Posted on 07/19/2004 5:40:38 AM PDT by NRA1995
Philly Pride seeks court order to prevent 'Outfest' evangelism
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
The clarion blowers of 'tolerance' showing their intolerance?
I wish the headline would be more accurate, not all GAYS, many are living quiet lives, they do not protest, they have no agenda, and they want to be left alone. My nephew is gay and he never even talks about being gay. He tries to keep it as much a secret as he can, he doesn't want to be beaten up and made fun of. He lives in quiet obscurity as do his friends. It is the gay activist group who pushes this stuff, not all gays. I know several gay couples and they live quietly, and they don't go to protests or marches. They quite simply want to be left alone. I know one gay couple who has been together 35-40 years. Longer than most hetero marriages.
I thought the courts already ruled that the straights could not keep the gays out of their parades. So why should the gays be able to keep the straights out?
**I thought the courts already ruled that the straights could not keep the gays out of their parades**
What court ruled that?
Sorry to hear about your nephew; hope he finds his way out of that — which is the hope that the "protestors" want to hold up at the "gay" rallies, evidently.
Dan
Not in Boston of all places. gays are not allowed to march in the S.Boston Saint Patrick day parade.
I thought the courts ordered that they be allowed in the last parade.
I understand they are 'blowers'.
I understand their cries, perhaps, could be considered 'clarion'.
But I ask you:
Is it RIGHT?
I didn't read anything about happy/gay people - I only read about perverted HOMOSEXUALS.
Get your language back from the perversions and re-definitions of the leftist radicals.
Not until the hate crime bills get passed, that is.
Well, they scream for us to 'tolerate' their behaviors and yet they don't want to have to 'tolerate' anything they disagree with.
So typical of the left. 'Free speech' means they say what they want and everyone else shuts up.
Exactly, Do not let them "RE-DEFINE" anything. Especially The Constitution, Perversion is not a civil right.
"People are tired of seeing them at our events, and it's becoming a safety issue," Price said. "They [protesters] are trying to incite a riot. Young people, especially, aren't used to them.
Sounds to me like the threat to public safety comes from the young people in the gay pride event, not the protesters.
Tolerance is a term that now means, "Shut up and be afraid of us, or we will go crying to the courts".
More word hijacking.
I actually agree with the gays here. We didn't want the Boy Scouts to be forced to admit gays, and we shouldn't turn around and demand that a gay gathering be forced to admit opponents - and that is what this group is doing, saying they will enter a private gathering against the wishes of the organizers.
Freedom of association is. The same right that allows the Boy Scouts to exclude gays also allows gays to exclude protestors. You can't have it both ways.
Bumper sticker quote of the day.
"Philly Pride" receives public money for their event, the Boy Scouts is a private organization. Besides, IMO this seems more like a free speech than a freedom of association issue.
We should show them we've now tolerated them for far too long...
Boy Scout clubs are private entities. Public marches and parades are not.
What court ruled that?
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled several years back that the South Boston St. Patrick's Day parade organizers could not refuse to let a gay group march in the parade on the grounds that the parade had "no discernible theme" so they couldn't argue that the gay group didn't fit the theme.
For a wonder, the USSC, in a unanimous decision (and a rare moment of sanity), overturned the MA SJC.
The Boy Scouts often use public facilities.
Besides, IMO this seems more like a free speech than a freedom of association issue.
Read the first two paragraphs again:
Philadelphia homosexual activists say they will seek a court to prevent protesters from attending their "pride" events in the future.
But organizers from Repent America, a Philadelphia-based Christian organization, say they will attend the events, even if it means defying a court order and getting arrested.
This isn't about standing across the street from the venue and protesting - if the gays were fighting that, then I would be on the side of the protestors. However, the anti-gay group wants to into the event, whether they are invited or not. Freedom of association.
Wrong. The organizers of a St. Paddy's Day parade won a court case to exclude gays. The flip side is that gays also have the right to exclude protestors from their events.
Homosexuality: Homosexuality is deviant sexual behavior and a mental illness.
Homosexuals: 1) subject their body parts to uses nature did not intend, such activities often presenting immediate risk to the participants; 2) are prone to greater suicide, depression and other mental disorders and deficiencies than the heterosexual population at large; 3) are prone to far greater sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS, than the (normal) heterosexual population; 4) molest young people (pedophilia) at a far greater rate than heterosexuals; 5) engage in degrading sexual promiscuity, oftentimes engaging in risky sex with many partners during the same event; 6) are engaged in aggressive and widespread efforts to indoctrinate our children by introducing the homosexual lifestyle using public schools as the primary indoctrination “vehicle” and likewise, through the movie/music/TV industry, with the dual goals of gaining school-age acceptance of homosexuality and encouraging sexual activity among children, especially same-sex experimentation; 7) view most everything through a mindset heavily biased in favor of the homosexual lifestyle and culture, which renders them mostly useless when asked to opine on matters that normal heterosexuals better resolve.
The mental deficiencies described herein applying to homosexuals should not be confused with the mental deficiencies associated with the garden-variety left wing democrat (socialist/marxist/feminist/environmental/union boss wackos,) which have their own distinct set of mental disorders.
This doesn't even touch on what the Bible has to say about homosexuality.
For a wonder, the USSC, in a unanimous decision (and a rare moment of sanity), overturned the MA SJC.
And that ruling applies as much to this event as it does to the St. Paddy's Day parade. This decision, along with the ruling on the Boy Scouts, are critical protections that we as conservatives have to keep left-wingers from forcing their way into our midsts if we don't want them.
However, that also means that the leftists can exclude US.
I visit gay pride here in CR Iowa every year to see if I know anyone there. I almost never do. The ones who are out and in our faces seem to drive from Iowa City, the liberal mecca of Iowa. So I agree, quite a few gays are in the closet and not drawing attention to themselves.
I read that and felt that the Gays (not all but the ones involved here)have a right to have an event where they can control who comes into the restricted area of the event. Seems reasonable to me. But we read further:
Marcavage also said it's wrong to ban his group because Philly Pride Presents receives direct funding from the city. Price said Philly Pride Presents receives about $22,500 annually in city grants....
Sorry, PP boys, you receive city money you have to be tolerant of others, even those whom you dislike.
It's all about control.
The Boy Scouts use public facilities for their events. The St. Paddy's Day parade in Boston uses public facilities. Both have won the right to exclude gays. This knife, however, cuts both ways.
The real hypocrisy is when the Philadelphia city government condemns the Boy Scouts for exclusion but not the gays.
Where the organizer's of the St. Patricks day parade receiving funds from the city of Boston, as the PP boys are in this case?
I think you hit the nail on the head. If these gay groups were trying to stop people from protesting on the corner, that's one thing. However, it looks like all they're trying to do is exclude these people from marching in their parade. I don't have a problem with that.
The parade uses public streets and receives police support.
I'm curious - why are you arguing so strongly to undermine the concept of freedom of association? We were all appalled that the liberals wanted to force the Boy Scouts to accept gays. Now that we've re-affirmed the right of association, you wish to undermine it - when the anti-gay group could simply apply for a permit and protest from across the street, instead of entering the event.
And the public money routine is also a favorite ploy of the left - if you receive public funds, they believe, then we can control your event. Is that really an argument you wish to adapt?
Elton John has said stars are scared to speak out against war in Iraq because of "bullying tactics" used by the US government to hinder free speech.
"There's an atmosphere of fear in America right now that is deadly. Everyone is too career-conscious," he told New York magazine, Interview.
Sir Elton said performers could be "frightened by the current administration's bullying tactics".
The singer likened the current "fear factor" to McCarthyism in the 1950s.
"There was a moment about a year ago when you couldn't say a word about anything in this country for fear of your career being shot down by people saying you are un-American," he told the magazine.
The singer said things were different in the 1960s.
"People like Bob Dylan, Nina Simone, The Beatles and Pete Seeger were constantly writing and talking about what was going on.
Backlash
"That's not happening now. As of this spring, there have been virtually no anti-war concerts - or anti-war songs that catch on, for that matter," he said.
He voiced concern that it appeared acceptable to speak out if you were pro-Bush, using the example of country singer Toby Keith, but not if you were critical of the President, as in the case of country rock band, the Dixie Chicks.
"On the one hand, you have someone like Toby Keith, who has come out and been very supportive of the Bush administration and the war in Iraq - which is OK because America is a democracy and Toby Keith is entitled to say what he thinks and feels.
"But, on the other hand, the Dixie Chicks got shot down in flames last year for criticising the president. They were treated like they were being un-American, when in fact they have every right to say whatever they want about him because he's freely elected, and therefore accountable."
Sir Elton is currently in New York playing a series of concerts.
Liberals have no concept of the freedom of association.
Forcing one group to accept another group into their own group is anti-freedom.
There has been no such court order - the protest spokesperson was engaging in hyperbole.
Sounds like the mayor is on the protestors side, as well.
They mayor's office hasn't kept up with Supreme Court rulings, apparently.
The BSA had to declare themselves a Christian organization to keep perverted scoutmasters at bay, Homosexuality AKA [Perversion] is not a religion, thanks for clearing that up for us!
No they didn't. The BSA had those guidelines since their inception. SCOTUS simply ruled that, under the implied freedom of association in the First Amendment, that the Boy Scouts had the Constitutional right to continue to exclude them as they always had.
Homosexuality AKA [Perversion] is not a religion, thanks for clearing that up for us!
They do not have to be a religion to have the same right to freedom of association.
O h pulllleaaaaze.
GAys make a stand and a plea for homosexuality, quitely or not. That in itself shows what kind of begging threatening behavior it is. And yes, homophobia is justified.
End of story.
Wait another two years for it to arrive in the United States.
Are you ready to go to jail for your convictions?
Now, now....we all know tolerance only goes ONE WAY.
No, the Boy Scouts are a private organization with certain rules as to who can be a member and participate in their events. Their religious aspect is irrelevant to determining their right of free association.
This seems like a pretty clear case to me. Think of it this way- if this gay group is forced to allow protestors into their event, the same argument could be used to make your church take gay members in.
| Guest Commentary A Pharmacist's View on Gay Marriage By J.R. Schoenle, Pharm.D. (AgapePress) - Having worked with AIDS patients and investigational drug studies for HIV at Johns Hopkins Hospital, I feel a lot of compassion for homosexual persons. But as a professional health care provider, I am compelled to educate people with medical facts regarding same-sex marriage. This is not a "privacy" issue. Gay activists have brought the gay lifestyle into the public square with their demands for "marriage" or "civil union." (The public has not gone into anyone's bedroom; rather, they have brought their bedroom issues out in public.) "Gay marriage" or "civil unions" will give legal protection and government benefits to the gay lifestyle. YOU, the taxpayer, will be paying those government benefits out of YOUR pocket, so you deserve to have an opinion on the subject and you deserve to be informed about facts relating to these same-sex unions. If marriage between man and woman has been with humanity since the beginning of time and has been the cornerstone of every culture and religion, then why is there this "new idea" of what marriage can mean? The idea of "gay marriage" or "civil union" would have been ridiculous 3,000 years ago, 1,000 years ago, 500 years ago, 50 years ago, even 10 years ago. What has changed? The cultural "perception" of homosexuality and the gay lifestyle has changed. Two common myths have been instrumental in this change: (1) 10 percent of the population is homosexual, and (2) people are born with their homosexual orientation. Although the secular media, Hollywood celebrities, and groups such as PFLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians & Gays) still might make these claims, the medical community has rejected them. Research has shown that the incidence of a homosexual orientation is closer to 2 to 3 percent of the population. More importantly, several research projects failed to find the "gay gene." [1] As a matter of fact, had they discovered the gay gene, then gay marriage would become a civil right, since it would be scientifically proved that a person has this orientation as an "inborn" trait, something that cannot be changed. [2] The gay gene would be the most important piece of scientific evidence to convince you, the taxpayer, to pay government benefits for the gay lifestyle. Had they found the gay gene, you would have read about it in newspapers and magazines and seen it on TV; you would probably still be seeing it every single day. There would be a "test" for the gay gene, just as there are tests for other genetic traits. So if there is no gay gene, then what causes a homosexual orientation? Most scientists agree that a combination of factors influence it. [3] Interestingly, many people have changed from a homosexual orientation to a heterosexual orientation with and without therapy. [4] No matter what our orientation, we do choose our lifestyle (which is tremendously influenced by what is permissible and encouraged in our culture.) With all of this research, why is there so much confusion? Prior to 1973, "homosexual orientation" was listed as a diagnosable mental disorder in the DSM-III-R, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association. In 1973, psychiatrists who were members of The American Psychiatric Association took a poll and voted on whether or not to remove "homosexual orientation" from this book of diagnoses. The vote was taken, and by a very slim margin, the vote sided on removing this diagnosis. There was no new information regarding the orientation (i.e., there hadn't been any research to warrant the justification of this action); they simply took a vote. This event initiated the cultural perception that homosexual orientation and behavior is a natural phenomenon and therefore should not be "treated" but should be accepted and even encouraged -- e.g., "out of the closet." But should the gay lifestyle be encouraged? Health care professionals are familiar with the medical challenges of homosexual men living the gay lifestyle. For you, the taxpayer, to be willing to pay government benefits for gay marriage or civil unions, you should consider what lifestyle your tax dollars will be supporting. Remember, homosexual activity began "coming out of the closet" in 1973. Just eight short years later, in 1981, we have the first reported cases of an "unknown" disease killing gay men. AIDS has arrived. Why do so many diseases target gay men? The body is not built for sodomy. "The anus opens into the rectum which is not as well suited for penile penetration as the female vagina is. Both the anus and rectum have rich blood supplies, and their walls, thinner than the walls of the vagina, are easily damaged. When penetration occurs, it's easier to tear blood vessels, which in turn increases the risk of acquiring or receiving an infection as penile skin and/or semen comes in contact with the partner's blood or semen." [5] Another risk is caused by bacteria and other organisms present in feces; Entamoeba and Giardia can cause chronic diarrhea. Many will suffer from "gay bowel syndrome." Anal intercourse is "high risk behavior" because so many diseases can be spread from this misuse of the body, including HIV, Hepatitis A, B, and C, and a wide range of other sexually transmitted diseases. What About Condoms and 'Safe Sex'? For males who use a condom 100 percent correctly, studies have shown that latex condoms have a:
For 20 years, condoms have been distributed extensively; now the study results on latex condom effectiveness and the CDC statistics on sexually transmitted diseases reflect how relatively ineffective they are. The NIH, CDC, and medical professionals still promote the use of latex condoms as "safer sex," especially for HIV prevention. Unfortunately, most people simply don't know the real risks that are involved when they rely on a condom. Disease spread in gay/bisexual men is especially problematic because this lifestyle almost always includes multiple sexual partners. More partners means more disease. (Remember, condoms offer little or no protection against the spread of many diseases.) In addition, homosexual men living the gay lifestyle have a higher rate of depression, pornography use, alcoholism, drug abuse and suicide. [11,12] We all need to be compassionate toward those men trapped in this unhealthy lifestyle. But legitimizing homosexual marriage or civil unions will undoubtedly encourage experimentation in this lifestyle. From a medical and ethical perspective, this will have tragic consequences for individuals as well as society. What About AIDS? In the past 17 years, medications to combat HIV have been developed, which has decreased the numbers of persons with HIV progressing to an AIDS disease. A person diagnosed with HIV will be put on a complicated drug regimen (three or four drugs). The patient will be on these drugs, which have very unpleasant side effects, for life. However, one catastrophic problem combating HIV is that a person who is HIV-positive and receiving medication is still able to infect other people. The number of people in the U.S. that are HIV-positive has continued to grow. There are approximately 42,000 Americans infected with HIV each year (74 percent men, 26 percent women). The CDC estimates that 25 percent of persons who are HIV-positive are unaware they are infected, and 50 percent of all new diagnoses occur in persons younger than 25 years. Persons who have other sexually transmitted diseases (with sores) have a two-to-three times greater risk for becoming infected with HIV. It is now estimated that there are between 900,000 and 1,000,000 persons in the U.S. who are HIV-positive (included in that estimate are 400,000 to 450,000 gay/bisexual men). The medical community anticipates that there will soon be a large increase in AIDS; in the first three months of this year, there have already been 8,910 new cases diagnosed. In addition to the physical, psychological, and emotional devastation of HIV/AIDS is the high cost of treatment. The wholesale cost for the combination drug therapies treating HIV is about $14,000 annually per patient. (Medication costs can be much higher depending on the drugs included in the regimen.) A study completed in 2002 estimated that costs treating patients who had progressed to an AIDS disease were around $34,000 annually per patient. [14] Variations in this approximation include medications, hospitalization, diagnostic costs and clinic costs. The health care costs of AIDS diseases and drugs for treating HIV have impacted your health insurance premiums tremendously. The direct costs of HIV/AIDS are similar to other very serious illnesses; however, the indirect costs are higher since HIV affects predominantly working-age persons. [15] In recent years, the media has influenced public opinion about the gay lifestyle with emotion, but not with facts. When was the last time you read about the negative consequences of the gay lifestyle, including current epidemiological information about HIV or AIDS in the U.S.? Homosexual women do have different issues from homosexual men. This letter limits the discussion to men because the obvious public health threat from the lifestyle of gay men provides legitimate reasons for taxpayers to form an educated opinion against gay marriage and civil unions. Some states allow gay couples to adopt children even though there are many studies which confirm that children do not "thrive" as well in households parented by a single gender. Government programs such as Big Brothers Big Sisters were developed because we know that children need gender identification. Today some people claim that the children of gay couples do just as well as the children being raised by a father/mother. Sociologists Stacey and Biblarz reviewed the research studies currently available on same-sex couples raising children. Their review article in the American Sociological Review 2001 found that children of lesbian couples were "more likely to engage in homosexual behavior and less likely to conform to traditional gender norms." An additional significant finding was that daughters of lesbian couples were "more sexually adventurous and less chaste." The review also determined that lesbian "co-parenting relationships" have a higher incidence of breaking up than heterosexual ones. (We know that family structure has profound effects on children. For years people proclaimed that children weren't hurt by divorce, and now a multitude of studies, books, and testimonials prove that hypothesis was false.) What can we learn from countries where gay marriage is legal? On May 3, 2004, a study was released from Sweden, which compared married gay couples to married heterosexual couples. Results showed that gay male couples were 50 percent more likely to divorce and lesbian couples were 167 percent more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples On May 27, 2004, Australian Prime Minister John Howard announced plans for Australia to ban gay marriage and to prohibit gay couples from adopting children from foreign countries. Based on the scientific data available from the past 30 years, this logical and practical decision is confirmed by human nature, natural law and common sense. This is not a "privacy" issue. Without prompt action, YOU, the American taxpayer, will be paying for government benefits for gay marriage or civil unions out of YOUR pocket. Exercise your voice on this issue facing our country right now. Gay activists have used emotion and intimidation to distract us from the facts, and they are depending on taxpayer ignorance or apathy toward this situation to accomplish their goal. We will all live with the consequences of what happens with this issue. Speak now ... or forever hold your peace! Support the Federal Marriage Amendment. Contact your state senators who will be debating and voting on this issue during the week of July 12. You can sign a petition and send an e-mail to your senators via the website NoGayMarriage.com. References [1] McGuire, T. (1995) Is homosexuality genetic? A critical review and some suggestions. Journal of Homosexuality. 28,1/2:115-145 [2] Green, R. (1988) The immutability of (homo) sexual orientation: Behavioral science implications for a constitutional analysis. Journal of Psychiatry and Law. 16,4:537-575 [3] Bradley, S., Zucker, K. (1997) Gender identity disorder: A review of the past 10 Years. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 34,7:872-880 [4] Throckmorton, W. (1996) Efforts to modify sexual orientation: A review of outcome literature and ethical issues. Journal of Mental Health and Counseling. 20, 4:283-305 [5] Meeker, Meg M.D. Epidemic: How Teen Sex is Killing Our Kids. Washington, DC. Lifeline Press, 2002. p. 152 [6] Ibid pp.106-110 [7] National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institute of Health, Department of Health and Human Services. Workshop Summary: Scientific Evidence on Condom Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention, July 20, 2001 [8] Citing "Failed Efforts" to Inform Public of Condom "Ineffectiveness," Physician Groups, Politicians Ask CDC Head to Resign. July 25, 2001. Daily HIV/AIDS Report, The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation (Kaisernetwork.org). Internet on-line. http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?hint=1&DR_ID=5980 [9] Federal Panel on Condoms Offers Crucial Warnings to Sexually Active Americans, Says The Medical Institute for Sexual Health. NIH Condom Report Press Release. Media Advisories, Austin, Texas: The Medical Institute for Sexual Health, July 19, 2001 [10] A. Wald, A.G.M. Langenberg, K. Link, et. al., Effect of Condoms on Reducing the Transmission of Herpes Simplex Virus Type 2 from Men to Women. Journal of the American Medical Association 285 (2001):3100-3106 [11] Mulry, G., Kalichman, S.,Kelly,J. (1994) Substance use and unsafe sex among gay men: Global versus situational use of substances. Journal of Sex Educators and Therapy. 20,3:175-184 [12] Fergusson, D., Horwood, L., Beautrais, A. (1999) Is sexual orientation related to mental health problems and suicidality in young people? Archives of General Psychiatry. 56, 10:876-888 [13] Goldberg, Bernard. BIAS: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News. Washington, DC. Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2002 Chapter 6: (AIDS) Epidemic of Fear. [14] XIV International AIDS Conference;UAB's Unique Research Contributions. Internet on-line http://www.health.uab.edu/show.asp?durki=53217 [15] Glied, Sherry. "Economics, from the Encyclopedia of Aids." Internet on-line. http://www.thebody.com/encyclo/economics.html Scripture texts supporting marriage or warning against homosexual behavior: © 2004 AgapePress all rights reserved. |
Freebird>: Bumper sticker quote of the day.
Yes it is! wish i had one for my Truck, I imagine they would sell like hotcakes.
Radical homosexuals are the worst type of vermin that creep across this land.
This event is a STREET FESTIVAL. Are you really arguing that during this festival on a public street, Christians will be barred from walking on the street?
So now the streets are only for "good people" (i.e. liberals) and Christians must not show their faces?
WTF?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.