Gays and the St Patricks Day Parade
 

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

"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.

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

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

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.

Agreed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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

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.

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

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.

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...

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.

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?