Wisconsin capitol flies the LGBTQ flag

[Aldebaran]

It doesn't say anything relevant to the point I made.

My point, again, was that decades of gross mistreatment of people can lead to a backlash. What the pride parades have become (at least sometimes) is part of that backlash.

A group of gay people forming a parade to flaunt what they like to do has nothing to do with being officially recognized by a state government by flying its flag over the state capitol. Many universities are also doing it, although I have a feeling that they couldn't care less if it offends anyone. Some UW campuses raising pride flags, but not UW-Madison

 

[Aldebaran]

I would say it does. Again, gross emotional or other abuse directed in families towards gay people is one of the factors - a major factor, I would guess - that helped to create what is now "pride."

Please note, this post does not say or suggest anything about affirming everyone's behavior as great, etc. But it does refer to actions such as

• refusing to acknowledge that your child exists
  
• throwing your underage child out of the house
• throwing your barely of age child out of the house
• beating your child up
• verbal / physical rages
• "shunning" your child without actually throwing them out

and so on.

Pride is a strange word to use for that.
Would it matter to them if such a display of endorsement for LGBTQ was considered by many to be offensive? That used to be all that mattered until just recently. Or does it matter who is offended?
Gay Pride Flag at Beverly Restaurant Stirs Up Controversy

Rainbow flag removed from Stevens High School after complaints

City Receives Many Complaints, Few Compliments about Pride Flag | NCFL Independent

 

[archer75]

A group of gay people forming a parade to flaunt what they like to do has nothing to do with being officially recognized by a state government by flying its flag over the state capitol. Many universities are also doing it, although I have a feeling that they couldn't care less if it offends anyone. Some UW campuses raising pride flags, but not UW-Madison

Your post 61 is not a response to anything that I have said on this thread.

I did not understand your post 62. To what does "that" refer?

Edit: I now get your post 61. Sorry. Still, there is no reasom not to think that abusing people does not bring about a backlash.

 

[hedrick]

How many cities and states celebrate St Patrick's day? Politicians want to be identified with causes that they think are important or popular with their constituents.

 

[Aldebaran]

Your post 61 is not a response to anything that I have said on this thread.

I did not understand your post 62. To what does "that" refer?

"That" refers to what you were talking about.

 

[archer75]

How many cities and states celebrate St Patrick's day? Politicians want to be identified with causes that they think are important or popular with their constituents.

Good point.

 

[archer75]

"That" refers to what you were talking about.

The actions I listed can contribute to what is now gay pride by beating people down so bad that after many decades and increased communication among those people, there is a backlash.

 

[Aldebaran]

The actions I listed can contribute to what is now gay pride by beating people down so bad that after many decades and increased communication among those people, there is a backlash.

They can backlash all they want. They can even take a symbol that God created as a promise to mankind and turn it into a symbol of perversion if they want, and they can hang it outside the front door of their house. But for a government to use fly it over their buildings could very well be offensive to many people, as I've already indicated.

 

[archer75]

They can backlash all they want. They can even take a symbol that God created as a promise to mankind and turn it into a symbol of perversion if they want, and they can hang it outside the front door of their house. But for a government to use fly it over their buildings could very well be offensive to many people, as I've already indicated.

But I thought no one was supposed to care about offending anyone? And that worrying about it was falling prey to political correctness.

 

[Aldebaran]

But I thought no one was supposed to care about offending anyone? And that worrying about it was falling prey to political correctness.

And I thought that if someone is offended by something, someone has to go to jail, lose their job, and be given a derogatory label.

 

[WherevertheWindblows]

Well you see other groups who have suffered oppression, lack of recognition etc. conduct their parades and protests with great dignity. But Gay Pride to quote a gay journalist is now:

"...the Olympics for meth, alcoholism, public fornication, corporate pandering, and hairy asses shoved in the faces of children"

https://spectator.us/this-gay-pride-lets-celebrate-shame/

I think they are being used as a sort of brown shirt (useful idot) type of thing only to be thrown under the bus in the end. Like this sort of thing is being pushed elsewhere (even the whole flag propagandizing thing)

Cabinet Office backs gay rights despite Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond's ban | Daily Mail Online

Which is strange to have sexuality flags (at all) over or under a nations flag.

I don't understand the parades either, but folks are free to celebrate in such ways concerning such things as a kind of "diversity". They do so abroad. It might make it a bit harder on the movement when flooding the nations with immigrants from countries who not only think such behavior is abominable but throw them off the top of buildings. Those who are coming in who don't really see it as the kind of diversity to actually celebrate . You can understand how they are not able to celebrate what they consider immoral, or some of what is being pushed on them (or their children rather) which they find offensive. It should be expected that they begin to push back after they have a strong enough hold in any particular nation.

Not sure of all the push back going on but there seems to be some happening as it appears an MP is shedding tears over it.

I understand that some gays can see Christians as their enemy (just for not approving of the same things). And that disagreement is something that is frowned upon and shut down and considered intolerant (somehow). And so while they try to demonstrate to us their own tolerance (and of those who sometimes express a hatred for Christians and infidels). To me (and its just my opinion) it was like the rush to the big middle finger (without much thought behind it). Well, maybe there was because it does seem to be following some sort of worldwide pattern/ agenda. And you would really have to be a moron not believe that clashes between peoples would not arise given the kind of diversity which has nothing to do with skin color (even though they try to make it so). Even though many Christians disagree (or do not express their approval) we are not told to judge those without. But in some other nations (to whom they are opening their arms and borders to) in the name of diversity are known to actually execute them (not to mention us). But it should be expected that a people with different values than your own (especially in these things) will begin to increased in numbers and will obviously be voting in their own people (who share their own values) and law. And I suppose will naturally begin to take care of business (accordingly). Or at least it just makes sense that this would be the case (but time will tell).

 

[archer75]

And I thought that if someone is offended by something, someone has to go to jail, lose their job, and be given a derogatory label.

That's not actually the case.

 

[hedrick]

And I suppose will naturally begin to take care of business (accordingly). Or at least it just makes sense that this would be the case (but time will tell).

What this discussion amounts to is: the majority no longer agrees with it. We're upset. For 2000 years we've made homosexuality illegal, prosecuted gays and treated them badly. During the time there have been plenty of public demonstrations of support for traditional values. Now things have changed. There will be public signs of it. I understand that you're upset. I'm not. There's not a lot else that can be said.

I'd like to see us treat people who continue to hold traditional values fairly. Fortunately the US has much stronger protection via the 1st amendment than many other countries. But it's going to become difficult for certain professionals and business people whose conscience requires them to discriminate. I'd like to minimize the trouble for them. But not to the extent of allowing people to violate public accommodations laws.

 

[Aldebaran]

That's not actually the case.

LOL! Ok.

 

[WherevertheWindblows]

What this discussion amounts to is: the majority no longer agrees with it. We're upset. For 2000 years we've made homosexuality illegal, prosecuted gays and treated them badly. During the time there have been plenty of public demonstrations of support for traditional values. Now things have changed. There will be public signs of it. I understand that you're upset. I'm not. There's not a lot else that can be said.

I'd like to see us treat people who continue to hold traditional values fairly. Fortunately the US has much stronger protection via the 1st amendment than many other countries. But it's going to become difficult for certain professionals and business people whose conscience requires them to discriminate. I'd like to minimize the trouble for them. But not to the extent of allowing people to violate public accommodations laws.

Where are you getting the idea that I am upset? I'm actually not at all. I'm not sure what the professionals or business people and discrimination are about. I think I'm missing something or you might have misunderstood me on some level. Feel free to clarify.

 

[dms1972]

You seem to be agreeing with archer75. He, and the author of this piece, are not criticized the need to defend gays, but the politicization. There has always been a range of gays, from people who want to live a peaceful Christian life, to people who seem interested primarily in offending as many as possible. Interestingly, the same range exists among heterosexuals. That has nothing to do with what rights either group should have.

I am in partial agreement, certainly not entire agreement with his post.

Because it seems for decades now a legend about a certain club in Greenwich Village, New York, has been circulating.

Ask yourself this Hedrick: If the account handed down through the last fifty years about what happened on June 28, was straight and factual then why has there been the need for so many revisions in the account of what happened!! I don't know if you read the Spectator article - the story of the Stonewall raid and riots are now undergoing yet another major revision - but each one it seems gets further and further from the historical facts. I remember as a teen here in the UK first hearing about "Stonewall" in a somewhat toxic conversation between some folks, and I am sure many others of my age heard the particular version of what happened that was circulating during the 1980s.

I used to have a good deal of sympathy with gay people, I have known a few, but it has been them that made their homosexuality the issue. Some want to remain in this permanent state of victim-hood even though they were not even born in 1969, and have never had "boo" said to them about their sexuality.

If you want to make a comparison in terms what a dignified demonstration is, I'd say make it with civil rights demonstrations for rights for coloured minorities in the 1960s:

What flag if any did the civil rights demonstrators fly at their parades in the 1960s?

I am not going to argue your point about parallels with hetrosexual people, even though the comparison is somewhat false, as straight folks don't parade their misbehaviour to the same degree, because none of that obviates the need of both hetrosexuals and homosexuals to hear the message of God's Grace and Truth in Jesus Christ, and to come to God in repentance.

 

[hedrick]

Because it seems for decades now a legend about a certain club in Greenwich Village, New York, has been circulating.

Yup. I think truth is important. Historical errors should be fixed.

 

[Brightmoon]

You are apparently interested rectifying moral injustice, yet you effectively advocate for the immorality of equating the existence of homosexual persons with their beliefs/practices and comparing--in a specific way--the color of people's skin with sinful homosexual beliefs/practices.

Yep from my point of view I’m looking a SSDD. Polite version Same Stuff , Different Day. I remember hearing those same stupid arguments from them segregatin’ Southerners during the civil rights battles of the 50s and 60s . Though to be honest I only remember the 60s . Same thing with the women’s rights battles of the late 60s and early 70s . Hearing this nonsense again doesn’t impress me, it just makes me think people who espouse those things are unthinking hateful bigots .

 

[Brightmoon]

Well that “legend” about that certain club got that certain club formally landmarked as an historic building . It wasn’t a legend and of course it hit the papers when it happened (which I remember) as I live in NYC. They got tired of being harassed for simply existing.

 

[Brightmoon]

The issue isn't really about abusing people who don't do things someone may not approve of. The issue is the government taking a position in favor of it. At least, that's what this thread is about. As for why homosexuality is spoken against, and especially homosexual "marriage", well, when Christians read the bible and then see what is being approved of by the government (and even some christian denominations), do you think it would be natural for us to support it, or oppose it?

there are people who loudly thump the bible and fervently declare that women shouldn’t have the right to vote. There are people who bible thump and declare quite loudly that the earth is flat and or is stationary with the sun going around it . Ditto for people who think that dark skinned people should be slaves and servants. Why do you think that just because ignorant nonsense is in the bible that we should take it seriously ? . I honestly think that is not an excuse to over control, harass or condemn anyone. If behavior is harmful,I’m fine with telling them the behavior harms them or someone else . But basing prohibitions on Bronze Age cultural ideas, especially since that culture hasn’t existed for 2000 years , I’m not much in favor of. I’m quite sure you can see why