E
Elizium23
Guest
Show me where I said “temptation can be sinful”. I never said anything about sinful. I said DISORDERED.
- Status
E
edwest2
Guest
What is the purpose of a gay pride parade? What message or messages does it usually send?
Here is an example of what I’m talking about.
lifesitenews.com/news/san-diego-firefighters-win-lawsuit-over-forced-participation-in-gay-pride-p
Peace,
Ed
Here is an example of what I’m talking about.
lifesitenews.com/news/san-diego-firefighters-win-lawsuit-over-forced-participation-in-gay-pride-p
Peace,
Ed
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
Exactly. These parades are a travesty.
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
She said what she said; she didn’t say what you think she said.
Sadomasochism doesn’t meet the definition of sexual orientation. Paedophilia is an attraction to an inherently mutable characteristic and as such is not an orientation. The definition of bestiality has nothing to sexual attraction, it merely describes actions.
LGBT isn’t exactly an acronymic encapsulation of sexual orientations.
See Paragraph 1755 of the Catechism, the term “intrinsically disordered” means it is sinful.
As I understand it, “orientation” refers to gender orientation (heterosexuality/homosexuality/bisexuality), both in the social science literature and the way gay rights laws have been set up.
This is a common argument against gay rights laws, that employers would have to hire pedophiles, zoophiles, etc. But as far as I’ve seen, gay rights laws don’t include these things; they define “orientation” as only heterosexuality/homosexuality/bisexuality; they may even specifically exclude pedophilia (as in Massachusetts).
And “orientation” is not “behavior”; certainly no law is going to force employers to hire convicted child molesters, rapists, etc.
Some of us discussed the legal aspects of this in another thread:
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Well then to clarify things, let’s just say that whatever she said was totally WRONG.
You are making up your own definitions. I quoted the current psychological definitions.
Oh I think it is. Maybe you have a different idea. If so what is it?
S
SMGS127
Guest
That’s not true at all. Neither being white nor black is sinful. Neither being straight nor gay is sinful. Both are morally equivalent innate characteristics of one’s very personhood, and neither will be differentiated in heaven.
LGBTQQIPAA = 6 sexual orientations in 7 letters (lesbian, bisexual/pansexual, gay, asexual, queer, ally), 2 biological conditions (transgender, intersex), and the last Q is “Questioning,” which is not a sexual orientation either.
Are you suggesting that Intersexism is a sexual orientation? Because that’s in the full acronym too.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
As I said before: “Sexual orientation” is a highly ambiguous term loaded with hidden false assumptions.
If gay rights laws are written to exclude the numerous other sexual orientations that would be discriminatory to the “others”. The whole law could be struct down.
I understand why the gay community does not want to recognize other “orientations”. To do so would draw attention to the importance of distinguishing between orientation and
conduct, when a major purpose of “sexual orientation theory” is to legitimize and protect homosexual conduct by obscuring this distinction.
Why is this distinction between orientation and conduct so important? Because certain sexual conduct has serious public health consequences which society has both a right and an obligation to regulate.
As you say: “orientation” is not “behavior”. There are no public health implications to sexual orientation, properly defined. Even a pedophile’s orientation, abhorrent as it may be, is harmless to the public if he never acts upon it.
Therefore if the gay community really needs anti- discrimination laws that focus on “sexual orientation” they would not object to a clause such as this:
**“This policy shall not be construed to legitimize or protect any sexual conduct deserving of regulation in the public interest.” **
The right to claim a sexual orientation should not automatically grant a license for sexual conduct.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
There exists no truly objective means of determining whether a person is innately homosexual. One cannot take a blood test or DNA test to prove that he or she is “gay.” We must depend entirely upon a person’s claim that his or her homosexuality is innate.
The taint of political self-interest alone makes such evidence wholly untrustworthy.
You left out pedophilia. Why???
NAMBLA used to be a big part of gay pride parades. Don’t you like them anymore?
E
edwest2
Guest
The rest of the story is here:
amazon.com/Homosexuality-American-Psychiatry-Politics-Diagnosis/dp/0691028370
Peace,
Ed
amazon.com/Homosexuality-American-Psychiatry-Politics-Diagnosis/dp/0691028370
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
Is this an accurate description of gay pride parades?
“Pride, as opposed to shame and social stigma, is the predominant outlook that bolsters most LGBT rights movements throughout the world.”
Having seen publicly, as opposed to media, posted gay pride parade videos, I am appalled at the behavior. That does not mean they need my permission to do what they want but a lack of shame, public indecency and certain other behaviors do not convey a sense of worthwhile pride.
It’s no shame to be a same-sex attracted male but do you have to ride on a float wearing female makeup, a pair of briefs and high heels? I mean, what’s the point?
Peace,
Ed
“Pride, as opposed to shame and social stigma, is the predominant outlook that bolsters most LGBT rights movements throughout the world.”
Having seen publicly, as opposed to media, posted gay pride parade videos, I am appalled at the behavior. That does not mean they need my permission to do what they want but a lack of shame, public indecency and certain other behaviors do not convey a sense of worthwhile pride.
It’s no shame to be a same-sex attracted male but do you have to ride on a float wearing female makeup, a pair of briefs and high heels? I mean, what’s the point?
Peace,
Ed
M
mexolic
Guest
A little off the topic here. I remember some years ago on the O’ Reilly Factor, there was a story about a fire department that was obligated to participate in the town’s local gay pride parade. There were two men on the program debating the fire department’s obligation to participate in the parade. Surprisingly, it was the man from the ACLU opposing the fire department’s mandatory participation. I don’t know what the outcome of the story was. In these politically correct times, I wonder how many other groups, government or private are forced to participate in such parades.
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
NAMBLA was never a big part of gay pride parades, they’ve been banned far longer than they were allowed (formed in 1978, banned in L.A. in 1986).
There has been a growing backlash against gay pride parades by gay people, many gay people opposed the decisions of Mozilla to fire it’s chief. Heck the Advocate even had an article in support of celibate gay people, yes, the Advocate.
E
edwest2
Guest
This may be the story you’re referring to:
lifesitenews.com/news/san-diego-firefighters-win-lawsuit-over-forced-participation-in-gay-pride-p
I have never cared about what is “politically correct.” Whatever that means.
Peace,
Ed
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
I saw a NAMBLA float in the San Francisco Gay Pride Parade in 1998. In 2001 the SF parade honored Harry Hay, founder of the “gay movement”. Harry wrote in one of his “marmoreal declarations”:
“Because if the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they should know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world.”
Frankly I would have suggested that shooting hoops is important too, but silly old me.
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
all I can say is “ewww!”
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
Yes good question. Why are normal people force to stand up for deviants?
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
Do you have any proof NAMBLA was in the 1998 SF gay pride parade?
Harry Hay did not found “the ‘gay movement’”, he was a cofounder of the Mattachine which was started decades after the first state approved LGBT organization.
Harry Hay≠the LGBT movement.
As early as 1980 part of the LGBT movement was working to drive NAMBLA out.
Back to the board after the weekend. Thanks for the reply.
For example, we have the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of age. But it goes on to define “age” as age 40 or older. An employer can refuse to hire a 20-year-old and say, “This is a teenager job!”, and the applicant has no recourse.
This seems to be a common myth, that anything in the selection process that doesn’t seem fair or is unrelated to the qualifications is illegal “discrimination.” One employer refused to hire overweight women on the assembly line because they assumed overweight women were uncoordinated. The aggrieved applicant I knew claimed it was illegal “discrimination.”
As I said in the other post, if someone is not in the class protected by the statute, they’re not protected.
(2) I don’t know what motive gays might have for not including other “orientations.”
I support equal rights for gays and I support exclusion of pedophilia because I support the employer’s right to not hire that person (at least under some circumstances), and also because that’s the only way such a law will pass. The really hard core anti-gays have promoted the scare tactic of employers being forced to hire child molesters, and enough people seem to believe it.
(3) On this proposal:
**“This policy shall not be construed to legitimize or protect any sexual conduct deserving of regulation in the public interest.” **
As I understand it, employers can refuse to hire someone, or fire someone, for conduct anyway if orientation is protected, even without this clause. That’s just common sense; as you said, conduct is not orientation.
If someone talks vulgar in the workplace, that person can be terminated, gay or not; that person wouldn’t be terminated for orientation but for conduct, and certainly the employer would be able to show a solid work-related reason for the termination.
And surely someone wouldn’t have to hire a convicted child molester. Again that person wouldn’t be turned down for their orientation but for possible work-related conduct. In fact if an employer did hire someone like that for a job involving children they could be in for a lot of trouble.
(1) On whether limiting antidiscrimination protection to some orientations and not others would lead to the law being “struck down,” again this is private employment. Private employers can hire as they please unless there’s a form of discrimination forbidden by some statute. The federal equal protection clause does not apply to private employment; there’s no general principle that employment decisions have to be fair, or even sensible.
For example, we have the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of age. But it goes on to define “age” as age 40 or older. An employer can refuse to hire a 20-year-old and say, “This is a teenager job!”, and the applicant has no recourse.
This seems to be a common myth, that anything in the selection process that doesn’t seem fair or is unrelated to the qualifications is illegal “discrimination.” One employer refused to hire overweight women on the assembly line because they assumed overweight women were uncoordinated. The aggrieved applicant I knew claimed it was illegal “discrimination.”
As I said in the other post, if someone is not in the class protected by the statute, they’re not protected.
(2) I don’t know what motive gays might have for not including other “orientations.”
I support equal rights for gays and I support exclusion of pedophilia because I support the employer’s right to not hire that person (at least under some circumstances), and also because that’s the only way such a law will pass. The really hard core anti-gays have promoted the scare tactic of employers being forced to hire child molesters, and enough people seem to believe it.
(3) On this proposal:
**“This policy shall not be construed to legitimize or protect any sexual conduct deserving of regulation in the public interest.” **
As I understand it, employers can refuse to hire someone, or fire someone, for conduct anyway if orientation is protected, even without this clause. That’s just common sense; as you said, conduct is not orientation.
If someone talks vulgar in the workplace, that person can be terminated, gay or not; that person wouldn’t be terminated for orientation but for conduct, and certainly the employer would be able to show a solid work-related reason for the termination.
And surely someone wouldn’t have to hire a convicted child molester. Again that person wouldn’t be turned down for their orientation but for possible work-related conduct. In fact if an employer did hire someone like that for a job involving children they could be in for a lot of trouble.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
I saw the NAMBLA float…it was right between Dykes-on-Bikes and the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.
The SF Chronicle did a considerably flattering obituary on old Harry in 2002:
**“Harry Hay, gay rights pioneer, dies at 90.”
**
The paper favorably notes a number of things in Harry’s life, including his left-leaning politics, his connection with the Communist Party in the 1930s and his founding of “The Mattachine Society,” a group the Chronicle calls "the first sustained homosexual rights organization in the United States."
What the Chronicle left out was that Harry was a fierce advocate of man/boy love.
…and Harry Hay was fighting to keep NAMBLA in.
- Status