Man, this is the standard statement that always gets blasted with the standard response, "We're not welcome here, waa, waa!"
Why didn't the sponsors just say something like, "We don't want a float with a sexual theme to be in the Western Days parade." That seems fair enough to everybody. And that's what this float is all about, no denying it.
Been to Twin Falls, Idaho. Twin Falls, Idaho rocks. Let THOSE FOLKS go back to San Francisco were that lifestyle is fully appreciated.
Quite astute, actually. Because as a behavior, homosexuality is hard to defend in public. Even biologically, it's an absurdity. I remember meeting a medical student in Berkeley, just as liberal as they come, who nevertheless was astonished at the zooeyness of gay men's infections, from promiscuously mixing oral, anal, and genito-urinary bacteria and viruses.
Plus, many (most?) of us reject it as a morally misguided practice in the same general category as fornication, or adultery, or bigamy, or bestiality.
Yes, people do engage in fornication, etc., but they don't (yet) expect to have parade floats to showcase this to their neighbors.
But if you make the claim that this behavior is the core of your personal identity, then, strategically, you swiftly move on to demand that people to affirm you, "You're gay, and that's OK," like saying "You're Italian, and that's OK" or "You're a redhead, and that's OK."
This obscures the fact that homosexuality is a tendency toward a deviant kind of sexual practice. People who object to the public promotion of deviant sex, have every right to object to people parading down main street endorsing man-on-man or woman-on-woman sexual relations.
This is not discriminating against the presence of a "gay person" or a "gay community." This is an objection to a misguided behavior, and a decision not to glorify it in public.
I am concerned, however, about people who apparently think that homosexuality is the core of their personal identity. Seriously, how do you get through to people like that?