Gays and the St Patricks Day Parade

[Jim in CT]

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.

[Rockport24]

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Rockport24

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?

[Raven]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Ian

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

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Ian

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.

[Fly Rod]

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

[Rockport24]

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.

[The Dad Fisherman]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

What is "that agenda?"

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by 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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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"

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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 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

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

What is "that agenda?"

-spence

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

[PaulS]

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.

[The Dad Fisherman]

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[Ian]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Ian

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.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Ian

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"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

[Sea Dangles]

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.

[The Dad Fisherman]

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

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.

[The Dad Fisherman]

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...