Gays and the St Patricks Day Parade

[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

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

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...

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

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

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by 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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I love it "militant activists"

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.

[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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

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 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.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Ian

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"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]

[scottw]

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?

[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