Gay Pride Firemen

[B_lisasdong]

Why not? I'm pretty sure it won't damage you in any way, and I am curious what your response will be.

I scanned it. Looks to me like a guy wants to impeach judges, for which there is an available mechanism he is seeking to employ, as could anyone for whatever reason they deem appropriate. So what? What's your point?

 

[DC_DEEP]

I scanned it. Looks to me like a guy wants to impeach judges, for which there is an available mechanism he is seeking to employ, as could anyone for whatever reason they deem appropriate. So what? What's your point?

I was right, you are just a fucking idiot. Why do you have such extreme hatred for people simply based on their sexual orientation?

And are you really a female?

 

[arliss]

she ordered that four straight firefighters to endure hours of sexual harassment for the enjoyment of the gays lining the gay pride parade route all bets were off

were thse guys actually straight? or were they LPSG straight......? there is a difference:tongue:

 

[Rikter8]

You are kidding, right? Stating a fact?I would venture to guess that there are more "displayed boobies, horny men (would it be different if they were young?) shouting obscenities in a crowd, and half-naked dancers at any popular spring break destination. I don't see too many articles about how traumatic it is for the residents of those locations, nor such pejorative descriptions of them.And you don't think that was Shelby's sole purpose in posting it? To drive wedges, and perpetuate that mentality? Do you agree that if gays were not so often treated as second-class citizens, then gay pride parades would not even exist?

How in the world am I supposed to know what the poster is thinking??
I don't know the mans Views, I just stated mine is all.

I read it quickly, and nodded my head, as I've been to a few Gay pride events, and I was quite uncomfortable. (I've also gone to gay bars and had older men grab my crotch, say dirty things to me, and I've had to leave a few times because the torment was too much to deal with. Then to be followed by a few in my car.)
Everybody's life experiences with this lifestyle are different.
My views on it are a bit more conservative, is all.
I've proven myself to my family, and my friends by being more capable than Most straight men out there. I may not be buff and beautiful, but I am more than capable. For this, I am truly Equal to any man out there. You can't get any better than that in life.

I guess Fact is too strong of a word. How about Claim? The article Claimed that there were men shaking their booty for all the crowd to see.
"Horny old men" - because that's what the article depicted. They could be young, they could be old.

I agree, you'll never hear anything from the Straight Folks exhibitions because that's supposedly "Right". We both know its fucked up, and its Wrong for them to think that way. They'll turn their heads, say "oh how cute", and then the husbands will go home and beat their wives, go out for a cigarette break to DeJaVu, and everybodys happy.

I wasn't implying that Shelby was trying to do anything of the sort of driving wedges. If I did come across that way, than I apologize as that wasn't my intent.
Gay Pride is a good thing. The parades are a good thing.
But when a conservatist sees a man in full drag, he's going to freak.
Why? Because to him it's not "Normal". Hence, wrong.

I guess I dont understand your last statement. The GLBT community is treated like second class, often third. Why wouldn't the community have a parade to celebrate their beliefs and orientation?

We celebrate a goddamn groundhog coming out of hibernation, why not us?

 

[Rikter8]

she ordered that four straight firefighters to endure hours of sexual harassment for the enjoyment of the gays lining the gay pride parade route all bets were off

were thse guys actually straight? or were they LPSG straight......? there is a difference:tongue:

Exactly.

Therefore if the administration doesn't follow through with the proper disciplinary action, they should be removed as well.

Gotta get the corruption out of office, otherwise it will continue to spread.

Actually...it wouldn't matter, even if they were Gay. It's still unwanted sexual advances from the crowd.
Now, I think we all know the crowd wasn't serious, but still...

It's like having a corporate boss tell his secretary that she must wear a mini-skirt and tight top to attract new business.
(this is how my contract house got bids at a major auto maker)

 

[GoneA]

Don't shut up. Just don't imagine imaginary shit.

Most if us 'breeders' couldn't give a shit. We're not necessarily homophobes. But we me may be getting tired of being forcefed your agenda.

*time to bring the victim response*

If you "breeders don't give a shit" [I suppose you're referring to homosexuality altogether] then why does the examples that DC_Deep explained exist (ex. gays being murdered, fired, etc.)? That sounds very much like "giving a shit" to me.

In addition to that, what we're tired of being "force-fed" is your victim philosophy. While that philosophy might have some merit to it, your belaboring of it decreases its value. Pretending a prejudice doesn't exist will not magically make things all better; being vocal about the current state of affairs will certainly help more, rather than less. The ghastly results of discrimination are too intense for us to be anything else.

But I'm not out to teach an old dog new tricks.

 

[B_lisasdong]

I was right, you are just a fucking idiot. Why do you have such extreme hatred for people simply based on their sexual orientation?

And are you really a female?

What are you talking about? Did we read the same article?

It sounds to me like you have some serious problems.

 

[DC_DEEP]

In addition to that, what we're tired of being "force-fed" is your victim philosophy. While that philosophy might have some merit to it, your belaboring of it decreases its value. Pretending a prejudice doesn't exist will not magically make things all better; being vocal about the current state of affairs will certainly help more, rather than less. The ghastly results of discrimination are too intense for us to be anything else.

"I'm going to beat you over the head with a stick. If you tell me to stop, then you are playing the victim card."

Brilliant, isn't it?

What are you talking about? Did we read the same article?

Well, no, actually I read it, you skimmed it. What part of "him breaking the law to discriminate against gays" did you not understand?

(For what it's worth, he doesn't just hate queers - he seems to support the idea that Muslims, agnostics, unitarians, deists, atheists, and even apparently Jews should be excluded from holding public office.)

It sounds to me like you have some serious problems.

I do have some serious problems, and most of them are bigots like yourself. By the way, do you like your new persona on LPSG better than your old one? Is it more fun pretending to be a female than to be a male?

 

[B_lisasdong]

What part of "him breaking the law to discriminate against gays" did you not understand?

I guess it's the irrelevancy part I don't understand...

...meaning the I didn't see your quoted phrase anywhere in the piece. I'll make this simple for you: the law allows for the impeachment of some judges. If someone avails himself of that law, in what twisted world could you possibly take that to be a breaking of the law?

On the other hand, maybe you're referring to the civil rights issue. I have some more simple information to convey to you gently: the question as to whether marriage is a civil right is very much open. I happen to believe it is a stronger argument that marriage is NOT a civil right; therefore, not extending it to gays is not a violation of their civil rights. I know the gay community considers this question long closed, but that is evidence only of their bias. It is nowhere near closed. If judges on lower courts choose to treat it as such, well, I think they have to expect that some will seek to impeach them.

And - who else do you think I am, or have been, if not me?

Finally - save the name calling. I'm not a bigot; you calling me one does nothing but demonstrate your hate and intolerance, and we could do with quite a bit less of that. Be part of the solution, not part of the problem, you racist.

 

[sweetcreme]

Lisasdong, I'm sure DeKlerk and Botha and the other members of South Africa's Nationalist Party went around proclaiming that they weren't bigots, either, while they were enforcing Apartheid, and maybe they even patted themselves on the back for not being sexists because they allowed white women into high-paying jobs. But your verbage here is defintiely bigotry by any dictionary definition. And when the oppressor accuses the oppressed of hatred, as you have done, it makes him look pretty pathetic.

 

[B_lisasdong]

Lisasdong, I'm sure DeKlerk and Botha and the other members of South Africa's Nationalist Party went around proclaiming that they weren't bigots, either, while they were enforcing Apartheid, and maybe they even patted themselves on the back for not being sexists because they allowed white women into high-paying jobs. But your verbage here is defintiely bigotry by any dictionary definition. And when the oppressor accuses the oppressed of hatred, as you have done, it makes him look pretty pathetic.

DC_DEEP, I'll dismiss this altogether, in the absence of even a single asserted instance of bigotry. It's not sufficient to simple label me a bigot.

Further, anyone who does that is, without question, a hater.

By the way - because marriage is NOT a civil right, to assert that withholding it from anyone is analogous to "Apartheid" is ridiculous in the extreme.

 

[sweetcreme]

It was I, lisasdong, not DC_DEEP, who specifically pointed out your bogotries, though you still insist on pretending -- as most bigots do -- that you don't have them. But let me remind you that what is being argued is that FREEDOM FROM NEGATIVE DISCRIMINATION IN THE OBTAINING OF A MARIAGE LICENSE is the civil right being infringed here, it is not being argue that the contracting of a marriage, per se, is in itself a civil right. Remember, if you can, that the people who were in favor of miscegenation laws argued, well up through the 1960s (and persisting into the early '70s) that freedom from race discrimination in the obtaining of a marriage license was not a civil right. It took the passage of the Civil Rights Act in the mid-'60s to undo those miscegenation laws. But, while it is illegal in the Untied States to deny a marriage license on the basis of race, it is still legal, becasue of covoluted bigoted arguments such as yours and becasue of the politicians who support laws upholding such bigotry, to discriminate on the basis of sex and sexual orientation in marragie licensure. So, you may try to pretend that you're not arguing for bigotry, but in the face of the dictionary, and the factual history of the matter, you're definitely a bigot. Or, as some would say, "But ya are, Blanche, ya are."

 

[houtx48]

sweetcreame. you're wasting your breath.......it just jumped up and bit her on the hiney, still no clue.

 

[B_lisasdong]

It was I, lisasdong, not DC_DEEP, who specifically pointed out your bogotries, though you still insist on pretending -- as most bigots do -- that you don't have them. But let me remind you that what is being argued is that FREEDOM FROM NEGATIVE DISCRIMINATION IN THE OBTAINING OF A MARIAGE LICENSE is the civil right being infringed here, it is not being argue that the contracting of a marriage, per se, is in itself a civil right. Remember, if you can, that the people who were in favor of miscegenation laws argued, well up through the 1960s (and persisting into the early '70s) that freedom from race discrimination in the obtaining of a marriage license was not a civil right. It took the passage of the Civil Rights Act in the mid-'60s to undo those miscegenation laws. But, while it is illegal in the Untied States to deny a marriage license on the basis of race, it is still legal, becasue of covoluted bigoted arguments such as yours and becasue of the politicians who support laws upholding such bigotry, to discriminate on the basis of sex and sexual orientation in marragie licensure. So, you may try to pretend that you're not arguing for bigotry, but in the face of the dictionary, and the factual history of the matter, you're definitely a bigot. Or, as some would say, "But ya are, Blanche, ya are."

Continuing to call me a bigot, DC_DEEP, does not make it so.

It is laughable that you would use the "convoluted" to attack my argument. Marriage is between a man and a woman and always has been. The definition runs so deep, is so ingrained, and has gone so unquestioned, that it never occurred to anyone that such a simple proposition need be made explicit.

The distinction you are trying to draw in your discussion of "FREEDOM FROM NEGATIVE DISCRIMINATION IN THE OBTAINING OF A MARIAGE LICENSE" is devoid of content; it warrants no further mention.

I realize that the most useful analogy for the gay community on the issue would be civil rights, and hence the claims of bigotry, but the comparison is inapt, and I do not accept it. You may continue calling me names if you wish, but I reject the assumptions you've made in support of your attacks.

Here is the valid analogy:
A group of people assert that a circle has three sides. Flabbergasted and stunned, millions immediately reject the assertion, and the group defends their argument by pointing out that the definition of a circle had never mentioned anything about a circle NOT having three sides, therefore, it may. Clearly fallacious, and directly analogous to the discussion at hand.

 

[BurningVenus]

<jumping in rather late>

Marriage is not a civil right.

Protection from discrimination under the law is a civil right.

And people who are intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own, may very well be bigots.

 

[B_lisasdong]

<jumping in rather late>

Marriage is not a civil right.

Protection from discrimination under the law is a civil right.

And people who are intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own, may very well be bigots.

(1) "Marriage is not a civil right."
True.

(2) "Protection from discrimination under the law is a civil right."
True, as limited by other laws, such as laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

(3) "[P]eople who are intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own, may very well be bigots."
True, but irrelevant to the discussion here.

 

[dreamer20]

..."the Thomas More Law Center is filing suit claiming, quite rightly, that the firefighters who were forced to march by a lesbian fire chief in a gay parade were not only used "as pawns" to make the firefighting contingent bigger than the police, but that they were sexually harassed to boot."


"the fire chief ordered that four men who did not want to be subjected to the same thing that happens every year be subjected to it. For that she should lose her job and the city should be made to pay."

I don't think that the city should pay for the actions of the inconsiderate fire chief and the rude parade spectators. Although the writer of the article thinks otherwise, these men also had the option of using the ACLU to handle their case. They could have protested by not subjecting themselves "to the same thing that happens every year," but they chose to attend the event with their fellow firemen. The fireman's group heard these comments:

...“Show me your hose,” “you can put out my fire,” “you’re making me hot,” “give me mouth-to-mouth,” “you look hungry, why don’t you have a twinkie (from a man wearing a “Girth and Mirth” t-shirt),” and “blow my hose.”

Those spectators were obviously making amusing comments to tease the firemen's group in general as opposed to those comments being specifically for the straight 4 as the article implies.

I don't know if the chief will be fired as a result of this litigation, but I expect the firemen will be allowed to stay away from the next parade.




Something tells me that Mr. Yuhas is going to get several rude gestures in San Diego:

"but when the lesbian fire chief decided that her participation level had to be higher than the drag queen loving police chief – well then the line was crossed and compulsory gaydom began."

" But where <was> the ACLU when four firefighters are used as sex toys by the fire chief?"

Gay pride organizers said that gay pride was not only family friendly but all about "the lisping diversity of the gay community".

 

[GoneA]

In case anyone is trying to suggest that gay men and women should not marry (and be afforded all the benefits that come along with) I would like to extend a big FUCK YOU, IDIOT to them.

I don't suppose it can be made any simpler: if the gov't recognizes the unison of opposite-gender couples, then they should do the same for same-gender couples. Since the government has done the opposite, they are participating in negative discrimination.

Should anyone side with the government, then they are bigots. If you wish to no long be a bigot, you should change your perceptions.

 

[BurningVenus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BurningVenus

<jumping in rather late>

Marriage is not a civil right.

Protection from discrimination under the law is a civil right.

And people who are intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own, may very well be bigots.

(1) "Marriage is not a civil right."
True.

(2) "Protection from discrimination under the law is a civil right."
True, as limited by other laws, such as laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

(3) "[P]eople who are intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own, may very well be bigots."
True, but irrelevant to the discussion here.
Last edited by lisasdong : 2 Hours Ago at 11:13 PM.

(1)


2) The laws that limit their civil rights must be changed. And they will be changed. The current state of the laws is unconstitutional --gender discrimination. Our society will evolve, and we will have to stop stepping on these folks. America has done it before, and we will again. It's realy that simple and it's just a matter a time. :usa2: :usa2: :usa2: :usa2: :usa2: :usa2:

 

[B_lisasdong]

In case anyone is trying to suggest that gay men and women should not marry (and be afforded all the benefits that come along with) I would like to extend a big FUCK YOU, IDIOT to them.

I don't suppose it can be made any simpler: if the gov't recognizes the unison of opposite-gender couples, then they should do the same for same-gender couples. Since the government has done the opposite, they are participating in negative discrimination.

Should anyone side with the government, then they are bigots. If you wish to no long be a bigot, you should change your perceptions.

Your ignorance of the legal issues involved is astonishing. There is no actionable discrimination here. The full extent of the argument is exhausted at civil unions.

Bigotry doesn't come into play here at all.