Say Anything Blog

I’m confused on your logic, MI.  this “family visibility action” thing that this group is doing is designed to draw attention to these people’s sexuality when this event has nothing to do with sexuality in the first place.  Why do you critize Mr. Tooley for calling them out on it instead of critizing these “families” for selfishly bringing attention to themselves and potentially ruining a perfectly fine and fun day for many people?

Shocked I am too, they should have been attacking this at the same time that they forcing their religion on others at the holidays.

Better watch out man, they are likely to start calling you names with posts like this.

Whatever happened to majority rule? Let’s put it to a vote.  Since the gay activists are trying to push their lifestyle on the majority of us by declaring themselves “families” that subject is obviously in question. This is just another example of the lefties trying to dictate to us what is acceptable and what is not, regardless of what the American people would freely choose.

richard: Thanks for the support. It seems to me that it is the gay activists who are attempting to politicize Easter, which is the celebration of the core of Christianity, the Resurrection of Christ.  I expected these attacks, after what happened at Christmas.

robert love your point.

Free: That goes with the territory.
Rob: My point is that the term “gay families” has yet to be established, and is part and parcel of the “gay marriage” agenda which is being enforced on us these days.  They crave acceptance for their lifestyle, so just attending is a “statement”, unfortunately. I guess the publicity is the giveaway.

Baldy,
I think most people here could give a shit if you are gay. Just don’t shove it down our throat, ok.

For me I guess a lot of this depends on what the gay families who want to attend plan on doing.  If they are there to “make a statement” and draw attention to their sexuality they have no place attending.  It is an event for children, and activism has no place in it.

If they are there to simply enjoy the event I think they should be welcome.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

You are joking, I assume. I heard about this and was annoyed. It seems tacky to try to upstage a fun children’s thing with a political action. Oh, and I’m gay, by the way.

[...] Characterizing an effort encouraging gay and lesbian families to attend the annual event as “crashing”, Tooley tries to define this public event as only being open to the children of heterosexual parents. Continue reading at Say Anything [...]

What brought that on? My being gay seemed pretty pertinent to the topic.

robert:

It is a fine line to draw.  If all they are going to do is attend and observe, I have no problem.  If they are going to try and provoke something or hold up signs, I say kick ‘em out.  There are plenty of places for that sort of thing, let the kids have their fun.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Baldy:  We don’t care if you gay, purple, or half-turtle.  You can state your opinion and it hold as much weight as anyones.  The idea that you have to ligitimize your opinion is one the Left promotes.

Robert108:  You make a valid point with defining the term. 

However, as others have said: those who are there for the kid’s enjoyment would be “families” all others are “activists”

Isn’t the event “invitation only”? Any attempt to observe the event, without an invitation, would be criminal trespass. An organized effort to do so ("organized crime") would probably fall under RICO.

robert108 wrote:

I expected these attacks, after what happened at Christmas.

Dave: If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.
To All: Simply attending the event as “a family” accomplishes the goal of the activists.  I guess I wasn’t clear about that. They are not families, and are seeking legitimacy as such. We should vote on that one, and if a majority wants to call them “families”, then so be it.  If not, they should STFU and quit trying to push their agenda on us.

Dave: If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

IOW, nothing.

Baldy, welcome to SA, There are mines over there> and mines over there

It seems to me as if these activists don’t mind using their adopted children and the children of others to advance their “cause”.

Rob,
Good neutral position.  I agree.  If they were to bring their adopted children to the event just for their children, I’m also ok about it, if they “don’t ask, don’t tell”.  The same as the other families there.  We don’t know if there are any different named children there, or if the parents are married, or divorced, etc.  That shoud be privat.

However, this seems to be a statement, and could be very detremental to the children attending.

Dave: If you really don’t know what happened at Christmas(and before that) in the lefties’ War on Christianity, read this:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5181

Your link contained exactly one mention of the word “Christmas,” an offhand reference to a “War on Christmas” in the second-to-last paragraph of a really hysterical article. (My favorite line?  “ ‘Neoconservatives,’ or in other words Jews, were also reviled.” )

So, from your link, I’ve gathered that the entire “War on Christmas” was a May, 2005 conference meeting by the New York Open Center criticizing the Religious Right that aired on C-SPAN.

The author of your previous article also has this doozy about the “War on Christmas” (a phrase which is, of course, a huge insult to the veterans of actual wars, but anyway...).

Cinnamon Stillwell, take it away!

Upon leaving a San Francisco shop last week, I wished the clerk a cheery “Merry Christmas,” only to be met with a surly “Happy Holidays” in return. With that simple exchange, our positions at opposite ends of the political spectrum were revealed.

If the fighting in the War on Christmas escalates much more...I hate to say it, but we may not even have a Christmas this year. We need to take our troops out of Iraq and into the Customer Service sections of Wal-Mart and Target.

Well, Dave, you can interpret anything any way you want.  This is but one example of the war on Christianity being waged by the lefties in this country.  It manifested as the War on Christmas, and will probably escalate again around Easter.  I really don’t care if you are in denial about it.

I think what the group will be trying to do is spotlight the fact that many families are really families, even though they may not yet be legally recognized as such because of adoption restrictions in many states.

This should not be seen as over-the-top shoving-of-family down the throats of innocent Americans, but rather as an attempt to fit in like any other family would (which is, I think, MI’s point).

Don’t worry about it. No need to discuss it any further.
Just put Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell at the gate to check for credentials.

Isn’t the event “invitation only”?

No, it’s open to the public.

[T]his “family visibility action” thing that this group is doing is designed to draw attention to these people’s sexuality when this event has nothing to do with sexuality in the first place.

But that’s true only in the way that it’s true of heterosexual families. In other words, it’s incidental and we cannot help knowing it.

In the traditional nuclear family, we know where the kids came from and how they got here, do we not? Indeed, if any of the mothers show up pregnant, we get a good sense of what they and their husbands have been doing lately. Would you say they were drawing attention to their sexuality? Or is their sexuality merely an unavoidable implication of who they are?

In the traditional nuclear family, we know where the kids came from and how they got here, do we not? Indeed, if any of the mothers show up pregnant, we get a good sense of what they and their husbands have been doing lately.

Good, but not great, as 10% of children are not the biological child of their mother’s husband.

Just kidding.

Would you say they were drawing attention to their sexuality? Or is their sexuality merely an unavoidable implication of who they are?

Good point.

I think most people here could give a shit if you are gay. Just don’t shove it down our throat, ok.

LOL

Another point: People who self-describe as “homosexual” are defining themselves in terms of their sexual preference, to the exclusion of everything else.  Heterosexuals generally don’t do that.

Paul: Describing oneself as a Republican or a Democrat only concerns matters of politics, not sexuality.  If you self-describe as “homosexual” you are separating yourself from the other 95% of humanity. They are not equivalent.  Fallacy of composition.

Woof: I agree that it’s a bad pun, even though a true sentiment.

Another point: People who self-describe as “homosexual” are defining themselves in terms of their sexual preference, to the exclusion of everything else.

That’s a fallacy of logic. If I self-describe as a Republican, am I defining myself in terms of my political preference, to the exclusion of everything else? Or is my self-description limited to the context in which it applies?

We can be many things all at once.

Paul, very true. Hence the context dictates the definition. You proclaim yourself a Gayrights Activist, you are defining yourself solely on your sexuality. Cause&Effect.

Describing oneself as a Republican or a Democrat only concerns matters of politics, not sexuality.

So? Why, exactly, does your globalization apply only to (homo)sexuality and not to politics? Is the homosexual label the only label people can use, in your words, ”to the exclusion of everything else”? If so, why?

By the way, if I describe myself as a Republican, I’ve also “separated myself from most of humanity,” inasmuch as most of humanity is not Republican. (The same is true, incidentally, if I say I’m a Democrat.) But I fail to see what this assertion has to do with your earlier claim that the homosexual label is uniquely all-encompassing. For even if I have distinguished myself from others by taking the label “homosexual” or “Republican,” in neither case does it follow that I have taken that label to the “exclusion of everything else.”

I got a feelin’ . . . Pittsburgh’s goin’ to the Super Bowl!

Another point: People who self-describe as “homosexual” are defining themselves in terms of their sexual preference, to the exclusion of everything else. Heterosexuals generally don’t do that.

Believe it or not, homosexuals generally don’t define themselves exclusively by their sexual preference either.  The fact that they are gay is just as natural a part of their life as being straight is a natural part of your life.  But because of the institutionalized descrimination in this country, they are forced to be more political to obtain the same rights heterosexuals have.

Paul: Wrong again.  It isn’t the term itself that is exclusive, it is the way it is used by the people who use it.  In my experience, the result is desired. It isn’t enough for a lot of homosexuals simply to enjoy their sexuality in private.  They want the “right” to do it in public, and not only that, with public approval.  I think homosexuals relate to their sexuality as an integral part of their identity, by and large, whereas one’s political affiliation is only relevant when the subject is politics.  Can I make it any clearer, or is it that you just don’t want to understand?  Maybe it conflicts with your PC ideology.

I got a feelin’ . . . Pittsburgh’s goin’ to the Super Bowl!

Seeing how you made this comment 1/2 hour after the game ended… I think you’re right!

Paul: Another flaw in your parallelism: Most homosexual spokespeople now insist that their homosexuality is genetic, that it is hardwired, and not a matter of choice.  Therefore, it is integral to their identity, which was my original point.  Political affiliation, as far as I know, is entirely a matter of choice, and can and does change back and forth, according to information received by the individual.  Not exactly parallel, unless you are contending that homosexuality is entirely a matter of choice.

It isn’t enough for a lot of homosexuals simply to enjoy their sexuality in private.

Yes, that’s quite true. It’s true because sexual conduct and sexual orientation are not synonymous, and while we all, I trust, make an effort to keep our sexual conduct private, almost none of us make an effort to keep our sexual orientation private. This explains, among myriad other things, why people have their weddings in public, or a put a picture of their spouse on their desk at work or take their children to a White House egg hunt.

But we’re now far afield from your original claim (subsequently modified; see comment ante at 6:28 p.m.) that “[p]eople who self-describe as “homosexual” are defining themselves in terms of their sexual preference, to the exclusion of everything else.”

Which brings me to this:

Paul, checked out your blog. Very nice. Though in this thread you seem confused. These Gayrights Activists have loudly and publicly declared for the whole world to hear and see that they are INFACT Gayrights Activists. Their intention is to insinuate themselves into a children’s Easter event for the exclusive purpose of forcing their Gayrights agenda upon everyone else.

First, thanks for the visit and for the compliment.

My comments here weren’t so much intended as a defense of what anyone else is doing, but as a response to the quite unsupportable assertion that if you describe yourself as a homosexual, you perforce do so to the “exclusion of everything else.” For reasons of fact, logic and equity, few would think to make such a claim about heterosexuals; for the same reasons, it doesn’t apply to homosexuals.

Paul, checked out your blog. Very nice. Though in this thread you seem confused. These Gayrights Activists have loudly and publicly declared for the whole world to hear and see that they are INFACT Gayrights Activists. Their intention is to insinuate themselves into a children’s Easter event for the exclusive purpose of forcing their Gayrights agenda upon everyone else. They have made their sexuality the sole parameter by which they are judged. Not us.

Dave: Normal is the norm; what most people do.  You can look it up.  Since 95%, more or less, of the population is heterosexual, I think it qualifies as “normal” to be heterosexual.

Paul: Your attempt to equate homosexuality and heterosexuality in some way reveals the flaw in your thinking.  Heterosexuality is the key to the furtherance of the human race; homosexuality, at its best, is entertainment.  Gay sex is completely recreational, whereas heterosexual sex is often for procreational purposes.  They are not parallel.  Many things apply to homosexual sex that do not apply to heterosexual sex, and vice versa.  Heterosexual sex is categorically normal, whereas homosexual sex is not normal, since it is an exercise in entertainment.  The homosexual population has something to prove, which is the original subject of this thread.  No such motive applies to heterosexuals.

Heterosexual sex is categorically normal, whereas homosexual sex is not normal

What’s your definition of “normal”?

Now why not address the small fact that 2% of the populace is trying to force 98% of the populace to accept behavior they do not agree with.

Good point, MI. Stop shoving your “agenda” down others throats. If they want it there, they will ask for it.

Robert said:

Dave: Normal is the norm; what most people do. You can look it up. Since 95%, more or less, of the population is heterosexual, I think it qualifies as “normal” to be heterosexual.

Less than 50 percent of the world is male.  Most people in the world aren’t male… and that means males aren’t normal!  Egad!  We must not allow men to get married!

Less than 5 percent of North Dakota’s population is composed of Native Americans - they are definitely not normal, right?  We must make sure they don’t mingle with uncontaminated “normal” people!

Because I’m part Swedish, and people of Swedish ancestry only make up 5 percent of North Dakota’s demographics, I’m not normal!  I should not be allowed to vote, adopt kids, run for office, or marry.  Because doing any of that is purely recreational and won’t further the “normal” human race.

People that live in Fargo are more numerous than those that live in Minot.  Therefore, people who live in Fargo are normal while people who live in Minot are not, because most people live in Fargo.  Minot residents aren’t normal!

North Dakota is the only state with a state-owned bank and a state-owned grain elevator.  We’re all definitely not normal and should immediately leave for the very un-normal Canada (there are way more Americans than Canadians, and therefore we are more normal than them), where they like socialists like us.

Extending the logic of bigotry to its obvious conclusions is fun!

That was fun, Ryan. Now why not address the small fact that 2% of the populace is trying to force 98% of the populace to accept behavior they do not agree with. For no other reason than they just really want to. And allow me to reiterate one more time, I don’t think any government should be involved in your familial choices. Now take this and spin out into a silly extreme that makes no sense.

distinction without a difference, you decide.

Now why not address the small fact that 2% of the populace is trying to force 98% of the populace to accept behavior they do not agree with.

I don’t think that gay people care whether you think they are “acceptable” or not, as long as you don’t try to shove your opinion down their throat.

Robert said:

The logical fallicies in your post are breathtaking! Homosexuality is a behavior, and behaviors can properly be evaluated as being either normal or abnormal, according to how common the behavior.

Is eating lefsa normal?  How about a healthy appetite for potatoes instead of wheat?  Is waking up at 11:30 normal, or do normal people wake up at 6:30?  Should I, in order to be normal, start every day by eating breakfast, or am I abnormal because I only eat two meals a day?

Normal is really a word from psychology and isn’t applicable to any of the other categories you named. It certainly has nothing to do with bigotry.

Gay people are suffering from a psychological disorder?

Your leftie ideology has rendered you stupid.

I’m not talking about “leftie” ideology.  I’m talking about your ideology and obvious conclusions it leads to.

I’m not queer or anything, but all this talk about gays shoving things down people’s throats is really turning me on.

RyanG: The logical fallicies in your post are breathtaking!  Homosexuality is a behavior, and behaviors can properly be evaluated as being either normal or abnormal, according to how common the behavior.  It is normal for a person born in Sweden to be Swedish, but that is so obvious as to be meaningless.  In other words, place of residence, country of origin or business practices can be characterized as being normal or abnormal, I suppose, but that is simply stupid.  Normal is really a word from psychology and isn’t applicable to any of the other categories you named.  It certainly has nothing to do with bigotry.  Your leftie ideology has rendered you stupid.

I’m not queer or anything, but all this talk about gays shoving things down people’s throats is really turning me on.

You know how I know you’re gay?  Because you macramed yourself a pair of jean shorts.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

RyanG: Please stick to your own thinking; you have no idea what or how I think.  Your ideology has misled you.  I never said gays “suffer from a psychological disorder”. I said that gay behavior is not normal.  You made up the rest out of your distorted perception of me, stemming from your warped leftie ideology.
If you don’t what is normal, it’s not my place to inform you.  Ask your parents.
As a Californian, I think living in a cold climate isn’t normal, but that’s just my opinion.  I’m not saying that people who live somewhere else are “suffering from a psychological disorder”.  Just wanted to be clear about that.
Why are you so reactive to the concept of normality?  You seem very defensive on the subject. 
I’m not ideologically driven, btw.  What is, is, and what isn’t, isn’t.  I’m pretty much into common sense and clear thinking.  I don’t go with emotional reaction, like the lefties do.  Your feelings are your business, not my responsibility. I don’t allow lefties to practice emotional blackmail on me, and try to discourage it wherever I find it.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

You know how I know you’re gay?  I saw you make a spinach dip in a loaf of sour dough bread once.

MI: Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

chief:

The fact that you confuse GLBT Americans with cat fuckers tells me all I need to know about your tiny, bigoted mind.

As a Californian, I think living in a cold climate isn’t normal, but that’s just my opinion

Imagine my relief.

bob:

I know I’m going to regret this, but I have to ask:

If a gay couple lives together, are committed to each other, own property together, and raise children together, how are they NOT a family?

bob:

Your pal chief is talking about incestuous cat fuckers, but I’m the deraged one.

What a strange lil’ man you are…

TW: I guess I need to state this: Saying that something is normal or abnormal is not a value judgment, per se.  It is simply a statement of fact.  I understand that a lot of people like cold, snowy, freeze-your-a** off weather, but I don’t consider them bad or wrong for liking it(Not that there’s anything wrong with that).  I think it’s obvious that lefties are very sensitive on the “gay” issue, and feel compelled by their emotions to mount a fierce defense when they get a whiff of anything that they think is negative about it, even though common sense tells us that there are good and bad aspects to any kind of behavior.  Somehow, for the lefties, homosexuality has become infallible(like the Pope) and speaking against it in any way is heresy.  It’s funny to watch, IMO.

Or, if 2 men, three women one cat live together with incest and are committed, are they a family?  NO.  A marriage is one man and one woman.  A family can come from a broken marriage.  A “family” can be the state taking responsibility for a child, etc.  More later if you are seriously ready to let us vote on the question.

Don: Your hatred for diversity of opinion is always a reminder to me of how deranged lefties truly are.
My answer to your question:  They are a gay family, which differentiates them from normal families. Lumping things together for political correctness is, IMO, a mark of stupidity.

Maybe I was expressing relief you weren’t coming to live here.  Just kidding, one word of warning those stories about Eskimo wives does not apply in North Dakota.

Funny about the PC aspects of homosexuality.  Back prior to the infernalnet I made a smartass (surprise) comment on a BBS.  I was quite taken aback by the reaction I got.

Don: Your comment is a perfect illustration of your hatred for anyone who has an opinion different from yours.  You reply by spitting insults instead of offering clear thinking to the contrary.  I think hating someone because they have a different opinion is deranged, btw. The Chief gave an extreme example of your definition of family, and you can’t deal with it in an intelligent manner, so you spew hate. He never mentioned having intercourse with a cat, btw; that was your thinking. Dig yourself, man.

RyanG: One more time: You tried to make “normal” apply to many things, and I said that “normal” in the sense I used it applied to behavior.  Its origin for that usage is in psychology.  People who get sexually aroused by latex clothing are also not normal. It is also probably not normal to have a loathing for broccoli, cats or spiders.  I still didn’t say that gays “suffer from a psychological disorder”.  Your fevered imagination produced that one.  Once again, “normal” means that it isn’t typical of a majority of the population, and so homosexual preference is not “normal”, since it is only favored by about 5% of the population.  It is normal, though, for human populations to be about 50/50 male/female. It would not be normal to have a population to have a 90/10 ration of men to women, either way, although that would not constitute “suffering from a psychological disorder”.  Got it?

Congratulations Chief!!! You have made the donnie boy"Gay man standing in the middle of the room screaming till everyone agrees” wall of shame with a single post! We are so proud. That honor and a dollar will get you a free cup of soy-coffee. Don’t you feel special?!?

Robert said:

I never said gays “suffer from a psychological disorder”. I said that gay behavior is not normal.

But also said:

Normal is really a word from psychology and isn’t applicable to any of the other categories you named.

So… yeah… what was your point again?

robert108:

One more time: You tried to make “normal” apply to many things, and I said that “normal” in the sense I used it applied to behavior. (............) Got it?

I really like how you get to change definitions whenever it suits your purposes, you creepy weirdo.*

*"Creepy weirdo” is just another synonym “abnormal.” I’m referring to your perverted practice of being a male, a lifestyle a minority of humans have.

Dave: Your name-calling is so persuasive(not). You left out the part where I pointed out that it is normal for human populations to be somewhere around 50/50 male/female. I also know it’s normal for you to ignore anything that refutes your ideology and to name-call when you have no sensible response.
Of course, being male(or female) isn’t a “practice”, it’s a genetic pattern.  I guess you believe that is also the case with homosexuality, even though a simple understanding of evolution would indicate that as being unlikely.

RyanG: Opinions aside, as far as I know, there is no established proof of a “gay gene” or of a “gay genetic formation”.  As a common sense argument, it would go against evolution to have gay creatures, in the human sense of the word.  You are guilty of rampant anthropomorphism, at the very least.  Heterosexuality, on the other hand, is absolutely necessary for the perpetuation of any species that reproduces through sexual activity.  At most, homosexuality in humans might be a random or regular mutation, but it is probably a social adaptation.  In animals, who knows?  Since they can’t share their thinking with us, we speculate on the meaning of their activities, and we put a human spin on them, depending on the observer’s point of view.

Robert said:

I guess you believe that is also the case with homosexuality, even though a simple understanding of evolution would indicate that as being unlikely.

You must not watch TV.

But no, seriously, why hasn’t anyone told this scientist there’s no such thing as gay animals?

robert108 wrote:

RyanG: Opinions aside, (...) you are guilty of rampant anthropomorphism.