This is complicated stuff...

It would be, and I don't think it would hurt anyone in the process.

If it would be easiest to accept everything, wouldn't that include it being easiest to accept a person's, Christian or otherwise, desire not to participate in someone else's personal "process"? And wouldn't it hurt that person, Christian or otherwise, if his process was not accepted and he was forced, instead, to subject himself to someone else's process?

If someone decides to love someone, and that makes them happy.... then who the hell cares? People live with enough misery and stress from a bunch of other stuff in this world, if they can find happiness and comfort in a relationship with someone other than a member of the opposite sex, I fully support it.

Do you fully support some, if it makes them happy, to reject being a part of somebody else's happiness, and not being forced or coerced to participate? Do you fully support ALL who wish to be happy in their own way so long as it doesn't prevent other's their choice? Do you have that "who the hell cares?" perspective in all cases, or just in those that fit a view which makes YOU happy?

Why not let three men get married, or twelve men? What's so magical about the number "two"?

Good question

Do you fully support some, if it makes them happy, to reject being a part of somebody else's happiness, and not being forced or coerced to participate? Do you fully support ALL who wish to be happy in their own way so long as it doesn't prevent other's their choice? Do you have that "who the hell cares?" perspective in all cases, or just in those that fit a view which makes YOU happy?

Slippery slope, but I believe business is different. I don't support a business's right to discriminate based on the personal preferences of their patrons when those personal preferences are not criminal.

Slippery slope, but I believe business is different. I don't support a business's right to discriminate based on the personal preferences of their patrons when those personal preferences are not criminal.

It is interesting how we treat "business." If it suits our argument, we view business as a living, breathing entity having human attributes(similar to how progressives view the Constitution), and therefor must be beholden to the same strictures as individual human beings. But when we punish business for transgressing human values we personally hold sacred, or legally we deem criminal, we don't put "business" in jail, we incarcerate specific, actual, human beings.

It is convenient to centralize individual human "rights" into a general category of business "rights," and, so, overlook any individual rights that actual humans possess when they interface with other actual humans and their individual rights when they are engaged in "business." Notwithstanding that all human interaction is a form of "business." So, is it only in those "business" interactions which involve a transfer of money that actual humans must relinquish their personal rights?

What is the magical distinction that allows us to have individual unalienable rights so long as no money is involved? Do you believe we do, as individuals, have unalienable rights? Or that we have only those rights which the government allows us to have?

Is it not a "slippery slope" when we begin to say you have unalienable rights . . . except . . . ?

And if we do actually have individual unalienable rights, even when those are actually specified in the Constitution, and when the practice of those rights don't deny others the practice of theirs, must we subject ours to theirs if they offer money for our services? Are we not allowed to say, no thanks.

It is interesting how we treat "business." If it suits our argument, we view business as a living, breathing entity having human attributes(similar to how progressives view the Constitution), and therefor must be beholden the same strictures as individual human beings. But when we punish business for transgressing human values we personally hold sacred, or legally we deem criminal, we don't put "business" in jail, we incarcerate specific, actual, human beings.

It is convenient to centralize individual human "rights" into a general category of business "rights," and, so, overlook any individual rights that actual humans possess when they interface with other actual humans and their individual rights when they are engaged in "business." Notwithstanding that all human interaction is a form of "business." So, is it only in those "business" interactions which involve a transfer of money that actual humans must relinquish their personal rights?

What is the magical distinction that allows us to have individual unalienable rights so long as no money is involved? Do you believe we do, as individuals, have unalienable rights? Or that we have only those rights which the government allows us to have?

Is it not a "slippery slope" when we begin to say you have unalienable rights . . . except . . . ?

And if we do actually have individual unalienable rights, even when those are actually specified in the Constitution, and when the practice of those rights don't deny others the practice of theirs, must we subject ours to theirs if they offer money for our services? Are we not allowed to say, no thanks.

Getting a little far off the topic of a group of people being able to express themselves at a public event here...

But the issue as I see it is that people are trying to use religion to support a discriminatory attitude towards a group of people in our society. If we allow "religions freedom" to be an excuse to discriminate beyond the letter of the law and justify that with the first amendment, what is to stop someone from establishing a religion for any kind of discrimination they feel they should be free to support?

I don't understand this . The people that took out the permit have the right to call the shots on how their parade is run. They banned the signs not the participants . Anyone could enjoy the festivities . Period !!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Getting a little far off the topic of a group of people being able to express themselves at a public event here...

But the issue as I see it is that people are trying to use religion to support a discriminatory attitude towards a group of people in our society. If we allow "religions freedom" to be an excuse to discriminate beyond the letter of the law and justify that with the first amendment, what is to stop someone from establishing a religion for any kind of discrimination they feel they should be free to support?

The problem in most discussions like these is when they have no common basic principle on which the discussion revolves, or is about. "But the issue as I see it" creates unfocussed discussion which cannot be resolved when arguers "see it" differently. Having no unifying principles on which all agree leaves all to expound on and adhere to their personal vision. There can be no agreement, and the discussion goes round and round, eventually saying the same things over and over . . . ad infinitum . . . pointlessly. There is no point on which agreement can be reached, there is only personal opinion.

Your opinion ("as I see it)" is that people are using religion to support discriminatory attitude. The people who are religious "see it" differently. They "see it" as acting in accordance to their religion, even when their own personal feeling and their business profit would make them act differently. How can there be a discussion between such parties, much less a resolution? I don't know why you must see it that way, perhaps because you "see" religion as a fraud and those who practice it as frauds who don't actually believe but just use religion as an excuse to practice things you don't agree with. It would be simpler to believe they are actually sincere. But we humans are often suspicious of the simplest explanation--sometimes with good reason.

But the confusion in argument that occurs between irreconcilable points of view is exacerbated to the extreme when even the true fundamentals that should underlie the discussion are contorted out of all recognition. What is this notion of allowing religious freedom to be an "excuse to discriminate beyond the letter of the law" and justifying that with the First Amendment? Religious freedom in the First amendment IS the letter of the law. It is not an excuse to discriminate beyond its own letter. It is the letter. And religion can establish any kind of "discrimination" it wishes--so long as the practice of it doesn't deny others their unalienable rights. The First amendment is, among other things, not a prescription of how religious people are allowed to act, but a protection against others denying their right to act so long as there is mutual protection before the law.

If the Bakers or Photographers forced the gays not to be gay, or to join their religion, or denied the gays their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, or their first amendment rights, the letter of the law would stop them from doing so. By the same token, the letter of the law should deny the gays from compelling to do what is against the bakers' or photographers' conscience. But when government creates laws, which themselves break that original letter of the law by allowing one to impose his "rights" on another against his rights, then the law is broken. Then you have rule by men, not rule of law. Then law becomes opinion. Then law becomes "how I see it" by judges and legislators. And then what's to stop legislators and judges, no longer constrained by constitutional principles, from establishing laws that discriminate against what YOU hold dear.

I would think that, if you truly understood the fundamental principle of the First Amendment, I would think that unprincipled "how I see it" formation of law would be more of a threat to you than some religion, bound by constitutional PRINCIPLES, establishing internal discriminations. I would think that would be the "slippery slope" that you would fear.

Getting a little far off the topic of a group of people being able to express themselves at a public event here...

But the issue as I see it is that people are trying to use religion to support a discriminatory attitude towards a group of people in our society. If we allow "religions freedom" to be an excuse to discriminate beyond the letter of the law and justify that with the first amendment, what is to stop someone from establishing a religion for any kind of discrimination they feel they should be free to support?

So what you are saying, is that if someone can claim that their feelings are hurt, then the constitution doesn't apply to the person causing the hurt feelings? It cannot work that way. THAT is a slippery slope.

Using your logic, going back to my example, a black photographer would have to legal basis for refusing to work at a Klan rally. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If it's perfectly legal for the Klan to hold a rally, then according to your logic, a black photographer would be forced by law to work there.

Using your logic, going back to my example, a black photographer would have to legal basis for refusing to work at a Klan rally. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If it's perfectly legal for the Klan to hold a rally, then according to your logic, a black photographer would be forced by law to work there.

Man... I didn't see it that way.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So what you are saying, is that if someone can claim that their feelings are hurt, then the constitution doesn't apply to the person causing the hurt feelings? It cannot work that way. THAT is a slippery slope.

Using your logic, going back to my example, a black photographer would have to legal basis for refusing to work at a Klan rally. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If it's perfectly legal for the Klan to hold a rally, then according to your logic, a black photographer would be forced by law to work there.

I think, these days it's been shown that we can just have the president issue waivers to certain people that he doesn't think should be affected by certain laws, that would resolve this situation and depending on how the president felt about other situations and certain parts of certain laws and how certain judges interpret or feel about certain laws for certain people he can just issue waivers as he deems necessary..:uhuh::love:

Man... I didn't see it that way.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How can you claim to not see it that way? Here's what you said, your words...

"I believe business is different. I don't support a business's right to discriminate based on the personal preferences of their patrons when those personal preferences are not criminal."

Pretend the business is a black photographer. The patron is a Klansmen who, despite his offensive beliefs, isn't breaking any laws.

So how can the black photographer say 'no' to the Klansmen, based on your words that I posted?

You can't have it both ways...If the Christian photographer cannot say 'no' to a gay wedding, then the black photographer cannot say 'no' to the Klansmean.

How can you claim to not see it that way?

I think Detbuch explained this for you as succinctly as could be done just a couple of posts previous...

"The problem in most discussions like these is when they have no common basic principle on which the discussion revolves, or is about. "But the issue as I see it" creates unfocussed discussion which cannot be resolved when arguers "see it" differently. Having no unifying principles on which all agree leaves all to expound on and adhere to their personal vision. There can be no agreement, and the discussion goes round and round, eventually saying the same things over and over . . . ad infinitum . . . pointlessly. There is no point on which agreement can be reached, there is only personal opinion."

this is a very interesting read (apologies to Spence for "cutting and pasting" the link)
http://www.americanthinker.com/assets/3rd_party/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/03/3_18_2014_15_41.html

I think Detbuch explained this for you as succinctly as could be done just a couple of posts previous...

"The problem in most discussions like these is when they have no common basic principle on which the discussion revolves, or is about. "But the issue as I see it" creates unfocussed discussion which cannot be resolved when arguers "see it" differently. Having no unifying principles on which all agree leaves all to expound on and adhere to their personal vision. There can be no agreement, and the discussion goes round and round, eventually saying the same things over and over . . . ad infinitum . . . pointlessly. There is no point on which agreement can be reached, there is only personal opinion."

this is a very interesting read (apologies to Spence for "cutting and pasting" the link)
http://www.americanthinker.com/assets/3rd_party/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/03/3_18_2014_15_41.html

Interesting indeed. Really points out the blueprint which has been followed to create a new "reality."

It's a beautiful article. Beautiful to me because it rings of truth, not agenda. And truth is the soul of knowledge, whereas agenda is more often the kernel of deception. And, as Keats wrote in his "Ode on a Grecian Urn," "Beauty is truth, truth beauty," that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."

Where it really started to get "beautiful" for me is when somewhere about third to halfway into the essay the author says "We gays and Lesbians"--until that I had assumed, since it was what sounded to me up to that point like another discourse against a homosexual agenda, that the author was straight. I wasn't sure, at that point, if he was really referring to himself, but toward the end he verifies it.

It is always a beautiful experience for me when in a discussion with someone of a different race or "sexual persuasion", or a believer in some religion, or someone of a particular ethnic persuasion, the concept of individual freedom in a political or governmental sense is agreed to in a fundamental sense which transcends personal differences. Then there is a foundation for agreement. And that is a beautiful thing.

When there is no unifying principle around which we can discuss, then there is no possibility of agreement. Without a common foundation, we are afloat in a sea of disagreement, and susceptible to the suasions of tyrants who promise to override our differences with the power of the State rather than we self governing ourselves with the common purpose that we respect our differences.

The article is a beautiful, truthful thing in that it transcends a wedge agenda and appeals to rational discourse. But too bad you had to cut and paste it--according to Spence that just relegates it to being a rag, demolishes it into a yawn.

The tradiitonal definition of marriage is 2 people of opposite sex. The notion of gay marriage supposes that there is no reason to limit the definition to "of opposite sex". If you believe that, then why would you limit it two "two"? Why not let three men get married, or twelve men? What's so magical about the number "two"?
This is usually the line of thinking that ends up with people screwing sheep.

I've never heard in my life a gay person advocate for polygamy.

Once again, you fail to separate behavior from being.

-spence

I've never heard in my life a gay person advocte for polygamy.

-spence

Never been to P-town to the Ace of Spades Club, hav ya?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Once again, you fail to separate behavior from being.

-spence

Spence is right Jim, but it's understandable that you probably aren't as intellectually evolved as Spence and therefore struggle with the separations of who we are and how we behave and the nuances of deciphering being from behavior and behavior from being...here's a good example...this guy/girl needs Spence as his lawyer....:rotf2:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/transgender-woman-male-persona-serial-killer/story?id=22959423

Interesting indeed. Really points out the blueprint which has been followed to create a new "reality."

Does it point out a "blueprint which has been followed" or simply present a very prescient and well thought out theory?

Has is created a "new reality" or perhaps instead simply normalized reality?

The book was written in a post AIDS environment when the issues were more in your face (i.e. the era Jim is still stuck in). Today for the most part you don't need to be told someone is "here" and "queer" because most people just don't care.

Now that's something to celebrate in a parade.

-spence

Does it point out a "blueprint which has been followed" or simply present a very prescient and well thought out theory?

Has is created a "new reality" or perhaps instead simply normalized reality?

The book was written in a post AIDS environment when the issues were more in your face (i.e. the era Jim is still stuck in). Today for the most part you don't need to be told someone is "here" and "queer" because most people just don't care.

Now that's something to celebrate in a parade.

-spence

unless there is a mutually accepted definition of "reality"..."normal"....then....re-read Detbuch's point above...otherwise "reality" could mean anything to anyone...like the triple murder tranny

I'm pretty sure they already have those(parades)

c'mon Spence...define "reality" and "normal" as you see it....instead of just engaging in random lecturing

"normalized reality"...sounds like "pretending" based on opinion..."normalizing reality" requires lots of spinning I think and sounds a bit backward...

c'mon Spence...define "reality" and "normal" as you see it....instead of just engaging in random lecturing

"normalized reality"...sounds like "pretending" based on opinion..."normalizing reality" requires lots of spinning I think and sounds a bit backward...
No, you've just spun it around so you're looking at the other side.

Gay people have been intermingled with us all for ever. The only difference today is that they don't have to hide as much. The changes we've seen -- in the past few decades primarily -- haven't been moving society towards homosexuality, rather they've been bringing gays closer to normal society. Legal rights, entering into long-term commitments, raising children, comfort with your individuality...these are all things I consider pretty normal.

-spence

Does it point out a "blueprint which has been followed" or simply present a very prescient and well thought out theory?

I prefer the blueprint theory. Which was very well thought out. You, as usual, seem to be "not sure." I guess that makes me a "conservative" stick in the mud, and you a "liberal" acceptor of all relative possibilities. Which gives you a sort of advantage. I could be wrong. You on the other hand, not having a definitive position, and acknowledging all positions, cannot be "wrong," and, if any of the positions is correct, you are "right." It's a nice ploy to seem better by asking questions rather than making statements. It's also somewhat cowardly. Oh-oh. I made another statement. I should have asked if it was cowardly or simply being very prudent. Or sneaky.

Seriously, if it was "simply . . . a very prescient and well thought out theory" and not an actual blueprint, I'm "not sure" what the difference would be. Isn't a blueprint the working design for carrying out a theory? Didn't the authors of the book intend it as a blueprint for their theory of how to "normalize" homosexual behavior? Uh . . . let me be specific . . . YES. And isn't it amazing how events in history so often occur in line with a "prescient" theory. One can think of Karl Marx, or Locke and Montesquieu. Or how about Saul Alinsky? Amazing how just about all of his rules for radicals seem to be applied for "change." Or, in the case of Kirk's and Madsen's "After the Ball--how events played out. But we are not supposed to make a connection. No--just prescient theory.

Or we could just apply the duck theory--if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.


Has is created a "new reality" or perhaps instead simply normalized reality?

You shifted my quote marks. I said new "reality", not "new reality". I was not saying that reality is new. What kind of reality can be new? Oh . . . yeah . . . relative reality always changes depending on perspective . . . that liberal thing . . . reality is perspective . . . a fiction played on the eyes of the beholder. I was implying with the quotes that what was new was not reality, but a new fiction based on relative perspective. A fluctuating amalgam that can be combined into a new form by applying the desired propaganda to current "messaging" within its various modes of dissemination. I know, I know, that's a mouthful, but I don't want to carry this out to book length. Besides, I wanted to see what it felt like to sound like Spence. Fun, actually.

In short, as the authors state, their book is propaganda. It aims, exactly as you put it, to normalize reality. That get's to the heart of the matter. What is truth, and what is propaganda? And what is the purpose of either?

If reality can be normalized to encompass all differences, then we can replace "real" with "normal." Or "Reality" with "normalcy." No need for extra words in an already verbally cluttered and twisted means of communication. It is difficult enough to arrive at useful clarity without adding clutter. The amalgamation of all differences into perceived equal sameness makes it easier to function as a society. And that is certainly the trend of history, at least in the perspective of progressives, statists, collectivists, and supreme normalizers.

Certainly, to achieve that, past discrepancies need to be assimilated into unity. Take, for example, the concept of marriage. Now if one delves into why it was for eons, until recently, something conceived as, defined as, the union of a man and a woman into the relationship of a family, one might find various ethno-religious variations, but always man/woman. Men have always found it easier to relate to other men than to women, and women as well to women, so why have this special, defined relation? So much is obvious for why that definition, that it would be redundant and tiresome to repeat here. The question is why change it now?

Mainwaring, in the Americanthinker article says flat out that gay or lesbian "marriage" is not marriage. He is gay. The beauty is, he recognizes his difference from the "norm" but accepts it without having to change an ancient definition. He doesn't accept or need propaganda to convince us to accept homosexual union. Nor does he need to redefine marriage. He understands the intention of the original definition. And to change it would be to change a pillar of human society in an unnecessary and destructive way--in his terms "to end civilization" as we know it. He also understands that Kirk's and Madsen's propagandistic way is the way of despotism. It is the way to eliminate differences to suit the needs of the despot. It is the way of the statist, the collectivist to "normalize" us into a more manageable herd of not too distinctive servants of the State.

Mainwaring considers himself "normal" on his own terms without having to impose his terms on others, and without having to redefine a fundamental societal norm. He understands the fundamental norm of liberty. That norm does not impose one's will over others who do not wish to participate. And he expects to get the same in kind. In a rational, free society, one in which individuals are free to express basic truths without having to follow party lines, he can express without fear of retribution from other gays, and blacks should be able to express outside the rigid black party line as well without being ostracized, called Uncle Toms, slaves to the white man, or traitors to the cause.

When we are herded by propaganda, and coerced by statist policies, into one mind, one way, and are corrupted into destroying fundamental principles, we have lost liberty, individuality, and significance.

The book was written in a post AIDS environment when the issues were more in your face (i.e. the era Jim is still stuck in). Today for the most part you don't need to be told someone is "here" and "queer" because most people just don't care.

Now that's something to celebrate in a parade.

-spence

Most people, at heart, really didn't care before all the "in your face" and government coercion stuff. There were open and harsh bigots, but most people just didn't want to be bothered with the issue. Homosexuals have always been part of society and have succeeded well without flaunting their preference. Why is the flaunting something to celebrate?

No, you've just spun it around so you're looking at the other side.

Gay people have been intermingled with us all for ever. The only difference today is that they don't have to hide as much. The changes we've seen -- in the past few decades primarily -- haven't been moving society towards homosexuality, rather they've been bringing gays closer to normal society. Legal rights, entering into long-term commitments, raising children, comfort with your individuality...these are all things I consider pretty normal.

-spence

no spinning and this completely evades the question and it is now you who fails to "separate behavior from being"....this is a list of pursuits(behavior)...normal pursuits by most estimations I imagine and I don't think anyone here has suggested that anyone be denied any of these ... but it doesn't answer the question that was asked which was to define "reality" and "normal" as you see it and were using it with regard to sexual "being" or "gender options", maybe from the list of 58 ....your "normalized reality" would include ...or possibly exclude what/which? ..in terms of being "normal" at least in our new "normalized reality"....