The article excerpted below was headed with the accusation that the banner illustrated above is "hate speech", even though the banner said nothing about homosexuals at all. Apparently you are not allowed just to warn people about homosexual behavior; you have to hate homosexuals.
I certainly don't hate homosexuals. They're not important enough to me for that. Perhaps it makes them feel better to think that people hate them -- when in actuality, most people just find them disgusting and prefer to limit contact with them.
When they have a Mardi Gras parade or other celebration homosexuals often behave in a very "flamboyant" way that some find obnoxious and that parents might not want their children to see. So it is perfectly reasonable for the Florida Family Association to warn others of probable ostentatious homosexuality, without the Association members needing to "hate" homosexuals at the same time.
Homosexuals would get a lot more of the acceptance that they apparently crave if they did not go out of their way to offend normal people and seek to silence criticism of themselves
At Gay Days in Orlando a plane flew a message over the Disney World theme park region with a ‘warning’ from the Florida Family Association.
The message flown over on Friday and Saturday, which was paid for and funded by donations, read “Warning Gay Day at Disney...” and the date.
Yes, this is what the organization would want us to think - that their message was a warning meant to direct parents out of the park. Is this another example of anti-gay, zealout pro-creationists trying to eliminate the LGBTIQ community from being able to use public-geared facilities?
The group claims it does not like Disney's allowance of the gay community using the park during normal operating hours
Source
22 comments:
More generalizations here. Not all homosexuals are flamboyant or mount parades; actually a tiny minority do. Nor do most homosexuals go around "offending" so-called normal people, although nobody has the right not to be offended, as is so often pointed out on this site.
"Is this another example of anti-gay, zealout pro-creationists trying to eliminate the LGBTIQ community from being able to use public-geared facilities?"
No, it is not. It is meant to inform the public what is going on. Most of those who do not agree with the gay agenda do not hate homosexuals, they hate homosexuality--BIG difference.
How would the public reaction be if a BSDM group wanted to go to Disney and someone ran the same banner stating, "Warning, BSDM day at Disney..."? The public would likely have no problem with that message.
"Warning" implies something bad which is prejudiced. If the users of the banner were not prejudiced, they would have used a word like "Advisory" or "Announcement".
Well, they aren't trying to promote it, so a warning seems appropriate (or FYI).
And believe me, the LGBTIQ community really comes out of its shell when they have a "Gay Day" at Disney. You rarely see a straight couple making out at Disney. On "Gay Day", you see gay couples all over the place grabbing a$$ and sticking their tongues down each other's throats. They act like it is "Adult Night".
I think most kids wouldn't pay any attention to it at all, and it wouldn't somehow "damage" them to see it, but I don't want to see it! So it the kids are coming with me, we're not going on "Gay Day".
-L
OK, 2:23, so the people behind the banner are prejudiced...
We are all prejudiced for or against any number of things, but the bottom line to this story was the accusation of 'hate speech'. This banner does not go anywhere near hate speech because it does not condemn anyone, nor does it call for any kind of action.
Mike Malloy suggesting the Seal Team 6 go after a former President is a more clear example of hate speech, but you don't see anyone calling for his prosecution.
Hate speech is an invention to try and stifle opinion.
"Warning" implies something bad which is prejudiced. If the users of the banner were not prejudiced, they would have used a word like "Advisory" or "Announcement".
Warning: rain today.
It always amuses me to see how those who "demand" tolerance from others, are they themselves THE most INtolerant.
Make no mistake. Radical gay activists, (they're the ones who control the movement and it's agenda) are not at all interested in your "acceptance". What they want, what they've always wanted, is "official, special-class status via congressional legislation". That they already are a special class, (even though they make up only 12% of the US population) with special laws specifically "invented" to protect them, is not enough for them. They want the law to "force" heterosexuals to "acknowledge and accept" their chosen lifestyle as normal, when it clearly is not. The overwhelming majority of the worlds people and religions view homosexuality as an aberration and an affront to God.
This is why the radical gay movement always finds a very liberal court, or gay judge, as in the CA. case that violated Prop-8, to "invent" laws for them. Whenever they leave it up to the people to vote on, they lose. But don't expect them to give up or stop trying. They will not.
Of course, homosexuals have always been able to come to Disneyland - just as they could go anywhere else. After all, they look like everybody else, don't they? Therefore the only difference a "gay day" makes is that, on that day, they are free to parade their perversion in public - in activities which would be regarded as vulgar (to say the least) if done by heterosexuals. And this is supposed to be a place for kids!
Why would Disney think it was a good idea to single out a special day for a class of persons based on their sexuality?
Will they have pederasts day? How about beastiality day? Polyandry day?
Anon 3:49, you are 100% correct. The problem is that when gays are given an opportunity to publicly "be gay", it turns into nothing more than a carnal festival of debauchery. The fact remains that we don't have "heterosexual days" or "heterosexual pride parades" where heterosexuals are given license to engage sexually in public just because they are heterosexual.
Being a homosexual is not the issue. It is acting on that homosexuality that is the problem.
"The problem is that when gays are given an opportunity to publicly "be gay", it turns into nothing more than a carnal festival of debauchery."
Yeah, so? How is it any different than drunken Irishmen on a St. Patrick's Day Parade, except for the FACT that you HATE gays?
Why should the possibility of rain be a "warning"? It might be very welcome in a drought or to farmers. That is simply another example of subjectivity/prejudice, just as in this case "warning" non-gays about the presence of gays.
And it's up to Disney what events take place on their property. Don't like them - then don't go!
(even though they make up only 12% of the US population)
Fail! Homosexualsmake up 1-2% of the population at most although they make enough noise that people would think they are much more than that.
It's not numbers that make a cause right. Only a minority of women at first supported female sufferage. Only a monority of whites were at first against slavery.
Anon: 3:49 said "Only a monority of whites were at first against slavery."
That statement is simple ignorance and presupposes that slavery was an artifact of the "white" race when the truth is that slavery was never a matter of race and all races have promoted and participated in slavery.
Slavery only became racial in the US because cheap slaves were readily available from Africa where they were rounded up by rival African tribes and/or by Arab traders.
Had cheap slaves been available from Asia or Europe the racial context would have been different or even totally absent.
3:26AM. You are being deliberately pedantic. I was, as most readers here would realize, talking about slavery as it was in the US and the West in the 17th to 19th centuries. We all know slavery has existed in many countries involving all races or ethnic groups and in all periods of history, so you had no need to state the obvious!
Dear Pal, Only the truly stupid would need everything made so specific.
anon615: You think that spewing forth ambiguities is a good thing? LOL
Only ambiguous to the dumb!
So 903 is dumb. Just what I thought.
I did not fail. You are still responding to me. Now, who is the dumb one? LOL
And you are responding to me yet again, so I guess you have defined yourself as dumb. You began this exchange so unnecessarily, and I am ending it here, so even if you are dumb enough to try another pointless response I shall just ignore it - get a life!
Post a Comment