|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi: |
03-17-2014, 10:47 AM
|
#1
|
President - S-B Chapter - Kelly Clarkson Fan Club
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Rowley
Posts: 3,781
|
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.
|
|
|
|
03-17-2014, 12:07 PM
|
#2
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,441
|
Quote:
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?
|
|
|
|
03-17-2014, 04:58 PM
|
#3
|
........
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 22,805
|
Quote:
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
|
|
|
|
03-18-2014, 02:26 PM
|
#4
|
Idiot
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Glastonbury, CT
Posts: 2,287
|
Quote:
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.
|
The artist formerly known as Scratch59.
|
|
|
03-18-2014, 02:30 PM
|
#5
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,483
|
Quote:
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
|
|
|
|
03-18-2014, 02:33 PM
|
#6
|
Super Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Georgetown MA
Posts: 18,208
|
Quote:
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.
|
"If you're arguing with an idiot, make sure he isn't doing the same thing."
|
|
|
03-18-2014, 03:05 PM
|
#7
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Gloucester Massachusetts
Posts: 2,678
|
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
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:51 AM.
|
| |