It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Guinness Opts Out of NYC’s St. Patrick’s Day Parade Over Anti-Gay Policy

page: 8
13
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Christian Voice
reply to post by Greven
 


I will ask you the same I have asked others on here. Why does the St. Patty's Day have to be sexualized at all ? Why does anything outside of specific gay functions (parades, parties) have to be sexualized ? Why couldn't the gay people just attend or march in the parade as people ? Why do they have to designate themselves as gay in this particular instance ?



Once again CV you raise some rational and valid points. However, I counter your question with another question. A couple of pages ago I posted a picture of the pride band in charlotte. These people marched as a band that look like most other people. They just had a little banner that did not even have the word gay on it and a rainbow flag. How is that sexualised or offensive?
I completely agree that this is not the sort of parade where visual vulgarity is acceptable as it is a family affair, but how does a gay pride band take part and what do they put on their banner?



If it is truly equality you seek and nothing else then why not identify yourself as an equal ? There is a time and place for everything.


We have gay football clubs, we have gay swim teams, we have gay walking clubs, even gay 4wd clubs. We use the term gay in the name just as the local sicillian club does so that people that are interested can know what sort of members are involved. I'm happy to join a regular club too, but the gay ones offer extra opportunities to meet and network with people who are like me. And that's what clubs are all about are they not?

I am equal to you and you are equal to me. By being equal it means that you can participate in anything that I do as who you are (presumably say a Christian judging by your username) and I can participate in anything I do as myself - a gay man.

Simple really


ETA: And to identify yourself as a Christian you have the option of wearing a cross, using the name Christian or holding a bible etc. These are all accepted as being symbols and to most they are non offensive. To identify myself as Gay, I need to use something also. I have the word gay and I have the rainbow flag. Is it these things that you are all finding offensive? If so, what do you suggest we use to identify ourselves? The pink triangle Hitler used?

ETA2; I see you have used the name ChristianVoice to clearly identify who you are. So you understand the need to identify who you are and what you are about. I could have chosen a name like gaywarrior or something else with the name gay in it, but I chose not to. Why? because if I or others chose to, we'd get attacked as soon as we opened our mouths in most forums because the word gay in our title would raise prejudice before we even had a chance to say our bit. So, we do participate as regular people who happen to be gay all the time.
edit on 18-3-2014 by markosity1973 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 04:20 PM
link   

brandiwine14
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


I could care less if someones black, gay, straight, or whatever. If I had a straight friend who was constantly in my face with "Im straight, accept it, i'm straight except it" "Oh my god", "i'm straight ACCEPT IT" and yadda yadda I would also turn away from their friendship.


The difference between straight and gay is that you don't have to force your point. You are not going to get persecuted for taking part in pretty much anything for being straight. If you are Asian, Muslim or say from a poor family you might find things a little different though. It's not your fault that you take everything for granted and that the world is built to revolve around you and everyone like you. But for those of us who find ourselves shut out, we need to speak up or we get totally ignored and miss out on everything.



My point as well as many others is the majority of people don't care, the don't. The only ones I really see making being gay an issue is the gays.


By not caring, you perhaps mean happy to pretend we don't exist, or pretend that if we do, we are nowhere near you. Classic NIMBY syndrome really.



I am not a hateful person at all but i'm honest, and I say what I see.


Nobody said you were hateful. A little naive maybe, but I don't see hate oozing from your posts. You say what you see, but what you see is subject to tunnel vision. I don't hate you or anyone else for that, I just ask you to take off those blinkers and look at the whole spectrum of life - there is more that just you and your way of thinking out here. And yes, the same goes for us, we know that.
edit on 18-3-2014 by markosity1973 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by markosity1973
 


I guess I don't see the reason for the distinction in the first place. I'm not trying to "ignore" gay people. I just don't see why it matters or why so much emphasize is put on it. To me it's like making them outcast more then it would otherwise. Sort of how Black History month and other similar events create rascism by creating a distinction people may not otherwise think about. I know I'm not the only one that feels that way either. There's a nice quote from Morgan Freeman about Black History month that essentially says the same thing.

It makes them a target of attention they wouldn't otherwise have, but it's not always good attention.
edit on 18-3-2014 by GrimReaper86 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by markosity1973
 


*BOOM*




posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by markosity1973
 


I use the username Christian Voice on this forum alone. I am Christian and will never be ashamed of it however it is fitting in this forum. This forum debates many religious and moral topics and I take the stance of a Christian. I think I need to clarify something. We are still talking apples and oranges here. Time and place, I continue to post these words. Sexuality has it's time and place. Sexuality (hetero or homo) had no place in a St. Patricks Day parade. Again, why does someone have the inate need to identify themselves as "homosexual" in that particular instance ? Again, why do gay people have to broadcast it everywhere they go ?
I will share one more story with everyone. I have said several times on other threads that I am not one to just walk around to people I think are gay and tell them what I think. It's not my place. However a while back my young son and I were walking in the mall and two men were standing in the middle of the mall next to the dang Carousel with kids everywhere and the men were tongue kissing very passionately and freaking dry humping each other right there in the middle of the mall. My son asked me why those two men were kissing on each other. I explained things to him and the guys heard me and did not like my response. They began cursing me with my little boy standing there beside me. I will add this, I am 6'1" and 270 pounds and very defined and built. I calmly asked them to not talk that way in front of my son and to refrain from any more public displays and they got in my face and they were ready to tangle with me, all 250 pounds combined weight of em'. Luckily the security guards showed up and escorted them out of the mall and what did they do ? They stood there in the parking lot directly in front of Chucky Cheese and began making out again.
I am a man and am happily married to a woman and have never ever gone to the mall and made out with her like that. Time and place.
Those two guys were very obviously gay but had they not done what they had done I would have never said a word to them. They were looking to incite an altercation and were about to bite off more than they could chew.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 10:50 PM
link   

OtherSideOfTheCoin

Danbones
OMG! god is going to hate guiness for this
he hates gays...or so Im told by the fundimentaly challenged

now he is going to hate beer too

it just aint right i tells you
it just aint right


Wash your mouth out with holly water....

Guinness is a stout... not a beer.


Totally off topic but Guinness is a stout beer. It is an ale which is a beer. The sick person who wrote they'd take a Budweiser over a Guinness should know that Budweiser is a lager, but it's still a beer.

Since when is a stout not a beer?



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by GrimReaper86
 


We only put emphasis on it because you still deny us access and basic rights. If we use the example of a African Americans, you would easily accept an African American choir participating. And so you should. You allow any race of people to marry, and so you should. I can't say the same is true for gay people in either case though.

Breaking down the barriers of division and exclusion is frustrating for us and annoying for you, I get that part. I really do.

But until I can walk the streets knowing that I am free to be me without having to hide it from everyone because it might out someone's nose out of joint out worse still, be attacked for it, our job will not be done.
edit on 19-3-2014 by markosity1973 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 11:40 PM
link   

ItCameFromOuterSpace

This doesn't go for the REAL gay people who are just normal everyday citizens. This goes for the queens and twinks who exploit their sexuality into a cartoonish nightmare.


Do you even know what 'twink' is?

lol
mad


Ro



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 11:46 PM
link   

ChaosEpsilon
Homosexuality is a mental illness. It's fine to have one but not right to parade a mental illness around and show it off to people like it's the most normal thing in the world.




If anyone at all reading this thread needed to know why there is a gay rights movement at all then this post above is EXACTLY why. When this kind of illogical, fear driven self serving bigoted egotism stops, there wont need to BE a 'gay rights movement'.


Ro



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Rosha
 


So you choose a lifestyle and decide to live outside the norms of society and then demand rights to suit your choice ? Then parade it in the faces of everyone you meet as if you are daring them to say or do something...... How does that work ? I'll say it again, whomever you choose to share your bed with is your business but when you bring it into the public eye you invite public critique and then have the gall to get angry when the public disagrees with your choices ?
On one hand you try and push laws forbidding Christianity from anything public and in the same hand push legislation to force homosexuality into public life. You protest Christian functions and even no Christian functions where sexuality of any kind is not appropriate and then piss and moan when Christians protest your lifestyle choices. Who is the bigot now ? The very concept of calling someone a bigot for disagreeing with your lifestyle makes you a bigot.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Christian Voice
 


reply to post by Christian Voice
 


First off people don't get to choose which gender they're attracted too. I never thought to myself 'when I grow up I want to be straight', it just happens. Same for gay people; do you honestly think they go 'when I grow up I want to be attracted to the same sex as I am so I'm marginalised, stigmatised and criminalised in society' ?

Second your religion, unlike your sexuality, is entirely your own choice and maintaining seperation between church and state is an essential part of democracy. Here in the UK we're unlucky enough to be the only country outside Iran that allows unelected religious officials (Archbishops) to vote on our Laws.

During the Cold War bishops were calling for nuclear war as they thought it'd bring about judgement day - hence why they shouldn't be allowed anywhere near politics.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by bastion
 


UMMM sorry but homosexuality is a choice. I will break it down like this.
When a man has an orgasm what happens ? SPERM is released. What is the one and only function of sperm ? To fertilize an egg and create an offspring. It is a physical impossibility for a man to have sex with another man and have this happen. Sperm + sperm does not = offspring. Please do not come back with the juvenile attempt at an argument by saying but what about baron women ? If a woman has ovaries then there is always a possibility however small it may be that she can get pregnant. There is a zero possibility of a man impregnating another man. Therefore naturally speaking two men having sex is against nature or unnatural in it's concept. For the survival of a species the concept of homosexuality is illogical. Given this, homosexuality goes against our design and purpose. Our parts do not fit. A penis does not fit inside a penis. It goes against our nature, it defies our instincts so no, people are not born gay.
I will give you that some people are born more feminine or masculine than others but that is where environment takes over. Therefore it is a choice.
Let me ask you this and I assure you no offense is intended in my post but here it is........ and please do not answer with another question, answer honestly
Why is it so important for homosexuals to believe they were born that way as opposed to it was a choice ? I have my own thoughts but I'd like an honest answer from you.
Also, no I did not choose to be heterosexual, that is the natural order of life. Everyone is born that way and some decide to stray from nature and live outside those parameters.
I will also ask this (and I'm not comparing homosexuality to these things)
Why is it so clear supposedly in the mind of the homosexual that they were born that way yet when pedophiles, zoophiles, and some serial killers claim they were born that way they all flip out and get fighting mad ? I'm not talking about the act itself either, I'm talking about desire itself. If a homosexual can be born with a desire that is outside of normal natural parameters then why can't these others be born with desires that are outside normal natural parameters ? Again, I'm talking about the desire, the attraction not the action itself because I think the majority of us will agree that having sex with a young child or a dog is wrong. You stated though that a homosexual cannot help who they are attracted to. So is the same not true for the others I mentioned ?



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 01:07 PM
link   

markosity1973
reply to post by GrimReaper86
 


We only put emphasis on it because you still deny us access and basic rights. If we use the example of a African Americans, you would easily accept an African American choir participating. And so you should. You allow any race of people to marry, and so you should. I can't say the same is true for gay people in either case though.

Breaking down the barriers of division and exclusion is frustrating for us and annoying for you, I get that part. I really do.

But until I can walk the streets knowing that I am free to be me without having to hide it from everyone because it might out someone's nose out of joint out worse still, be attacked for it, our job will not be done.
edit on 19-3-2014 by markosity1973 because: (no reason given)


Perhaps gays should stop separating themselves from others by prancing around in leather chaps during parades. If you truly want to get rid of "division and exclusion", a good way to do that would be to stop throwing your gayness in everyones faces.

I support gays getting married, not because I care about them, but because government has no constitutional authority to dictate who consenting adults can marry.

Attempting to force others to "accept" your way of life is an exercise in futility. By definition, being gay is abnormal. So is humping livestock. (No, I am not equating the two).

At what abnormality does the demand for "acceptance" stop?



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Christian Voice
reply to post by bastion
 


UMMM sorry but homosexuality is a choice. I will break it down like this.
When a man has an orgasm what happens ? SPERM is released. What is the one and only function of sperm ? To fertilize an egg and create an offspring. It is a physical impossibility for a man to have sex with another man and have this happen. Sperm + sperm does not = offspring. Please do not come back with the juvenile attempt at an argument by saying but what about baron women ? If a woman has ovaries then there is always a possibility however small it may be that she can get pregnant. There is a zero possibility of a man impregnating another man. Therefore naturally speaking two men having sex is against nature or unnatural in it's concept. For the survival of a species the concept of homosexuality is illogical. Given this, homosexuality goes against our design and purpose. Our parts do not fit. A penis does not fit inside a penis. It goes against our nature, it defies our instincts so no, people are not born gay.
I will give you that some people are born more feminine or masculine than others but that is where environment takes over. Therefore it is a choice.
Let me ask you this and I assure you no offense is intended in my post but here it is........ and please do not answer with another question, answer honestly
Why is it so important for homosexuals to believe they were born that way as opposed to it was a choice ? I have my own thoughts but I'd like an honest answer from you.
Also, no I did not choose to be heterosexual, that is the natural order of life. Everyone is born that way and some decide to stray from nature and live outside those parameters.
I will also ask this (and I'm not comparing homosexuality to these things)
Why is it so clear supposedly in the mind of the homosexual that they were born that way yet when pedophiles, zoophiles, and some serial killers claim they were born that way they all flip out and get fighting mad ? I'm not talking about the act itself either, I'm talking about desire itself. If a homosexual can be born with a desire that is outside of normal natural parameters then why can't these others be born with desires that are outside normal natural parameters ? Again, I'm talking about the desire, the attraction not the action itself because I think the majority of us will agree that having sex with a young child or a dog is wrong. You stated though that a homosexual cannot help who they are attracted to. So is the same not true for the others I mentioned ?


None of that has anything to do with sexuality - I fancy some women because I find their bodies and personalities, I don't fancy men because to me they're not attractive, but plenty of other guys fancy other guys - that's just the way things are. By your logic we're the weired ones and hermaphrodites are normal because at least they can fertilise themselves without having to waste all that energy finding a mate; but I'm not going to say you chose to be one gender because it's as utterly moronic as your argument. As for natural order - see plenty of species where homosexuality becomes common practice when populations reach the limit of their resources, it's the natural order of life.

Besides since when was anything in modern human life 'natural' ? I's a hard argument to swallow when you're typing it on a computer.

Where is your evidence for any of this? We don't have sex just for procreation, it's for pleasure, intimacy and plenty of other reasons. As for evidence it's not a choice, just look at genetics - Xq28 is associated with much higher incidences of male homosexuality - these are empirical facts, not a bunch of made up stuff and presumptions like your 'natural order' argument.

Last time I heard gay guys didn't stick their penises inside each other, that would be plain silly (and probably painful). There are plenty more fitting orifices like mouths and anuses, if you'll excuse the pun.

Obviously sex between two consenting adults is far removed from paedophilia and bestiality which are both forms of rape. One causes no harm, the other causes plenty of harm so are rightly illegal (I honestly despair at having to point this out).

Can you honestly not see how it's unfounded views like your own that push people into taking part in these marches in the first place?
edit on 19-3-2014 by bastion because: (no reason given)



doubletap
Perhaps gays should stop separating themselves from others by prancing around in leather chaps during parades. If you truly want to get rid of "division and exclusion", a good way to do that would be to stop throwing your gayness in everyones faces.


Yes because everyone knows every single gay person in the history of ever acts this way and that using stereotypes against an entire minority in order to ban them from doing nice things is perfectly acceptable and in no way impedes their rights.

*shakes head*

Bunch of bigots.
edit on 19-3-2014 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by bastion
 


I said speaking of desire dangit. Not the act, I specified that over and over. What about how pedophiles and zoophiles claim they cannot help who or what they are attracted to. That they are born with those attractions. I'm talking attraction, not the action itself. Quit dancing around the question and answer it.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Christian Voice
 


I already answered it, consent is the difference.

Also if you'd read my post you'd know one of the genes that carries homosexuality hence it's largely genetic.

Now do you see why it's not always a choice?

edit on 19-3-2014 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by bastion
 


No you did not answer the question. Consent has nothing to do with the attraction.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Christian Voice
 


I fail to see how attraction between consenting adults can be compared to when consent can't be given. One is potential harm, the other isn't, they're worlds apart and require different approaches.

Can you explain your point clearly please? I genuinely have no idea what you're on about here, you've you don't mean to compate the two so I'm having to ignore the whole elephant in the room argument of 'if we accept gay people, we might as well accept mass murderers/slippery slope argument' to give you the benefit of the doubt.
edit on 19-3-2014 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by bastion
 


You are dancing around the question. Again I'm not talking about the act itself. Imagine a man with the attraction toward young girls but never acts on it. He says he is tormented by it because he cannot help his attraction. There are those on here that insist there are people born gay but out of fear have never acted on their attraction or desire. Maybe this will help remove the act from the question for you.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Christian Voice
 


I already asked your what question you're posing. Please pose it and I'll answer it. At the moment I'm having to guess what question you're asking as you haven't stated what you're referring to.

If you mean 'why are they a choice?' then my answer is unlike homosexuality there's as of yet no evidence to suggest a genetic link, hence the difference.
edit on 19-3-2014 by bastion because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join