Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room The Disney Smear

Wait, wait, wait, I know...

Let's stand him on his head!

Anyone who knows that line is OK in my book!

So you don't think there's anything wrong with little girls or little boys seeing this in public? That's what's wrong with the homosexual agenda.

It's not my decision. That's their parents' choice.

Q.E.D.

**** happens.

Q.E.D.^2?

This thread has certainly gone to heck in a handbasket.


I'm with LE on this one. What is so intolerant about her statement? If I didn't want my kids to see what goes on at Mardi Gras and you said to me, "take them to New Orleans in June." Am I to conclude from that statement that you are saying "tough sh*t if you don't like what goes on during Mardi Gras"?

FWIW, there are 604 pictures of Gay Day on the website Gryphon got those pictures from. And I, looked at each and every one of them and put a hash mark, |, for every picture that made me feel uncomfortable and an X for every picture I felt was borderline X-rated. I counted a total of 19 pictures I was "uncomfortable with" and 3 that I felt were borderline X-rated. Two of the borderline X pictures were the ones Gryphon put in his post.

And, I should mention, that those 3 x-rated pictures appear to have come from a production that Disney World put on themselves - not the attendees of Gay Day.

Of the 16 remaining pics that made me uncomfortable, they ranged from guys being a little too cozy with each other, to swim trunks that were a little too revealing. The worst Gay Day attendee pic was one that showed a simulated sex act.

So let's put this in perspective, of the 600+ pictures I saw of Gay Day, 3% of them made me "uncomfortable". Gryphon picked two of the 3 worst photos thereby implying that that's what you'll see everywhere you turn during Gay Day.

Not so.

What you will see is a lot of pumped-up gym bunnies, with no shirts, frequently posing for pitures with their arms around each other's waist. What's the big deal about that? For the most part, it basically was just like any other day at Disney World, except that there were a disproportionate number of shirtless men walking around with other shirtless men.

Now let me tell you about the Mardi Gras pictures. I saw approximately 50 pictures. Everyone of them was x-rated. Forget revealing swim trunks, heck these people were naked. And simulated sex acts? Oh no, this was the real, sodomnist sex acts Right in the ctner of Bourbon Street.

100% of the photos of Mardi Gras were absolutely disgusting compared with 3% of the photos at Gay Day that even the worst of them, were tame compared to Mardi Gras. What does that lead me to conclude about the residents of New Orleans?

Gay Day was, pardon the pun, Mickey Mouse compared to Mardi Gras.

Still, I wouldn't take my kids to Gay Day. And no, the guy who chose to go another day is not necessarily a homophobe - not quite sure what a homophobe is, but whatever.

Anyway, I'm going to bed. This thread probably will be on page 8 by the time I get up tomorrow.

Derick

Yes, it has. The original question was 'does not wanting your small children to see Gay Day at Disney World make you a homo-hater?' You radical right-wing homo-hater you!

It's going to get worse I tell you...

gryphon, that last post of yours is a nice attempt at revisionism but anyone who takes the time to go back to the top of this thread will see for themselves that it has not unfolded as you are trying to make it out. In fact the first page and a half, maybe more, is a very level headed discussion, with a few exceptions.

LE's first post in this thread was very well presented and she has subsequently carried herself in a way that does not merit your lashing out.

While I was just re-reading the thread, I came across this which you posted (emphasis mine):

So on top of being less-than honest at the outset, you went on to use inflammatory language to portray homosexuals as pornographic and in-your-face.

I also said I never called anyone a homophobe/homo-hater. Also, my views have nothing to do with my being gay. I would've felt the same if I was heterosexual. If that's having an agenda, then I have an agenda. Not that pointing out the 'smuttiest' pictures out of several hundred would mean you have an agenda. Goddess forbid. All I said was that it's the parents' choice whether or not they want their children to see it. BTW - I said "Christ' then took it down within a couple minutes because I didn't want to offend anyone. Sorry for those of you who saw it via his "quote" that he managed to due during the minute or two it was like that. I guess it's part of my Pagan/New-Age agenda. :p

To respond to gryphon's original question: no, avoiding Disney World does not automatically make a person a gay-hater. I would not take my two young daughters there on that day, and if we discovered that we had planned our vacation to DW on Gay Day, we'd reschedule to another date. I don't dislike gays; but there is still the likelihood that a small percentage of attendees would engage in behavior that I don't feel is appropriate for my children to observe. For the same reason, we vacation at family-friendly places, and we restrict what television shows and movies our kids see.

At its core, this incident was simply an issue of parental discretion - of what is appropriate for children of a certain age to be exposed to, whether it is material of a violent nature, sexual (hetero- or homo-), full of inappropriate language, or other themes more readily processed by a more mature mind. The judge was being pilloried for exercising proper judgment as a parent to determine what was appropriate for his kids. Senator Feinstein shamelessly used the incident to play the "gay card" and turn the issue into a modern day homophobic witch hunt.

"...I saw Goody Goode with a homophobe! I saw Goody Cloyse with a homophobe!..."

Original posted by Dwain:
Dwain, as you know, I cannot argue that (although I'll have my opinion about it), since it is belief. It only becomes an issue for me when attempts are made to use religious beliefs to set public policy. I think empirical data should be the basis for policy as much as possible.

And lashing out is defined as what, as calling someone to account for their statements? And your quotes of my prior answers to the question of why the magazine writer included a few pictures, you find fault with the reason? And as for Mardi Gras, when have I ever defended women exposing themselves for $0.59 beads or peeing in the streets? What's wrong with you? How was I less than honest, at the outset or anytime during this thread? And yes, Gay Day is an in-your-face and even pornographic event. And you're denying this?

Tell me, why are you so frustrated? I could offer suggestions but am in fear of TomK's proscribing psychotherapy on the forum.

By the way, Gay Day's founder's name is Doug Swallow. I wonder if that's his real name?

Jolly made a statement a couple of pages back, that if a child was "on the fence" in terms of wondering about sexual orientation, that he would gently try to steer him/her toward heterosexuality. You would agree with this, or not? (hope I've paraphrased Jolly's point correctly).

If you do agree, then how does one -- parent of, or young adult -- determine whether the person in question is genetically predisposed, or whether they are for whatever reason, playing the field (so to speak)?

As for your statement regarding psychology as a science, I disagree with the premise so can't agree or disagree, as I do not consider psychology a science other than by methodology.

Holy cow, you're right! I never even knew that, I got the links from the articles. So you viewed every one, eh? Too much for me. However, I see there are links for seven previous years of Gay Day as well.

rvaga,
I do not think it is possible for anyone to 'gently' steer another person towards a sexuality. I came to the realization, through my own experiences that I was more complicated than not, and the initiative to take an inner journey was my own. If you have a son or daughter who you suspect is gay, you must have every faith that they will find their way in life. (And if you love them unconditionally, you will have made it a thousand times easier for them.)

It is possible that a young person such as Peggy's hypothetical example could be unhappy and feels misunderstood which is why I thought the idea of psychotherapy sessions together would be a good thing.

Let me ask you, when you were 12 or 13'ish, did you feel that you could be persuaded by anyone to be something other than who you were? I suspect the answer is no. If the answer could have been yes, I also suspect the illusion would not have lasted too long--we eventually want to be who we really are.

If some young person actually did come up to me and say that they didn't know for sure if they were straight or gay, my first reaction would probably be to ask them if they had a boyfriend and/or if they had a girlfriend, if I felt it was appropriate to ask. I might ask them why they think they might be straight or why they think they may be gay. Depending on the answer, then I might ask if they'd like to talk to a psychiatrist about it. The rest would depend on the answer.

I don't think it is possible at the present time to determine whether the person is genetically predisposed and I doubt that a heterosexual is going to be "playing the field". No matter what, if it were my child I would say enjoy, but 1) be sincere, and 2) protect yourself.

By the way, I agree with you on this.

And two more things we have in common, I was also raised in a strict Catholic home, and it was wonderful, so wonderful in fact that some would posit that even in middle age, I still haven't left it.

And while I've never been in therapy, my wife and I are the Godparents and willed as legal guardians (in case of death of the parents) of a child of a child psychiatrist at Children's Hospital at Harvard.

Small world.

Actually, I disagree with you both. The arena of setting public policy is all about the clash and debate of people's personal beliefs, whether they are based on religious or merely moral/ethical grounds. We all argue for what we believe to be right. As to setting public policy based on "empirical data," all tests must be established by humans who filter the methods of their tests through their own value system; and the results must be analyzed by humans operating in the same manner. Then, the analysis will be read, and agreed with or disputed by other humans, filtering their interpretation through their own personal beliefs. So "empirical" data is often not so empirical at all. And many public policy issues are not quite so pure as a mathematical equation. There would be no need for democracy if public policy could be reduced to pouring a few chemicals into a test tube and obtaining the perfect answer to a legislative question.

Establishing public policy isn't science; it's the ongoing debate of differing personal religious and other worldviews in the public arena. Injecting one's personal beliefs, religious or otherwise, into the formation of public policy is the defining reason for democracy. I'm not offended by you, or anyone else advocating for a public policy that parallels your belief system, and I would expect others to be equally unoffended if I advocate for a differing public policy that parallels my worldview, regardless of whether the origin of those views is religious.

I refuse to accept the truly fascist notion that my opinions (or anyone's)should be discounted from public debate solely on the basis of their having religious roots. This leads to the bizarre notion that I could have a viewpoint for nonreligious grounds, and it would be acceptable in debating public policy - but if I held the exact same position on religious grounds, my voice - my vote - would not be permitted to be heard. That idea scares the heck out of me, and it should you, too.

Dwain:

I was understanding Bernard to say that overt use of religion should not be used as a basis for civil law. I don't believe the Baptist code should have any direct influence on the laws of Alabama, let's say.

If a good Baptist becomes the governor of Alabama I believe he must execute the laws of Alabama even if they are in contradiction to his religious beliefs (of course he always could resign if the problem was too great.)

On the other hand I do think that as citizens we can and should vote our moral beliefs regardless from where they originate, religion, rationalism or even self interest. But, it should be kept a fair playing field at all times. It's those checks and balances that keep us free.

And I think that here in the USA that's pretty much the way things are set up.

It's the true genius of the Constitution how little problem we have with all this.