Gaaak! Jeeze! I just did a "spit take" on my computer!

Gay is genetic? You think so? Pull up a chair, lad. We have some talking to do.

Bush even agreed in the 04 debates that there may be a genetic component to "gay". Personally I don't know and don't care, but politically it matters A LOT. If someone is "born gay" they are entitled to all the rights and protections afforded anyone under the constitution. Banning gay marriage is EXACTLY the same as banning blondes from marrying other blondes, i.e. they are born that way and can't help it, and certainly can't be expected to deny it.

Sure, you can pretend to be straight if you're gay, just like you can dye your hair, but to discriminate based on a genentic trait beyond the control of the individual is despicable. We used to ban interracial marriage because politicians found it distasteful, but no one chooses their color, so banning a black woman from marrying a white man is punishing them for something beyond their control. If "gay" is genetic, then the same applies here. And yet you are still anti-gay marriage? It doesn't compute.

I agree that "gay pride" is as irrelevant and fictitious as "white pride" or "black pride" or "size 10 shoe pride" because none of us have anything to do with our genetics. Nothing to be ashamed of. Nothing to be proud of. Nothing to do with the content of our character.

Lewd behavior in public is inappropriate regardless of gender or sexual orientation and should be dealt with in a consistent and fair manner.

But you can't be against gay marriage if you believe "gay" is genetic. Denying rights based on genetics is the hypocrisy of Nazis, or at a minimum the basis for the pseudoscience of eugenics.

When I saw this title in my RSS feed, I would have sworn it was going to be a Leo post- perhaps with John Murtha's or Hillary's head pasted in over a gay parader in a leather harness. It couldn't be Mark flogging that old conservative standard - the "gay pride" parade. But, so it is.

"What, exactly, are they being proud of?"

I'm not gay, but I don't think it takes a genius to figure out what they are proud of. They are proud of the fact that they are no longer cowering in fear and wallowing in shame because they're gay. And no, not everyone at a gay parade is dancing around in leather harnesses (not that there's anything wrong with that) - that's just the part conservatives love to fixate on and scare other people with.

I'd like to hear from our resident schoolteachers on this, but I'm pretty sure it's still hell to grow up and go to school if you are gay, or just less masculine (or feminine) than the other kids. Now that they are free of that abuse, I think they deserve a day of dancing and celebration in the streets now and again. "Gay Pride Parade" is a little more catchy than "No Longer Ashamed and Scared Because I'm Gay Parade", wouldn't you say?

To the core issue of the firefighters forced to attend the gay parade in uniform, I think it's a legitimate hostile workplace claim. However if the firefighters didn't want to take that detail, they should have just refused it on the grounds stated in their claim. At this point, it seems they are just being vindictive and looking for attention. And attention they will get - I'm quite sure they've been showered with conservative blog support, offers of free legal service and countless interview invitations from the sorts of TV and radio personalities who take delight in showing lurid gay parade clips. Conservative media pray for stories like this.

When I saw this title in my RSS feed, I would have sworn it was going to be a Leo post- perhaps with John Murtha's or Hillary's head pasted in over a gay parader in a leather harness. It couldn't be Mark flogging that old conservative standard - the "gay pride" parade. But, so it is.

"What, exactly, are they being proud of?"

I'm not gay, but I don't think it takes a genius to figure out what they are proud of. They are proud of the fact that they are no longer cowering in fear and wallowing in shame because they're gay. And no, not everyone at a gay parade is dancing around in leather harnesses (not that there's anything wrong with that) - that's just the part conservatives love to fixate on and scare other people with.

I'd like to hear from our resident schoolteachers on this, but I'm pretty sure it's still hell to grow up and go to school if you are gay, or just less masculine (or feminine) than the other kids. Now that they are free of that abuse, I think they deserve a day of dancing and celebration in the streets now and again. "Gay Pride Parade" is a little more catchy than "No Longer Ashamed and Scared Because I'm Gay Parade", wouldn't you say?

To the core issue of the firefighters forced to attend the gay parade in uniform, I think it's a legitimate hostile workplace claim. However if the firefighters didn't want to take that detail, they should have just refused it on the grounds stated in their claim. At this point, it seems they are just being vindictive and looking for attention. And attention they will get - I'm quite sure they've been showered with conservative blog support, offers of free legal service and countless interview invitations from the sorts of TV and radio personalities who take delight in showing lurid gay parade clips. Conservative media pray for stories like this.

When I saw this title in my RSS feed, I would have sworn it was going to be a Leo post- perhaps with John Murtha's or Hillary's head pasted in over a gay parader in a leather harness. It couldn't be Mark flogging that old conservative standard - the "gay pride" parade. But, so it is.

"What, exactly, are they being proud of?"

I'm not gay, but I don't think it takes a genius to figure out what they are proud of. They are proud of the fact that they are no longer cowering in fear and wallowing in shame because they're gay. And no, not everyone at a gay parade is dancing around in leather harnesses (not that there's anything wrong with that) - that's just the part conservatives love to fixate on and scare other people with.

I'd like to hear from our resident schoolteachers on this, but I'm pretty sure it's still hell to grow up and go to school if you are gay, or just less masculine (or feminine) than the other kids. Now that they are free of that abuse, I think they deserve a day of dancing and celebration in the streets now and again. "Gay Pride Parade" is a little more catchy than "No Longer Ashamed and Scared Because I'm Gay Parade", wouldn't you say?

To the core issue of the firefighters forced to attend the gay parade in uniform, I think it's a legitimate hostile workplace claim. However if the firefighters didn't want to take that detail, they should have just refused it on the grounds stated in their claim. At this point, it seems they are just being vindictive and looking for attention. And attention they will get - I'm quite sure they've been showered with conservative blog support, offers of free legal service and countless interview invitations from the sorts of TV and radio personalities who take delight in showing lurid gay parade clips. Conservative media pray for stories like this.

What is the difference between this and a racist fireman who was upset he had to be in a Martin Luther King Parade? Nothing.

It is part of the job to go to parades and represent your department.

On another note:

Glenn Murphy, was a rising star in the Indiana GOP was forced to resign his post when a 22-year-old man claimed Murphy sexually assaulted him while he was sleeping.

Are most Republican closit gays?

Denying rights based on genetics is the hypocrisy of Nazis, or at a minimum the basis for the pseudoscience of eugenics.

Looks to me like Broder called you a Nazi, Mark. He deserves a suspension...

gay pride?
What is there to be proud of with anal sex?
gerbals, bats, clubs inserted where the sun dont shine? (ask any emergency room doctor,these are documented)
Proud to be the largest carrier group of aids?
Proud to de a destructive force in society?
be whom you are BUT dont attempt to foist your deviant sick perversion on the whole of civilization and expect us to act as if is normal....let alone CELEBRATE it.

live and let live. I am sure the fireman "forced to watch the nauseating sexual immorality" will be just fine. As to the "proud to be gay" thing - I think you have to take it in the context of the society that we live in. How many people - like Mark here - are nauseated at the thought of gay sex? They have been made to feel like they are deviants by people like Mark for centuries. How would you feel if every time you kissed your wife in public people turned away in disgust, wrote long public articles like this, or even protested.
Sorry Mark - but our world has changed for the better and you are one of the ones stuck back in the 50s trying to ban rock and roll and dancing...

Its all nothing more than a fetish. No different than the guy who likes girls panties, or the guy who likes feet, or the guy who likes animals. Its all a fetish. And it is disgusting that they make us watch.

I see from the article that the Thomas More Law Center, of Ann Arbor, is handling the case for the plaintiffs. Obviously, this is a purely political statement being made -- something tells me that there is no shortage of good lawyers in and around San Diego.

Anybody "up" for a Straight Pride parade?

Anybody "up" for a Straight Pride parade?

Sure, LaMano, but the Anti-American Communist Liberals Union would have us indicted for a hate crime. We must be tolerant, no?

Your point about it being silly for people to be "proud" of something they were born with is a good one. And it's what I always say when people (other that immigrants who've won citizenship) say they're "proud to be Americans" One can be proud of an accomplishment, but how can being born in a particular country be a source of pride?

You can close the comments now. The first comment nailed it.

Mark, if you'd spent your entire adult life being berated, insulted, beaten, or lynched because you were under 5'8" you might start countering those sentiments by claiming pride.

You can't help what you are, but you can, sometimes, take pride in it.

Puts the firefighters in clown suits and call an Waahhmbulance.

I just surfed over to the Onion and found this article - http://www.theonion.com/content/news/small_town_holds_annual_gay_shame - to funny. And honestly, if anyone wanted to throw a Gay Shame Parade who cares? I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion.

"If someone is 'born gay' they are entitled to all the rights and protections afforded anyone under the constitution."

So what you're saying is, that if the pervs from NAMBLA argue their sexual preference for little boys was predetermined from their own birth, then "they are entitled to all the rights and protections afforded anyone under the Constitution" and should, of course, be allowed to marry little boys?

Is marrying little boys a Constitutional right?
I must have missed that.
Nice strawman, though.

BTW, your comment doesn't make you seem like an idiot at all. As far as you know.

Robert, you're either really dumb, or being intentionally oblivious.

The left claims that marriage is a civil right, and thus should be inclusive to gay couples. If, as congressive said earlier is true, that if "someone is 'born gay' they are entitled to all the rights and protections afforded anyone under the constitution," then what's stopping the NAMBLA people from saying they are the way they are from birth and thus their civil rights are being violated because they cannot marry little boys.

I think you know very well what my point is, but you're intentionally ignoring it and pretending it's nonsensical, but I am willing to bet you are you trying to avoid admitting your own hypocrisy.

”If someone is 'born gay' they are entitled to all the rights and protections afforded anyone under the constitution.”

It doesn’t matter if they were “born gay” or “became gay” later in life, all Americans are afforded the rights and protections under the constitution. What I’m unclear on here is what does that have to do with forcing the firefighters to march in a gay parade?

”Conservative media pray for stories like this.”

How absurd to suggest that Conservatives pray for something to happen that they are against in the first place. Its issues like this that get conservative minded people angry and move them to take action. I’m quite sure they would rather never have to deal with such things. Unfortunately, it appears to constantly be forced on them, so it’s either deal with it or succumb to it and I don’t think too many people take kindly to having this shoved down their throats.

KCJ, they make an art out of avoiding their own hypocrisy.

KCJ

Either you are being stupid or intentionally oblivious! Why do you equate pedophilia with homosexuality. Robert is not being a hypocrite. Surely you recognize the difference between a relationship between someone of your own gender and someone who is underage...

Sigh..

Noonan is arguing that it's genetic, KCJ.

KCJ and many righties have a problem understanding the concept of "consenting adult" and often confuse homosexuality with pedophilia. If you are born heterosexual, you are still not allowed to rape children. If you find yourself hetero or homosexual at puberty, it is still illegal to have sex with another thirteen year old.

This frightens me, that they confuse "consenting adult" with "child rapist" so often, and how quickly they bring up NAMBLA as if it is right there in the forefront of their minds at all times. If they are ever tempted to rape a child, they might justify it by the same reasoning, thinkng that "it's not so bad, 'cause homos are bad, too".

I'd be nervous with KCJ around my kids. I'm not accusing KCJ of anything. I'm just saying...

I had a gay roommate for a while. When I interviewed him I never would have guessed he was gay. He had to tell me: at the end of the interview he asked me if I had a problem with the fact that he was gay. In reply I asked him if he had a problem with the fact that I wasn't.

We both answered no. I can't speak for him, but for me the truth of the matter was... yeah, I was very uneasy about it. I didn't have any real experience with gay folks up to that time. But I was in a hurry to find a roommate. And the only other option was a 400 lb woman that seemed way too thrilled at the prospect of having a guy as a roommate. Besides, she was a graduate student in English, which probably meant she would be around a lot. He was a first year MD resident, which almost certainly meant he wasn't going to be around much at all.

And that's how it worked out. At least for the first year I hardly ever saw him. But in what little time we did spend together, we became friends. On occasion he'd walk in when a lady friend and I were on the sofa just hanging out. No big deal. Then there was the occasion when I walked in when he and his boy friend were on the sofa just hanging out. They weren't doing anything promiscuous or anything, just snuggling. But to be perfectly honest, that was difficult for me. More to the point, it made my skin crawl. But over time I got used to it.

Anyway, my point is this: if you're looking to promote tolerance to gender preference, do it slowly. Making a bunch of firemen attend a gay pride parade is likely to have exactly the opposite effect from that which you intend to promote.

"And the only other option was a 400 lb woman that seemed way too thrilled at the prospect of having a guy as a roommate."

Sexist!

Wow... Gulfwarvet... nice jab... that story was pretty funny though... Here's a link; it is on a blog--so salt is needed.

Frankly, I don't know if it's genetic, a choice, or some freakish incident (for a fun little logical romp, consider the actual implications of genetic homosexuality), and I don't really care. People are people and who they want to have sex with doesn't change that.

That being said... Gay Pride Parades are annoying. They tie up traffic, play bad music loudly, and feature the type of things mentioned in the post.

That, and forcing anyone to go to anything (Jury Duty and similar things) is just bad... but is it "sexual harassment" to force someone to go to a Gay Pride Parade? A violation of individual autonomy? Yeah. Generally Crappy? Yeah. Not sexual harassment.

Now, if you don't mind, I have a Guys 5'8 or Under Who Wear Size 10 Shoes Parade to get ready for...

Dasein: Sexist!

Lol! How about corpulist? I'll admit to that. She was huge. She could talk the ears off a brass monkey, too. So I guess that makes me a chattist, as well!

Congressive,

Ah, but we're not denying anyone's right to marriage, because there is no such thing - a right cannot require the participation of another person. Marriage is a privilege - and it also has a purpose. The purpose is not to make it easier for one guy to take care of another guy's legal affairs when he is incapacitated, nor is the purpose to gather tax breaks, nor is the purpose social acceptance...the purpose is to build families and raise children; to be, as it were, the building block of our larger society - a society in which "gay pride" is just a bit of useless frivolity - some the real parts of soceity tolerates.

Instant contradiction again. If marriage is to build families and raise children, two ideals which I believe are the greatest expressions of joyous human existence, you would deny these joys to people based on their genetics, something beyond their control. You are saying that because someone is born blonde or gay or tall or brown-skinned, our government can deny them happiness, based on the DNA in their chromosomes, regardless of their character, simply because their particular genetic traits are out of society's favor.

You would condemn someone to a loveless, (adopted) childless existence, condemn them to die alone because of their genes. (Side note: if "gay" is genentic, then adoptive gay parents would have no effect on their adopted children's sexual orientation).

You would deny Glen Murphy his right to pursue happiness... ok, what he did might be criminal, but you get the point.

Instant contradiction. Clinical cognitive dissonance.

Oddly, I don't think "gay" IS genetic in this sense. I think it is a population pressure relief valve. The higher the density any society becomes, the greater the "gay" population. Much like goldfish who stay small when confined to a small fishtank, when societies throughout history reach geographical or economic boundaries (think San Francisco or New York) and are threatened with overcrowding, increasing the potential for disease and starvation, a percentage of the population become non-breeders and avert or at least postpone the society's collapse.

This would have applied throughout human history, whenever a populated area with limited water and food would become overcrowded, those who a portion of the population would cease to reproduce would ensure the survival of the rest, passing this trait on to future generations. "Wholesome" societies that forbade gay unions and just kept breeding at breakneck speed would die from starvation or disease.

Proud of being gay? Am I supposed to have a Guys Under 5'8" Pride Parade? How can one be proud of one's genetics? We're firmly assured that gay people are born that way - being proud of it is as silly as being proud of your hair color. So, what gives? What, exactly, are they being proud of?

Exactly! It's like those damn Irish with their so-called St. Patrick's Day Parades. You didn't choose to be Irish, so stop blocking traffic! Who do they think they are? Honestly, the Irish weren't even considered 'white' until a few dozen years ago. These palefaced Papists' pathetic attempt to convince mainstream Protestant America that they're the same as everybody else is so transparent it makes my vomit green.

Have you seen these parades? I've seen them in New York and Boston. Talk about lewd displays of public indecency! Drunkenness, lasciviousness, brawling, and public urination! And the worst part is, since the Irish seem to have infiltrated the police and firehouses, they just stand idly by while Europe's red-headed step-children run amok!

A word of advice to everyone here:

In this context, talking about gays "shoving it down our throats" sounds a little . . . well, you know.

"How can one be proud of one's genetics?" So I shouldn't be proud to be American because I was born that way?