Liberal Gay agenda once again pushed on the mayor!

[Boges]

SHAME on any elected official or law enforcement that attends or supports.

If you support the likes of these, shame on you too. And, those that take their kids ought to have social services on their backs.

Well that's going a bit to far, if you ask me. But politicians definitely shouldn't be considered homophobes if they feel uncomfortable attending Pride.

[Argus]

You can't go to pride if you have a family and a wife ?

It would go a long way to mending fences, if Rob made an effort to attend this event. The main reason not to attend is to send a message that you are stubborn and will never compromise...

Realistically, there is no way Ford is going to get any more than an infinitesimal fraction of the gay vote (and those who go to their parades), no matter what he does. These are almost all very left wing people who oppose every aspect of his agenda, quite aside from sexual politics. He earns more votes for having the balls to say no then he'd ever get by caving in and meekly paying homage to the gay community that hates him.

[Guest Peeves]

Mr. Canada's video perhaps?

We went through this so called gay pride on a different forum a year ago. There are those that continually make it about 'GAy' rights. It isn't any longer a parade on gay rights, it's obscene, it's political, it's abhorrent to many and breaks our laws to boot.

No other group or individual could get away with what this obscene travesty of 'rights' stands for.

Now I know there are sensible gay people that respect others and the law, they'd be home of course.

Adult content.

[Michael Hardner]

If you really want to experience the crap, look it up on You Tube.

There's tons of it. Here's an example. Feel free to roll through to the full frontal nudity near the end.

SHAME on any elected official or law enforcement that attends or supports.

If you support the likes of these, shame on you too. And, those that take their kids ought to have social services on their backs.

http://alexgtsakumis.com/2010/08/03/the-prideless-parade-drugs-extremism-and-hate-all-in-the-falsehood-of-diversity/

Looks like 1 illegal act on that entire page - one old dude who flashed his privates. Not really a big deal... probably par for the course for big concerts, festivals such as Mardi Gras, Caribana and so on....

Puritains really ruin it for everyone don't they...

[cybercoma]

What about if you quote a section of a holy book that calls for their execution ? What then ?

I love how this went completely ignored.

[Shakeyhands]

Mr. Canada's video perhaps?

You know, I'd still like to get a viewing of his work!

[Shakeyhands]

I love how this went completely ignored.

KORAN!!!!! QURAAN!!!!!! Something!!!!

[jacee]

You know, I'd still like to get a viewing of his work!

It's funny, odd, or something ... that the people who complain the loudest about the 'horrible homo sex parade' are the ones with the videos.

[The Right One]

according to the posters on here.

not going to fag parade= homophobe

not supporting israel killing palestinians= anti-semitic/Hitler.

[Moonlight Graham]

according to the posters on here.

not going to fag parade= homophobe

not supporting israel killing palestinians= anti-semitic/Hitler.

Calling homosexuals that "f" word = homophobe

[Shakeyhands]

according to the posters on here.

not going to fag parade= homophobe

not supporting israel killing palestinians= anti-semitic/Hitler.

Please get banned soon. Thanks.

[bleeding heart]

Please get banned soon. Thanks.

He's trying, just give him time.

[Boges]

It's funny, odd, or something ... that the people who complain the loudest about the 'horrible homo sex parade' are the ones with the videos.

I think a simple google search can unearth these videos.

[Michael Hardner]

according to the posters on here.

Hi TRO - please refrain from insults such as in your post. Several posters have objected to the language, publicly and privately, and it's against the rules as well.

[Black Dog]

We went through this so called gay pride on a different forum a year ago. There are those that continually make it about 'GAy' rights. It isn't any longer a parade on gay rights, it's obscene, it's political, it's abhorrent to many and breaks our laws to boot.

You obviously haven't the faintest understanding of the history of Pride and what this parade represents. Of course it's obscene. Of course it's political. That's the point.

[cybercoma]

It's ok for obscene heterosexuality to grace the covers of magazines, be all over television, be shown on the silver screen, and adorn advertisements in stores. The public display of obscene heterosexual behaviour is on display constantly. Yet, people are up in arms when there's any show of homosexual behaviours whether obscene or not. Even progressively-minded people will say things like, "I don't like any public displays of affection," without even considering that public display of hetero-eroticism are everywhere constantly. We don't even notice them anymore, but are repulsed by homo-eroticism.

[Guest Peeves]

Looks like 1 illegal act on that entire page - one old dude who flashed his privates. Not really a big deal... probably par for the course for big concerts, festivals such as Mardi Gras, Caribana and so on....

Puritains really ruin it for everyone don't they...

Get off it. That's a cop out response. I provided one reference for you personally. There are tons of examples so don't discount fact with dismissal. On another forum there were dozens of examples shown. I certainly have no desire to look them up for nay sayers.

Now the issue. There's a parade that's not suitable for kids nor is it in keeping with many adults with morals against open nudity, dry 'humping' and grotesque portrayals of gays. Those I know or knew would not behave so. Some of the behavior is against our laws, OUR laws.

Having said that I suggest that none of our elected officials, law enforcement or families with their children should be in attendance. Certainly if they chose not to attend they should rather be praised than condemned.

Now that's my opinion. Those that wish to go and watch this burlesque travesty of gays are free to do so, but do not judge those that find it repugnant, their right to stay away.

I would be critical of any group that professed to be portraying gays in such a manner.

I have participated in carnival parades in Trinidad where rum and playing in bands is frenetic and wild but full frontal nudity or grotesque behavior does not in my experience include law breaking.

If it did, I would be similarly disgusted.

Bravo for those elected or otherwise that stand their (high) ground.

[Guest Peeves]

You obviously haven't the faintest understanding of the history of Pride and what this parade represents. Of course it's obscene. Of course it's political. That's the point.

I suggest you have not the faintest understanding of my life experiences nor any ability to judge me.

We speak here not of gays, but of whether one should consider Pride's parade as something that an elected official or other should be criticized for not attending.

Whether 'they' don't attend for political or sexual posturings in the parade, or for moral reasons is and should be their free choice.

I know the history of Pride and I know gays that would have no part of it. That's their choice. The reasons I've heard gays express for not attending is that the parade does not show the public face of

LGBT and if anything it disparages them.

The Pride Parade is what it is and if they have the right to break the law and promote behavior as they do, certainly others have a right to judge their behavior, opine, and boycott the debacle.

There, you have my opinion, now go forth and sin no more.

[Guest Peeves]

It's funny, odd, or something ... that the people who complain the loudest about the 'horrible homo sex parade' are the ones with the videos.

Now that's a non sequitur.

You chose to attack a poster with disparaging remarks rather than address the subject. Such references were called for by another and a point of reference given for that person's edification.

Now, should you have anything worth a ha'penny to add, on point, which I doubt, I'm sure we all sit with baited breath awaiting your next erudite grunt.

Edited April 17, 2012 by Peeves

[Black Dog]

I suggest you have not the faintest understanding of my life experiences nor any ability to judge me.

Indeed, I can only judge you on your opinions here. Fortunately, that's quite enough.

We speak here not of gays, but of whether one should consider Pride's parade as something that an elected official or other should be criticized for not attending.

Whether 'they' don't attend for political or sexual posturings in the parade, or for moral reasons is and should be their free choice.

And no one has said otherwise. however, that does not exempt them from questioning.

I know the history of Pride and I know gays that would have no part of it.

That's their choice. The reasons I've heard gays express for not attending is that the parade does not show the public face of LGBT and if anything it disparages them.

Well they are entitled to their opinion as well. But that doesn't change the fact that your implication that Pride should be some apolitical, non offensive event misses the point of it completely.

The Pride Parade is what it is and if they have the right to break the law and promote behavior as they do, certainly others have a right to judge their behavior, opine, and boycott the debacle.

And the reverse holds as well.

[bleeding heart]

How the F. could Pride be "apolitical," anyway?

[Shakeyhands]

Indeed, I can only judge you on your opinions here. Fortunately, that's quite enough.

This would have sufficed. Good for you for finishing the post.

[g_bambino]

The public display of obscene heterosexual behaviour is on display constantly.

Hardly.

Yet, people are up in arms when there's any show of homosexual behaviours whether obscene or not.

Again, hardly. Any display of "obscenity" (though the definition of that is subjective) is restricted. Tamer depictions of homosexuality are accepted almost commonly, provided they involve women.

[ed.: c/e]

Edited April 17, 2012 by g_bambino

[bleeding heart]

Hardly.

Increasingly explicit heterosexual imagery is ubiquitous. Surely you're not disputing that?

His use of the word "obscenity" is in direct response to the "gays are gross" theme which is essentially the very premise of most complaints here. You're right about obscenity; but the anti-gay little mouthbreathers are using the word quite... promiscuously, let's say...so there it is.

Again, hardly. Any display of "obscenity" (though the definition of that is subjective) is restricted. Tamer depictions of homosexuality are accepted almost commonly, provided they involve women.

[ed.: c/e]

Those aren't so much genuine depictions of female homosexuality as they are a sop to a common male fetish. Though I suppose we could parse such things all day long.

Edited April 17, 2012 by bleeding heart

[g_bambino]

His use of the word "obscenity" is in direct response to the "gays are gross" theme which is essentially the very premise of most complaints here. You're right about obscenity; but the anti-gay little mouthbreathers are using the word quite... promiscuously, let's say...so there it is.

Oh. I think I see now; he was using the word ironically?

Those aren't so much genuine depictions of female homosexuality as they are a sop to a common male fetish.

How many sexually infused images in the media are genuine? And how important is the sincerity of the image? I think the point is that there are depictions of homosexuality that are now commonly accepted by the "straight" majority, which just further reveals the irrationality and hypocricy of many in the "gays are gross" crowd.