Supreme Court Ruling on Same Sex Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
EmperorNapoleon said:
No. NAMBLA has not been welcome to participate since the 1970s.
Click to expand...
Not exactly:
The first documented opposition from LGBT organizations to NAMBLA occurred in the conference that organized the first gay march on Washington in 1979.[18]
Click to expand...
In 1980 a group called the “Lesbian Caucus – Lesbian & Gay Pride March Committee” distributed a hand-out urging women to split from the annual New York City Gay Pride March because the organizing committee had supposedly been dominated by NAMBLA and its supporters.[18] The next year, after some lesbians threatened to picket, the Cornell University gay group Gay PAC (Gay People at Cornell) rescinded its invitation to NAMBLA founder David Thorstad to be the keynote speaker at the annual May Gay Festival.[18] In the following years, gay rights groups attempted to block NAMBLA’s participation in gay pride parades, prompting leading gay rights figure Harry Hay to wear a sign proclaiming “NAMBLA walks with me” as he participated in a 1986 gay pride march in Los Angeles.[19]
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association
 
SuperLuigi said:
So if they get to decide who marches in the pride parade, why can’t the St. Patrick’s Day Parade do the same?
Click to expand...
Umm… because people involved in the parade disagree? As those involved in Pride parades agree that NAMBLA are not welcome? :ehh:

St Patrick’s day is not unique to Orthodox CAF Catholics. It is an Irish festival. The people who just voted overwhelmingly in favour of gay marriage. 🤷
 
DrTaffy said:
Umm… because people involved in the parade disagree? As those involved in Pride parades agree that NAMBLA are not welcome? :ehh:

St Patrick’s day is not unique to Orthodox CAF Catholics. It is an Irish festival. The people who just voted overwhelmingly in favour of gay marriage. 🤷
Click to expand...
Last I checked St. Patrick’s Day had nothing to do with expressing/acknowledging one’s sexuality, in fact, it’s a family friendly parade.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
One man wearing a sign around his neck in 1986 doesn’t change the fact that NAMBLA has been effectively barred from participating in Pride parades for 36 years.
Click to expand...
They participated in parades well into the 80’s, and the LGBT community completely dissociated themselves from NAMBLA in the 90’s.
 
josie_L said:
They participated in parades well into the 80’s, and the LGBT community completely dissociated themselves from NAMBLA in the 90’s.
Click to expand...
Do you have evidence of that? Photographs? Parade rosters? Or are you making an assumption that they were allowed to participate “well into the 80s?”
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
No. NAMBLA has not been welcome to participate since the 1970s.
Click to expand...
In other words, NAMBLA was welcome until someone decided they were a PR deficit in the bid to have gay rights gain more widespread public approval.

Which would mean that once a hesitant public can be massaged a little more towards accepting pedophilia, NAMBLA will be back in the fold, yes?

Slow and steady erosion of moral values will win the race for moral nihilism.

Abortion rights started as “medically necessary,” has moved past first trimester towards a woman’s right and sex selection. Next step is materfamilias - the modern version of the Roman practice of paterfamilias - where the mother will have full rights to decide whether born children should be permitted to live or not.

This is not “new;” all of these are variations on the theme of immorality that have been around since Adam and Eve. Nothing new under the Sun. The question is whether enough modern humans have the moral backbone to resist the onslaught of immorality THIS TIME around?

The fact that a majority of us seem to have devolved into the equivalent of moral jellyfish doesn’t help the matter. On the other hand, God’s power is made manifest in human weakness.
 
Darryl_Revok said:
Yes, I can see where the presence of gay people might cast a pall on the otherwise sober, dignified, tasteful St. Patrick’s Day proceedings.
Click to expand...
I never said that gay people could not be present at a St. Patrick’s parade, my issue is that St. Patrick’s has nothing to do with one’s sexuality and endorsement of said sexuality, hence, there’s no reason why there should be reference to it in the parade itself.

p.s. And St. Patrick’s parades are family friendly despite the revelry of some, or are you contending that it isn’t?
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Do you have evidence of that? Photographs? Parade rosters? Or are you making an assumption that they were allowed to participate “well into the 80s?”
Click to expand...
Did you read what I originally quoted (it states that NAMBLA participated in parades well into the 80’s), or am I supposed to take you at your word that it didn’t (without documentation)?
 
In other words, NAMBLA was welcome until someone decided they were a PR deficit in the bid to have gay rights gain more widespread public approval.
Click to expand...
The gay rights movement was entirely spontaneous, grassroots, and organizationally nebulous in the early years. In other words, it was a little chaotic. There were a lot of organizations and groups, including NAMBLA, that rode on the coat-tails of the movement, but didn’t really have anything to do with gay rights. They were cut loose once definable gay rights leaders emerged and the crowds coalesced into organizations.
Which would meant he that once a hesitant public can be massaged a little more towards accepting pedophilia, NAMBLA will be back in the fold, yes?
Click to expand...
NAMBLA raises some legitimate questions about the legal landscape, but for the wrong reasons. Society will eventually have to grapple with those questions, but that doesn’t mean NAMBLA will ever be accepted.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
NAMBLA raises some legitimate questions about the legal landscape, but for the wrong reasons. Society will eventually have to grapple with those questions, but that doesn’t mean NAMBLA will ever be accepted.
Click to expand...
What are those “wrong” reasons?

Lack of consent?

The bakers aren’t consenting to provide cakes for gay weddings, but are being forced to by the will of some to force consent from those who, in good conscience, do not give their consent.

What assurance is there that consent will ultimately be the cornerstone of this “brave new world” when consent is already being ignored?

From the point of view of the victims of pedophilia, the rights of children to “consent” are quickly being eroded by pro-choice and same sex marriage which completely ignores the interests of children in the matters of family and right to life.
 
josie_L said:
I never said that gay people could not be present at a St. Patrick’s parade, my issue is that St. Patrick’s has nothing to do with one’s sexuality and endorsement of said sexuality, hence, there’s no reason why there should be reference to it in the parade itself.
Click to expand...
As St. Patrick’s has little to do with Ireland, its supposed rationale, reasons are ultimately irrelevant.
p.s. And St. Patrick’s parades are family friendly despite the revelry of some, or are you contending that it isn’t?
Click to expand...
There are exceptions, but the main purpose of St. Patrick’s parades are to provide a socially-acceptable outlet for otherwise respectable people to for drunkenness and thuggery. So it was, time.com/17273/umass-blarney-blowout-descends-into-drunken-chaos/, so it shall presumably always be.
 
Peter_Plato said:
The bakers aren’t consenting to provide cakes for gay weddings, but are being forced to by the will of some to force consent from those who, in good conscience, do not give their consent.
Click to expand...
Completely different subject. Business owners agree to abide by public accommodation law as a condition of operating a business that caters to the general public. They don’t get to pick and choose which parts of the law they will follow particularly when they suddenly find religion only when an LGBT customer walks through the door.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
They don’t get to pick and choose which parts of the law they will follow particularly when they suddenly find religion only when an LGBT customer walks through the door.
Click to expand...
Really? They “suddenly found religion”? Also, I seem to recall when LGBT people walked through the doors of the bakery in Oregon and the florist in Washington, they were happily served before. They weren’t denied access for goods other than wedding cakes and floral arrangements. Clearly they weren’t discriminated against before asking for wedding related items.
 
Suudy said:
Really? They “suddenly found religion”? Also, I seem to recall when LGBT people walked through the doors of the bakery in Oregon and the florist in Washington, they were happily served before. They weren’t denied access for goods other than wedding cakes and floral arrangements. Clearly they weren’t discriminated against before asking for wedding related items.
Click to expand...
👍 No, this is not being recognized at all - this is what the attack on religious liberty is all about. It has nothing to do with defending gay rights. Christianity is no longer tolerated. That’s the key.
 
Suudy said:
Really? They “suddenly found religion”? Also, I seem to recall when LGBT people walked through the doors of the bakery in Oregon and the florist in Washington, they were happily served before. They weren’t denied access for goods other than wedding cakes and floral arrangements. Clearly they weren’t discriminated against before asking for wedding related items.
Click to expand...
That is like saying that it is not discrimination to only allow people to ride in the back of the bus. Refusing only some service is still discrimination.
 
DrTaffy said:
That is like saying that it is not discrimination to only allow people to ride in the back of the bus. Refusing only some service is still discrimination.
Click to expand...
If I go into a kosher deli and ask them to cater a meeting of the American Nazi Party, is it discrimination if they refuse?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top