Your Rostra Blogpen – Click on Name for Entries by Each Author … Scroll down for Recent Comments & What’s Hot on Rostra

Have a Hot Political News Tip?

Send us a news tip at info@sdrostra.com

Subscribe: Enter Your Email Address

Archives

Login



 

Recent Comments

Login



San Diego activist leads Rose Parade boycott

Monday, December 30, 2013
posted by Vito Andolini

from Breitbart…

The Pasadena Star news reports that a San Diego woman has called for the Rose Parade to be boycotted because it will feature a gay wedding atop a float. The float, sponsored by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF), is titled, “Love is the Best Protection.” … San Diegan Karen Grube, who said her protest is not out of her religious convictions, and says she is opposed to having any wedding featured in the parade, has requested that corporate sponsors drop their funding of the parade if the wedding proceeds…

Read the entire article.

Share


52 Responses to “San Diego activist leads Rose Parade boycott”

  1. Michael A. Schwartz says:

    Karen Grube….saying what nobody else is thinking.

  2. Founding Father says:

    But wait…Where is the polygamy float? Or the consenting incestuous couples float? And was NAMBLA not included? How intolerant!

    That was never going to happen…remember… as the gay marriage advocates either insisted that was not going to happen, or that they simply didn’t recognize it…because for them, “marriage” equality was never about equality…it was about normalizing a select behavior…a very slippery slope…because now, we see exactly what many proponents of the time-honored construct of marriage warned with regards to the dismantling of the nuclear family as codified in a marriage construct of one man and one woman….now there are states proposing bills, legislation, and measures to allow polygamist relationships be recognized. Some NAMBLA advocates make the argument that if a parent can sign a consent waiver for a 16 and half year old to go into the Army, why can’t a parent sign off on a consensual relationship for their young boy with older men? The argument goes if you can make life and death decisions to drive at 16, in some states 14, why can’t you choose whom you wish to love?

    Proponents for marriage between one man and one woman were never against one particular deviation to that construct…it is the metastasizing from that constant of now any deviation of relationships the human mind can conjure will now have the same legal rights, while having none of the moral, ethical, or physical responsibilities inherent in marriage of OM/OW.

    In a typical and inept politically correct attempt to appear “inclusive”, the Rose parade will alienate hundreds of thousands…perhaps millions…of viewers. Americans are learning the power of saying “enough is enough…” with insidious forces shoving behavior to them and their children in any venue these forces deem they can get away with it (pervasive now in broadcast television, CNN’s New Year’s eve with the depraved Kathy Griffith and Anderson, “giggles a lot at her filthy jokes” Cooper, winter Olympic delegations with overtly gay athletes for an “in your face” shot to the Russians and the world on their bigoted and arcane “homophobic” attitudes) …for these fervent homosexual agenda drivers, nothing remains sacred, nothing is wholesome…nothing is off limits…The Rose Bowl may become the next A&E channel…I and my family choose not to watch the festivities this year, or any subsequent year featuring homosexual kissing/intimacy. I choose not to have to explain to my children why two men are passionately kissing on top of a parade float. It will be interesting where they will wedge this “blissful” moment…perhaps between Sponge Bob and Phineas and Ferb…maximum kids watching then. Let’s be honest…that is the goal right? Maximum viewing for maximum impact. If not, what precisely is the purpose of having any wedding at the Rose Parade? Have there been traditional weddings there in the past? Is this common?

    I wonder what the New Generation Republicans think about this?

  3. Founding Father says:

    ..Michael, perhaps you didn’t hear of the Duck Dynasty dust up…where millions of people, just like Ms. Grube, expressed their opinion and persuaded A&E to reconsider, in a monumental way, the errors of their impetuousness and hasty PC actions…

    Millions…

    Ms. Grube is in fact doing what many seem too timid to do, or too programmed or indoctrinated to do.

  4. Hypocrisy questioned says:

    “San Diegan Karen Grube, who said her protest is not out of her religious convictions, and says she is opposed to having any wedding featured in the parade…”

    Does anyone really believe she is opposed to having ANY wedding featured in the parade?

  5. Hypocrisy questioned says:

    Founding Father,

    Don’t you believe that “slippery slope” started when we legalized inter-racial marriage?

  6. Ms. Right says:

    I hope the advertising for the parade is letting parents know what is going to happen so they can use discretion if needed.

  7. Michael A. Schwartz says:

    Hypocrisy,
    Bless her heart, I don’t believe she even believes that it has nothing to do with her religious convictions or that she’d be opposed to having ANY wedding featured in the parade. Remember Karen is against Carl DeMaio agreeing with her on the Mt. Soledad Cross issue. Not against the issue, mind you. They agree on the issue…she is against him agreeing with her on the issue.

    “Gay marriage is illegal in over 30 states, why would they promote something that is blatantly illegal?”
    I’m trying hard to find a report on a same sex couple being arrested for being in a same sex marriage. I don’t think it is “illegal” in any state, Karen. Thirty states do not recognize it, but that doesn’t make it “illegal”.

    I truly think it is short-sighted and inaccurate to attack people who oppose same sex marriage by calling them bigots. But I also believe some people are bigots.

  8. Hypocrisy questioned says:

    Michael,

    Your last paragraph could not have been said better. With your permissiion, I plan on using it often.

  9. Richard Rider says:

    REALLY, Karen? Two Christians (with proper background checks of both their religious purity and piety) choose get married on top of a Rose Bowl float, and you’d oppose it? Do you think ANYONE who knows you believes you?

    That being said, this gay marriage float is clearly a political statement, and such political floats are a BAD idea for a parade trying to reach out to all. It’s probably bad business for the Rose Bowl Parade to turn into a series of political floats.

    But if that’s the way it’s gonna go, I sure hope we have an NRA Assault Rifle Float!

    BTW, the ONLY way to watch this action-packed parade is by recording it using a DVR. “Fast forward” has changed my life!

  10. Founding Father says:

    HQ,

    What precisely is the correlation between race and sexual preference?

    I assume you are attempting to link the civil rights struggles of people who are born with a different /darker skin pigment and were treated solely based on that attribute and that of a chosen preference of behavior of a relatively small minority of individuals…thousands who have rebuked or rescinded their former homosexual tendencies…(African Americans are unable to alter their race) and so, what precisely is your point? Is your tacit, unspoken, “read-between-the lines” point that anyone who objects to the behavior of a group of people whose behavior they find abhorrent are somehow in your mind…bigoted? Would you welcome any behavior that anyone would find unacceptable or at least questionable?Because I and possibly millions of other Americans find overt, celebrated, and “in-your-face” displays in once wholesome environments now with homosexual behavior needlessly salacious and provocative? That we do not wish to expose our children to the confusion and oddity that presents to them? In your construct, are we simply to accept it?

    Using your logic, are we to accept polygamist marriage displays? Would a marriage of the Duck Dynasty children be given the same exposure at the Rose Bowl parade? If its just about freedom of “expression”, then why not beer bong races, and scantly clad coeds in togas cramming into phone booths, or a lecture from any number of willing professors touting overly and gratuitous sex escapades all in the name of artistic expression…That is much more common place on a college campus than gay marriage..what is the point for the wedding in the first place?

    I think we all know that!

  11. Hypocrisy questioned says:

    Founding Father,

    “It is unnatural.” “It is against God’s will.” “It is an affront to traditional marriage.” “What’s next, bestiality?”

    Does that about sum up your arguments against gay marriage?

    It also sums up the arguments that were made against inter-racial marriage and that is the comparison I was making.

    For the record, I do not think you are a bigot, but I do believe that you are on the wrong side of history. I also believe that you are an intelligent person with some passionately held beliefs, but your grandchildren and great-grandchildren are not going to understand how anyone other than a bigot ever held those beliefs.

  12. Michael A. Schwartz says:

    FF, I didn’t pick my sexuality. At no time did I make a decision. I’ve been thoroughly attracted to females for as long as I can remember.

    Are you suggesting your experience in life has been different? Based on your life experiences, you feel that you can pick your sexuality? What made you decide to pick being straight? I’m just wondering.
    Was is religion? Society? Laws?

  13. Jim Trageser says:

    The “interracial” red herring is easily dismissed as a legitimate comparison to same-sex marriage in that the concept of banning “interracial” marriage was itself very late to the party, and was confined largely to the American South. People have married and started families with folks of different ethnic backgrounds from as far back in history as we can see. DNA testing shows it was happening with great frequency even before written history could describe it.

    On the other hand, at no point before our current time has any society recognized men marrying men or women marrying women as “marriage.” Even in ancient Greek and Roman societies where homosexual relations were considered normal, they were not viewed as analogous to marriage.

    Now, this historic fact alone does not by itself mean we shouldn’t change the law – it may be that our smug belief that we are vastly superior to our ancestors in all facets of our existence is, in fact, absolutely true.

    But to imply that today’s opponents to a rather startling change in social mores and construction are no better than robed Klansmen is a bit of a stretch.

    Further, the rather astounding and ahistorical claims by our Hypocrite friend that opponents of “interracial” marriage used the same arguments as contemporary opponents of same-sex marriage are simply not supported by the record. The arguments in support of those laws banning “inter-racial” marriage were vastly different from those used by those who oppose same-sex marriages today. The entire premise of racial bigotry was that blacks were inherently inferior to whites – a view not supported even at that time by mainstream Christian teaching.

    And that is not a view of homosexuality shared by today’s traditional Christians – whose rhetoric does not argue that homosexuals are inherently less intelligent, capable, compassionate, loving, hard-working or creative than straights. Same-sex marriage opponents seem to accept as given that gays are otherwise identical to straights in everything but their attractions. Arguments about same-sex marriage are not about ability, but are strictly about behavior.

    Again, one can argue that opponents of same-sex marriage are wrong, but to try to equate the nature of their arguments to that of racists requires that we completely ignore what they’re actually saying and substitute what we believe to be their true motives – based on nothing more than impatience with their dissent.

    More to the point: No major religions had moral or theological opposition to interracial marriage, and in fact Christianity encouraged it (witness the many Spanish and French men taking Indian wives throughout the Americas), or more accurately, simply did not recognize the concept of different “races” among humanity.

    Even in the Deep South, where the bans on interracial marriage began being implemented in the 1800s, these bans came not from the Church, but from civic political organizations and were based on political considerations, not religious or moral. And they were not evenly adopted. Many parts of Louisiana largely ignored the ban, particularly Catholic priests, who would happily marry a black (or Creole) and a white if both were Catholic (which happened a lot in Francophone New Orleans) – but would never consent to a white Catholic marrying a white Baptist.

    Arguments in favor of same-gender sexual relations being moral or legal ought to be able to stand on their own without mudslinging, impugning the motivation of dissenters, or resorting to cheap rhetorical sleight of hand.

  14. Founding Father says:

    Great Points Men…I will address each of them.

    HQ first-

    No, it is the opposite of my argument. I am for marriage. Marriage (no hyphen, no prefix) is the anthropological and societal foundational building block for western society, and has been for centuries. It captures the essence of physiological, psychological, and pathological baselines for familial constructs, that then build on communal, then national (meaning of like values, morals, virtues, not political) . The virtues, both emotional and physiological, of father and mother figures in a familial construct have been proven overwhelmingly to be the most effective, most prudent, and most healthy for children and child rearing. Clearly, there are vast exceptions to that basic tenant, however research clearly shows families with a father and a mother intimately and lovingly caring for their children provide a better life environment than families that do not. We only need to see the devastating impact within urban society across America to conclude that unabashedly.

    So, marriage, as acknowledged universally and for centuries, between a man and a woman, strengthens and validates a wholesome, healthy, and functional aspiration for families, new parents, and children to experience, thus carrying those virtues, both physiologically and psychologically. I am not against gay unions, or gay relationships, or gay holidays for that matter, no more than I am against the Brazilian constitution when measured with the American Constitution.( I can advocate one, while acknowledging and not adhering or exposing my children, or fellow community members to the other) Many homosexual rights advocates do precisely what was attempted here; to make this about intolerance against homosexuals. The argument I am making is the universally understood, time-tested, and statistical success of children within homes with one father and mother of marriage is such a foundational and societal pillar, that the abrogation or minimalizing of it, to the other infinite possibilities of human relational interaction to be codified by the state, is detrimental and harmful to that basic, universally accepted and understood societal tenant…

    Which leads to addressing the second point posited by Michael. (see next post)

    (And for the record, I spent many summers living and working in downtown San Francisco. My father was a theatre director for many city and peninsula performances with a great deal of his close, personal family friends and colleagues being gay. Some of our dearest friends in the late 80s and early 90s began to drop off ill and eventually die from something we later learned was HIV/AIDs. Many of these dear friends and colleagues would giggle with playful irony that anyone would consider me a “homophobe.”)

  15. Founding Father says:

    And now to Michael’s point…

    Michael, I agree…same with me…but one picks one’s behavior as it relates to one’s sexuality…Navy/Marine officers and NCOs make decisions …on deployments. How many hypocrites did I see playing exemplary officer, good dad and family man, then once deployed they were paying “bar-fines” left and right. They made a decision, as did all the men who were as sexually confined and “quarantined” as everyone else…many chose not to act on that impulse or succumb to that behavior. I am probably like every other heterosexual man…I see sexually attractive women all the time…hell, I find myself even mildly flirting with a few on rare occasion…yet, as a married man, I curb what behavior I may think of, may be tempted by, or might act upon (and if I don’t, my wife reminds me I will fall asleep eventually…lol). I have known men that actively pursue married women…it is a preference they have, for sundry nefarious reasons. They know it is morally and societally wrong (that if they were shot leaving the house of some pissed off husband, no one would argue their plight as a philanderer and fooling around with another man’s wife), damaging to other people, potential devastating to children and some innocents home-life, considered by most as reprehensible behavior…yet, they do it anyway. I have known men who have committed homosexual acts while in prison. They did not continue or sustain that behavior once they left. One I know has been seemingly happily married for 15 years with children. It is a sexual preference. Sexuality is an act…it is a behavior…some stretch the boundaries of their sexual preferences, others break them, and recede back to a more comfortable state…others break those boundaries and never return. Many of those behaviors, in whatever flavor they take, are universally condemned, shunned, and at best, ignored. Others are now celebrated…others will be celebrated, given the legal ground won by others…I am a heterosexual because it is personally more appealing, more enjoyable, and is something I am heavily drawn to as a man, husband and father. However, I have all the “working parts” to engage in other than heterosexual acts…I simply choose not to. The same could be said for other proclivities…ergo, it is a choice.

  16. Founding Father says:

    Very well articulated, Jim.

  17. Karen Grube says:

    And thank you, Rostra, for NOT asking to speak with me before posting this.

    Okay . . . so for some REAL clarification:

    Unless I completely misunderstand the situation, it would be illegal for someone to issue marriage licenses to or to marry same-sex couples in over thirty states. It is more than simply “not recognized.”

    I’ll even briefly discuss the questionable legality of this in California. According to the State Constitution Section 3.2, it takes an APPELLATE court ruling for an “administrative agency:” like the Governor’s office, to declare a State of California Constitutional provision unenforceable. A single district court decision like Judge Walker’s isn’t sufficient. There is no such current, valid Appellate court decision, since the 9th Circuit Court’s ruling was vacated.

    Just because the Governor and the Attorney General felt they could overstep their authority in order to violate our state Constitution by issuing orders to the Public Health Department to send letters to all County Clerks telling them they had to issue these licenses, doesn’t mean that these clerks have the right NOT to enforce what is still valid, enforceable law under the State Constitution. The oath these clerks take is to the State Constitution. They are independently elected officials and DO NOT report to the Governor. They report to the voters. The problem is that no one has the money or the willingness to challenge this at this point, at least not with the current make up of our state courts. I find it appalling that no one is willing to defend the voters’ decision and the State Constitution against this shameful abuse of authority. Oh, and in case it isn’t clear, the U.S. Supreme Court did not declare Prop 8 unconstitutional. The Court made no ruling on the substantive issues whatsoever. I’m sure you all know that, but people keep saying it anyway.

    SO, having said that . . . my objection to this float is that it is a blatant attempt to promote same-sex “marriage” in states where it is either not currently legal or, if you want, not recognized. It is also a slap in the face to the majority of California voters who rejected it.

    The Tournament of Roses held this information from being readily publicly available to those buying tickets and those making plans until it was too late. This is and always was a political statement on the part of the sponsors of the float and the Tournament of Roses, and one to which at least over 6,000 people from across the country and even other countries on the Boycott the 2014 Rose Parade Facebook page have objected. Besides, no one with any common sense buys the idea that marriage will help prevent aids.

    For me, this is strictly a matter of being outraged at the intentional disrespect for the laws and the voters of over 30 states, as well as the intentional degradation of what was once a family-oriented tradition into allowing themselves to be used as a pawn to promote a political agenda with which many (most) disagree.

    My intent with the Facebook page was, first, to inform people of what the Tournament was planning because most people didn’t know. Second, I wanted to give people a way of speaking out, not only on Facebook, but to the organizers of the Rose Parade and their sponsors. Third, I hoped that if enough people spoke out, that the Tournament of Roses might actually listen and pull this float.

    This isn’t a debate about same-sex marriage. That was never the point. The voters of California were clear about that – TWICE, and voters in only THREE states, I believe it is, have actually said by their votes that same-sex marriage is acceptable in their states. It has been imposed on the other states by their legislatures and executive branches, or by their courts. I find it appalling that the Tournament has decided to allow themselves to be used this way. I would hope that you would all also object to this as well.

  18. Hypocrisy questioned says:

    Jim,

    The History News Network has a great article comparing miscegenation laws and the current debate on same-sex marriages (http://hnn.us/article/4708).

    I suggest reading the entire article, but here are a couple of the key passages:

    “But it soon became apparent that Reconstruction would not survive long enough to become a turning point in the history of miscegenation law. As Reconstruction collapsed in the late 1870s, legislators, policymakers, and, above all, judges began to marshal the arguments they needed to justify the reinstatement–and subsequent expansion–of miscegenation law.

    Here are four of the arguments they used:

    1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.

    2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.

    3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God’s will, and

    4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow “unnatural.”"

    “… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion.”

    “The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of “equal protection under the laws.” How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites “equally.” “

  19. Michael A. Schwartz says:

    Jim, many of your facts are wrong. The Chinese, American Indians, and Buddhists have been sanctioning same sex marriages for centuries. And speaking of the Romans, weren’t Nero and Pythagoras married (both men)? Nero was a Roman emperor, by the way.
    But why does that matter? You are saying we can’t start protecting the rights of individuals now if they’ve never been protected by a society before? That doesn’t seem very American, Jim.

    What difference does it make that a ban on interracial marriage was confined to the south? You believe that as long as discrimination is national rather than regional it is ok?

    And nobody compared opponents of same sex marriage with the KKK. In fact most of the people who opposed interracial marriage had nothing to do with the Klan. Standing in the way of the rights of interracial couples was as main stream then as standing in the way of the rights of same sex couples is today.

    Opponents of interracial marriage and opponents of same sex marriage do have many of the same arguments. Not all, but to say there is no similarity in the two issues is intellectually dishonest and factually incorrect. Both opponents based their bans on what they consider “natural”. Both used religion as a basis. Both compare their chosen undesirable type of marriage to bestiality and incest. Both are based on the morality of the opponent and using government to force that morality on others. Both support government defining marriage rather than allowing individuals their right to self-govern.

    The ban on interracial marriage was absolutely supported by religion and religious people based on their religious beliefs. (Again, I am not saying all here)

    “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races show that he did not intend for the races to mix.” – Judge Leon Bazile, the judge that exiled the Lovings from Virginia for 25 years before they won their Supreme Court Case.

    But if you are making the case that if a religion does in fact allow same sex marriages then we should uphold their First Amendment right to religion…I agree with you. Other than that, literally nothing you wrote holds up to any kind of serious scrutiny at all Not your version of historical events or the conclusions your creative facts manufactured.

  20. Thor's Assistant Thor's Assistant says:

    Karen, to clarify, ask to speak to you about what? This is simply the text and link to an article from another media outlet, not something that originated here. We didn’t know there was a requirement to quote anyone independently when using an outsource. You yourself touted the Breitbart story on Facebook. We’d be happy to run a guest column if you’d like to submit one. Thanks.

  21. Michael A. Schwartz says:

    “Unless I completely misunderstand the situation, it would be illegal for someone to issue marriage licenses to or to marry same-sex couples in over thirty states. It is more than simply “not recognized.” ”

    If it were “illegal”, then same sex couples would be arrested or fined in some way. But they are not. In every state in the union same sex couples can marry, live together, own property, raise kids, wear wedding rings, have a ceremony, call each other spouse. But most states will not recognize that marriage legally. Not being recognized legally and being “illegal” are very different.

    If the parade had a float showing cocaine use or assault and battery…that would be promoting activities that are “blatantly illegal”. But they are not. They have two men who live in a country of the supposedly self-governed and the men are making a decision to get married in public to convince more people that monogamy stops the spread of disease.
    Personally, I didn’t think it was possible to make a parade even more boring, but here they’ve done it. But it’s not promoting anything “illegal”.

  22. Hypocrisy questioned says:

    Founding Father,

    “(And for the record, I spent many summers living and working in downtown San Francisco. My father was a theatre director for many city and peninsula performances with a great deal of his close, personal family friends and colleagues being gay. Some of our dearest friends in the late 80s and early 90s began to drop off ill and eventually die from something we later learned was HIV/AIDs. Many of these dear friends and colleagues would giggle with playful irony that anyone would consider me a “homophobe.”)”

    You are playing the “some of my best friends are gay” card. Seriously? I think you are much better than that.

    One other point that I think you are missing:

    Sex and love are two different things. As you pointed out, anyone can choose not to have sex with someone to whom they are attracted, but denying yourself romantic love is denying yourself life’s greatest treasure.

  23. Founding Father says:

    Michael… truly expected better from you…

    “Standing in the way of the rights of interracial couples was as main stream then as standing in the way of the rights of same sex couples is today.”

    My religious values are not the impetus for my strong proponency of marriage. Is this the same argument you are destine to make when polygamy is introduced? Incestuous relationships, or any other deviance from the Western construct of the foundation for society by way of the nuclear family? Many advocates of constructs beyond OM/OW seem not to carry the argument to the Nth degree…you are victims of your own moral relevancy, steeped in a pop culture atmosphere that is pervasive and ubiquitousness, and mistake that for some moral authority. All of the same vacuous arguments about gay “marriage” are the same arguments made by addicts time and time again; “Its my life, my body, my choice…I’m not hurting anyone…I can do what I want, and I don’t care what effect it has on other people…they don’t like it, they can change the channel”…and then they find enough people to normalize their behavior, enablers, “understanding” friends and family, all contributing to their proclivity and justifying their behavior…citing wild and obscure history footnotes, dysfunctional regimes and philosophies (the Romans, really..we want to emulate the Romans, or the Chinese or the Native American Tribes…)

    All the politically correct crafting, soothing, and “pixie” dust in the world is not going to change the inherent need of parents to protect their children from behavior, acts, events, or spectacles they deem unfit for their children.

  24. Founding Father says:

    HQ,

    It isn’t a “card” when you are standing at their bed side..it isn’t a game.

    I didn’t miss it at all…So, then you are ok with a father and a daughter expressing romantic love? Based on that, then you must be advocating NAMBLAs position as well? Oh, and I think you meant romantic “relationships” (plural)…the more the merrier I guess. And let’s not forget inanimate objects, and dead people…they need love too…surely there are those “in the closet” just bursting to share their love with the world. …I think we are just scratching the surface of all the deviations from the original constant…but, hey, its love… :)

  25. Steve G. says:

    Would anyone here call me intolerant for being concerned about responding to my young child’s question about the two men getting married at the Rose Parade? Do you think kids are only properly parented if their parents teach them “tolerance” for such things at a young age? Do you think it hypocritical for someone to be ok with gay marriage, yet not want their children exposed to it until they are older?

  26. Hypocrisy questioned says:

    Founding Father,

    Your one man, one woman definition doesn’t exclude father, daughter either but that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about two consenting adults who are not close family members. Why don’t you put the red herrings away and focus on the real issues.

    One of those issues is what is best for the children. I would have to agree with you that the best scenario for a child is to be raised by a financially secure and loving mother and father. Unfortunately, no one is guaranteed the ideal situation and many children are raised by single parents, by drug addicts who can barely take care of themselves or by abusive parents. I hope you would agree with me that the child would be better off with two loving parents of any gender than he/she would be in any of those situations.

  27. Hypocrisy questioned says:

    Steve,

    There are much worse things for children to be exposed to than two people expressing their love and commitment to each other. If this was a heterosexual marriage, would you have trouble explaining it to your child?

  28. bill @ the county says:

    I don’t know much about the arguments being presented here, but I’m personally shocked that a parade whose sole function is to decorate floats with floral arrangements would have anything to do with being gay at all.

  29. Hypocrisy questioned says:

    Promoting monogamous love and disease prevention – The Aids Healthcare Foundation and the Rose Parade organizers should be ashamed of themselves.

  30. Hypocrisy questioned says:

    I just caught the last 15 minutes of the parade and saw the float in question – no kissing. I also saw the eHarmony float which had a passionate kiss by the first couple ever to marry after meeting on eHarmony – I assume no one has a problem with that. Also, there was a float entitled “Jesus Welcomes All.” Do any of you have a concern for the Non-Christian parents who have to explain that one to their young chilldren?

    For the record, none of the above floats bothered me in the least. Did they bother you?

  31. Founding Father says:

    HQ,

    This now doubt will sound like fingers on a chock board to you…the reason the vast majority of Americans do not have a problem with a “Jesus” float is because the vast majority of Americans, not the government, but the people comprising the American Nation, recognize the cultural, historical, and political significance Christianity played in the birth and emergence of our great nation. Both practicing and non-practicing Americans of faith see Christianity as a deep and broad philosophical, intellectual, and epistemological thread woven into our nation’s societal and cultural tapestry. It is as pervasive as 40 plus million American families ordering turkeys on Thanksgiving, despite the vegan condemnation by such fringe groups as PETA…it is a cultural aspect we as Americans widely accept as uniquely and definitively “American.”

    As for my “red herring”, I would submit that gay “marraige” was never about equal…it was, and continues to be, about normalizing a behavior that has been previously acknowledged as unacceptable or abhorrent by our society. Now that other behaviors (not attributes, such as race..that is truly a red herring…and you would be wise not to go down that rhetorically indefensible rabbit hole), also considered widely as unacceptable and abhorrent, emerge with the same potential vigor and outcome from the trail blazed by their “equal rights” champions, you, and other “equal” advocates strive very hard to now distant yourself from those other proclivities…your oblique “father/daughter” “pish paw” reference is clearly indicative of that…the “equal” is going to get very interesting in the coming years.

    On a happier note, and said with true best wishes in my heart, I am glad you enjoyed the parade…sadly, we would have as well, as we have for many years, but alas, as a parent and responsible for what my children are to be exposed to and not exposed to, we were not afforded that pleasure this year. With the pervasiveness of more lurid, salacious, and provocative material canvassing our TV channels and internet options, we must be ever vigilant in an increasingly hostile and selfish culture.

    Happy New Year..I look forward to many more fruitful and broadening discussions. :)

  32. Richard Rider says:

    Just to be clear: This little brouhaha has NOTHING to do with the 1st Amendment Right of Free Speech. That amendment refers to GOVERNMENT restrictions on free speech — not private or individual decisions about what is permissible or allowable.

    People across the political spectrum just LOVE to cry out “1st Amendment” to justify PRIVATE sector free speech. It’s a sad but common misrepresentation of that the 1st Amendment is all about — restricting GOVERNMENT.

    Here’s the text of the 1st Amendment:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

  33. Jim Trageser says:

    So if we just say the Buddhists have been blessing same-sex unions for hundreds of years, and even though they haven’t, that’s the new “reality”?

    Whatever, guys. I came in here off a friend’s link from Facebook expecting, based on that friendship, to find a sober, intellectual conversation. Instead, I’ve wandered into a Lewis Carroll reality where people state whatever they want and expect others to treat it seriously.

  34. Michael A. Schwartz says:

    Jim, your facts are wrong again. Nobody said Buddhists have been “blessing” same sex unions for hundreds of years.

    Steve G., how you live your life and raise your kids is your choice. That goes for everyone. I would guess that explaining the subject to kids would be similar to explaining why there’s a menorah on the White House lawn next to the Christmas tree.

    FF, interesting crowd you hang with. But we’re talking about same sex marriage. Not prison sex. We’re talking about people who have deep and meaningful emotional connections with people of the same sex the same way straight people have deep and meaningful emotional connections with people of the opposite sex. I’m not sure what argument you are making here. If same sex couples just had more self control then there would be no need for same sex marriage?

  35. Hypocrisy questioned says:

    Richard,

    You are absolutely correct and the Rose Parade organizers were well within their rights to allow floats from eHarmony, The Lutheran Church and the Aids Healthcare Foundation. Founding Father and anyone else was also well within his/her rights to choose not to watch the parade if they felt that anyone of those floats were offensive or not suitable for their children to see.

  36. Hypocrisy questioned says:

    Founding Father,

    Please accept this advice from one parent to another in the spirit intended:

    I have always found that the more uncomfortable the topic, the more important it was that I discussed it with my children before they heard it from other sources.

  37. Founding Father says:

    Michael, the original discussion (20 posts ago) was about a behavior. Many equate homosexual desire for “equal” Marraige because they were just “born” that way…I have spoken to some of my interesting crowd friends, as you put it, (Jesus hung out with some interesting crowds…so I feel I’m in good company..:)…others of them psychiatrists and psychologists that while pressured from political correction officers within their sundry fields of study, no one believes gays are “born” that way. I don’t bemoan or begrudge “true love” as many here have tried to craft as the impetus for gay marriage…but no one believes that…many are fooled and lured into that…no…this is, and has been from the beginning, about normalizing a previously looked upon behavior as abhorrent as now something “mainstream”, run-of-the-mill…happy..”gay.” (cue the pixie dust, rainbows, and gum drops….terrific marketing, BTW)

    Now the discussion becomes what Michael may find abhorrent and what I might…different discussion…but as long as we have the right and responsibility to discern, I can choose to support or condemn whatever behavior I think warrants it…through boycotts and Facebook campaigns if I choose..Though not well articulated, I believe that is what is at the heart of Ms. Grube’s efforts, and those of the Duck Dynasty supporters.

    I am simply saying that I as a discerning parent, choose not to expose my children to that behavior, and certainly do not, and will not, allow it to be indoctrination at the k-6 level or stressing unisex bathrooms to accommodate a minutely small group of transgender children at the expense of the other 99.99% that do not have serious psychological and emotions issues with their sexual identity. What the faux “equal” forces have also done, either knowingly or not, have paved a path for other “true love” seekers in any number of proclivities that both imagined and unimagined could claim “true love” as well. So, given your logic, we can assume any cheating spouse can claim “true love” and all is forgiven (oh, and legally, no responsibility in breach of contract, or restitution therein?” True love trumps all? All morality, decency, social or cultural norms and constructs…any thing goes, because its “true love”…?

    Why Michael, what a romantic you are.. :)

  38. Founding Father says:

    Richard,

    Totally concur. However, the nexus between free speech, money, advertisement, legal concerns, political correctness, victim politics have all intersected into some surreal Vinn Diagram where the mere perception of impropriety of sensibilities being infringed upon, and those damages incurred, etc…has blurred the public, political, legal, and governmental into a mish-mash of outrage, counter-outrage, ramifications therein…and of course, don forget the monetary cost/losses from said “speech…it really has become quite Bolshevik.

    Instead of “free speech” we have cultivated “free indignation” and thus all the blowback and cost/value becomes a real commodity to trade, negotiate, and fight over etc…and who better to monitor, regulate, and adjudicate that than the “government.”… :)

  39. Founding Father says:

    HQ,

    I do…and thank you. What I do not choose to do is have the “other guy” choose the when, where, or how it is presented…which calls for the vigilance as parents whether it is parades, ABC “Family” or introductions by agenda driven administrators in K-12 public schools.

    I have a question…it is a theme often presented by gay marriage advocates…and it isn’t meant as a rhetorical or “gotcha” question….In your mind, what it the purpose of romantic love? The Greeks broke love into 3 categories…romantic/erotic love, brotherly/friendship love, and familial love (that between parents and children)…for that matter, what is the purpose of any of them?

    I’m curious as your response may shed some light on your position.

  40. Michael A. Schwartz says:

    FF, you were the one equating “homosexual desire” with marriage. I was the one explaining to you that human sexuality and emotions are a little bit more complicated that your friends who enjoy Cubic Bay hookers and prison sex.
    I don’t know is “THEY” were born “THAT” way. I would never be so arrogant to assume all people fit into some category like that. I’m positive that people of all types are influenced by biology and life experiences.

    Your mocking tone towards people who are homosexual leads me to believe that it is really less of a concern about the health of society and the children and more to do with a prejudice you have. And prejudice and bigotry never makes for good public policy.

    Support of condemn whoever you want, boycott or participate in whatever you want, teach your children whatever you want. Forcing people to side with your opinions using public policy to take away their rights is wrong. It’s un-American. It’s not Republican. And it is the exact opposite of the nation of the self-governed the actual founding fathers invented.

    “I am simply saying that I as a discerning parent, choose not to expose my children to that behavior, and certainly do not, and will not, allow it to be indoctrination at the k-6 level…”

    If this truly is all you are saying, then I’d support you. But it’s not. You are saying a whole lot more. To suggest otherwise is dishonest of you. You equate same sex marriage with incest and child molestation. You suggest that if someone isn’t supportive of the idea of suppressing someone’s religious right to marry that we are also in favor of supporting NAMBLA. Again, dishonest.

    “Why Michael, what a romantic you are..”
    Damn right I am! You don’t get a hot wife like mine without being a little romantic, my friend.

  41. Hypocrisy questioned says:

    Founding Father,

    I honestly have no idea what is THE PURPOSE of romantic love. I do not even know if there is a purpose. I only know what I said before. A life without romantic love is a life lacking its greatest treasure.

  42. Founding Father says:

    Ah Michael…and I thought we were really getting somewhere..I am the one displaying (various) levels of prejudice because I draw the line on a conviction you do not share…so “bigoted” is your best default…predictable (and a little intellectually deficient, to be candid)…and so are the oblique barbs about “friends” engaging in illicit activity. I guess you live in a utopia of rainbows and gumdrops, not “soiling” yourself with such realities…These are not people with which I remain or maintain regular relationships..they are acquaintances, fellow parishioners, and professionals with whom I have interacted at various levels over the years…and who were either open enough or in some cases brave enough to share their challenges and experiences.

    I haven’t made this about “religion” Michael, but you keep wanting to pull that in..because it is an easy and lazy boogieman for you. Yes, I advocate one steady, time-tested, universally acknowledged course for society based on my personal experiences, research, and observations regarding marriage between a man and a woman..nothing dishonest there..and yes, I believe to deviate from that now skews that norm and societal foundation to where the other 359 degrees on the relational, sexual, emotional compass are indeed much more complicated than the lazy, intellectually stunted and insidiously crafted and falsely promoted notion of marriage “equality.” No dishonesty there.

    But, hey, you’ve bought into it…and so have thousands of others. And whether you acknowledge it, or not, admit to it, or not, or realize it or not, you now own the ramifications of ALL the proclivities that are destine to ensue from the false notion of “true love:’ and “equality” for all who seek it…between anyone, or anything, that claims it as such.

    The question becomes, are you being honest with what you believe? Because if you believe in SSM. My Friend, you believe in polygamy, consensual incest , necrophilia, and all the other “equal” opportunities for society to explore…perhaps not the behavior, but you MUST accept their desire to pursue it, even “normalize” it…otherwise, your whole premise falls to sh@t,” my Friend.

    We can celebrate in one common issue..my wife is smokin’ as well..here. here! Happy New Year, Michael…

  43. Michael A. Schwartz says:

    “cue the pixie dust, rainbows, and gum drops”

    Is there a better example than this of being intellectually deficient?

  44. Hypocrisy questioned says:

    “Because if you believe in SSM. My Friend, you believe in polygamy, consensual incest , necrophilia, and all the other “equal” opportunities for society to explore…”

    Are you saying that if I am opposed to regulating marriage in a way that excludes same-sex couples, then I can’t be in favor of any regulation of marriage? I think I will let Richard Rider respond to that kind of logic. He is so much better at it than I am.

  45. Founding Father says:

    Michael, let me count the ways…BTW..its their marketing campaign…not mine.

    Your desire to insist on making this about intolerance is apparently the only way you can justify a lack of moral authority for “equal” marriage. Are you now renouncing the “equal” part of the “equal” marraige argument?

    Racial bigotry is that…based on a sole physical attribute, often associating that physical attribute with a lower intellectual, or societal even evolutionary capacity. You are advocating a behavior (we can debate the level of either acceptance or depravity of said behavior, but it is a behavior, that you support should be acknowledged, normalized, perhaps even celebrated) , and even supporting the further advancing and normalizing that behavior with empty, even flowery notions of “justice, equality, fairness” and supporting those that would then hoist this behavior on others either tacitly, parades, entertainment, etc…or directly, through indoctrination and forced acceptance, even legislation, through sensitivity training, pledges and petition (as with Mr. DeMaio and Mr. Faulkenor and their rejections of Prop 8 as councilmen)…

    So, given your construct, I will be as “dishonest” from your point, as you are “depraved” from mine…not sure that settles the discussion though.

  46. Founding Father says:

    HQ,

    Fair enough..I do not claim to KNOW the reason either..however, I believe it is a precursor, an impetus, a starting point which drives men and women to procreate, and then nurture the fruits of their consummation; i.e. children. This seems very logical and natural, and is supported by virtual every modern society, give or take some deviations (again, polygamy, pervasive births out of wedlock, communal rearing) etc.

    Based on that, we find ourselves in a bazzaro-world where Dr. Richard Dawkins (fervent atheist and humanist) intersects with Tony Perkins (fervent evangelical and OM/OW marraige advocate, based on Biblical tenants). Where as Dawkins believes it is levels of serotonin stimulated by large amounts of chocolate, candlelight, and fireplaces, all contributing to a feeling of “euphoria” that perpetuates “romantic love.” Mr. Perkins believes it is a divinely inspired blessing that is endowed upon us by our Creator, and thus codified and sanctified in the act of marraige and furthered and sustained through monogamous sexual intercourse.

    In either case, the end result is the same…procreation and nurturing. Only one construct performs both of those functions optimally…marraige between a man and a woman as bears out from countless studies and research. Of course, their are countless deviations to both procreation (“baby” daddies and polygamy make more babies) and nurturing loving “parents”(adoption, even same sex unions )…but only the construct defined by marraige for millennia accomplishes both at what Western society concluded and performed was optimal.

    So, if “romantic love” is the greatest gift (with which I do not dispute), then by the “equal” marraige argument, shouldn’t anyone be allowed to experience that “greatest gift?” In any permutation that gets one there? Does society have the right to deny anyone who believes they have the right, or a court can decide, or culture, society, or fad can dictate whatever construct they want to arrive at the greatest gift?

    That is what I meant by “slippery slope.” When any deviation from the constant is accepted, then any and all must be considered accepted. The greatest Achilles Heal to the same sex “equality” argument is that while forces and supporters were so preoccupied with whether they “could” normalize same-sex marriage, they clearly didn’t have the wisdom or the foresight to actually contemplate whether they “should.” They were either selfish or ignorant to the ramifications that approach might have on the foundations, structures and pillars of a measured, descent, and moral society. Do I believe SSM in and of itself is inherently damaging to society? Of course not…but the abrogation of the original definition of marriage as the societal norm and “spine” of a community now exposes that society to countless deviations that will have the same “moral”, certainly legal premise for normalizing…That is irrefutable.

    So here comes all forms of the “greatest gift..”..

    BTW, thank you for answering the question…I appreciate the stimulation for further thought and discussion.

  47. Michael A. Schwartz says:

    So FF, you are mad that because of a behavior you display people lump you into a category that you don’t necessarily identify with, say rude things about you, assume the worst about your intentions, and want to limit your rights?

    Weird. Bet that’s frustrating when all you want to do is live life the way you want.

  48. Founding Father says:

    HQ (et al),

    What I am saying is that who are you, or I (or our Friend, Michael) to deny the pursuit of other “marraige” constructs if one has already advocated “equal” rights as the basis for that argument…

    From the Pro-Polygamy website- http://www.pro-polygamy.com

    “The “gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered” (GLBT) community hailed the new law as a civil rights victory. Declaring that the new law advances fairness and equality for all, they proclaimed that New Hampshire had supposedly “ended discrimination” for everyone.

    But the law did no such thing. Rather, it intentionally “discriminates” against consenting adult polygamists – indeed, on purpose. ”

    And from a wiki- link capturing NAMBLAs position-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nambla

    NAMBLA’s website states that it is a political, civil rights, and educational organization whose goal is to end “the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships.”[5] According to the NAMBLA, some of the organization’s primary positions are:
    Supporting and promoting man/boy relationships: they hold that when consensual these relationships are not harmful or child sexual abuse.[6] One study they cite is the controversial Rind et al. paper.[7]
    Age-of-consent reform: what NAMBLA describes as “empowerment of youth in all areas, not just the sexual.”[5]

    Anyone that argued for the “equal” rights of same-sex marraige has already tacitly supported these two positions…even if they do not agree or recognize either of these positions, lifestyles, or chances for “love.” The mere “support” for the false premise of “equality” in marraige is the same premise already argued and advanced by same-sex advocates.

  49. Founding Father says:

    ….so, on that note…Quod Erat Demonstrandum..

    Happy New Year Rostra-ites :)

  50. Hypocrisy questioned says:

    Founding Father,

    At least you were able to understand that the issue is marriage and who one loves rather than that of simply sex. I look at that as progress. As for your slippery slope argument, I will leave it at this:

    We cannot stop polygamists or members of NAMBLA from making any argument they choose to make, but I am not willing to ignore the Equal Protection Clause as it pertains to marriage between two consenting adults just because someone will argue that it also pertains to minors or multiple spouses. Similarly, I do not want to take away your Second Amendment rights just because someone will argue that it allows them to own any weapon (even nuclear) that they choose.

  51. Founding Father says:

    HQ,

    Fair enough…I’m not sure we view the purpose or meaning of marriage and its role in the betterment and health of our society precisely the same…but I’ll stipulate progress for progress sake….I sense you have considered that conviction, despite one’s opposition to it, does not intolerance make…

    I thought we covered the 2nd Amendment already… :)

    Thanks.

  52. Artic Wind says:

    Does Rider really want to enter an Assault Rifle Float. Manned with members of Seal Team Nine? Come Jan. 1, 2015 we could have our first Seal Teams with Combat authorized Women.

    An Assault Rifle Float, manned by Female commandos would seem to make sense.

Social Widgets powered by AB-WebLog.com.