Liberal Gay agenda once again pushed on the mayor!

[madmax]

Leviticus 18:22

Rob Ford has a family, aka children and a WIFE.

This Wife...?

one dispute became public after Ford was charged with assault and uttering a death threat.

And this family

On Friday, the Star reported that 22 Division’s Youth and Family Violence Unit was probing two recent incidents at the mayor’s Etobicoke home.

Mayor Rob Ford has continued to stay silent about two ongoing police investigations into domestic disputes at his home.

Police called to Ford's home Christmas Day: report

For the second time in as many months, police officers were called to Mayor Rob Ford's Etobicoke home about a reported domestic dispute, the Toronto Star reports.

Ford's mother-in-law made the call Christmas Day between 4 a.m. and 5 a.m., claiming the mayor had been drinking ...

Police have responded to multiple 911 calls from Ford's home in recent years

[madmax]

He's the freaking mayor of Toronto, which has a very vibrant gay community, so if you decide you want to be mayor of Toronto you better get with the program. Gays are part of his constituency too.

On the other hand, looks like a lot of gay people, gay supporters, and young people (as always) stayed home last election day so maybe this will wake them up next time if they don't want a dolt like Ford in office. You get what you vote for (or don't vote for).

Its demonstrates how much of the public couldn't accept the corruption of Smitherman over the incompetence of Ford.

Ford is great Entertainment... and I think he is the perfect example of Right Wing Leadership.

[Guest Peeves]

I *gave* you a chance already to provide the examples. The hit piece on that website provided something like 60 images, with a grand total of ONE with questionable taste. Congratulations. Now you say there are tons of examples - why didn't you provide them when given the chance.

And I pointed out other examples that have a similar amount of debauchery. Are you so PC that you would cancel all parades, celebrations because a few are *offended* ?

The parade is a chance for Ford to make peace with the mainstream downtown Toronto liberal. He'd be stupid to pass that up, IMO. His hardcore right supporters will vote for him anyway, and he has the opportunity to garner a few MOR votes here.

Don't B/S a Bull shitter. I told you to look them up yourself, I'm no flunky for one in denial.

I would not allow law breaking and I would fire any public official that breaks said laws. I could give a shit what the clowns and caricaturists portray, I want laws enforced. Anything else I might find offensive and so would some gays, but I wouldn't fault anything that offends me as something to be denied. Not at all, parade as you will, but maintain the law, there's the rub. Some would expect our elected officials to sublimate their disdain for law breaking and become enablers by attending. I on the other hand suggest an elected official or any of our law enforcement officers to say thanks but no thanks.

My problem is the breaking of laws and those parents that expose their children to such, NOT the gay parade. If they wish to behave as they do, I don't have to either like it or attend, but I wouldn't deny them their rights within the law to behave as some do.. Somehow though some here want to deny me the right to expect laws to be enforced, to expect other's rights to be considered. Their oft time response is in attempting to label others with opinions as somehow less entitled.

If anyone wishes to attend or take part, good on them, but, if they have rights to act (within the law) brazenly and portray gays thusly, the rest of us are entitled to stand on our values as well. Who the *&^$#@ are you lot to condemn others for their opinion, who indeed. Who died and made you judges and king shit of the hoi polloi ?

[Argus]

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.

Sexuality and sexual attraction are not based on rationality. Nor, of course, would repulsion be. We are attracted to or repulsed by given images and ideas without regard to any intellectualizing. I don't want to go so far as to say it's instinctive, for I'm sure a part is learned behaviour, but still and all, what we like is what we like, and there isn't a lot we can do about that.

[Argus]

You know what I think, and I could be wrong, but MEN have more problems with the Gay issue than women. If the mayor was a woman, she would be there, after all when you are a mayor, premier or PM, you are for All.

Not the woman I've talked to. Most find the thought of male-male sex revolting, for example. There simply isn't the same interest as there is among men for female-female sex. And most are vastly uninterested in female-female sex either, though not as many are repulsed by the notion.

Edited April 18, 2012 by Argus

[Argus]

Those are called "bikinis" and I'm certainly not going to complain.

Most women I know, even the ones who wear thongs, have no interest in men wearing thongs, and wouldn't want their own man to wear one, regardless of what shape he's in.

[Argus]

I have two words for you: Mardi Gras.

If you don't like those two words, then I've got another set: Spring Break.

For whatever reason, society does not find the naked or semi-naked female form as distasteful as the naked or semi-naked male form.

You know, I had a conversation with a woman a couple of days ago on gender body image. I pointed out that barring being overweight, most young females have attractive bodies, more than attractive enough for men to be interested. Also, a youngish woman doesn't really have to do anything much to have a great body. But the standard for a 'great body' among males is FAR higher. If you want to have the kind of male body you see in the female fantasy mags, the adverts, etc., you need to be exercising several hours a day every day. To have a great male body you need strongly defined muscles, maybe not in the Arnold Schwarzenegger category, but well-defined pecs, biceps, abdomenals, etc. You don't get that by jogging a little and watching what you eat.

So those girls on spring break weekend or at mardi gras, I'm betting they've got really nice bodies.

[Peter F]

So those girls on spring break weekend or at mardi gras, I'm betting they've got really nice bodies.

yeah....

[g_bambino]

I'm sure a part is learned behaviour...

Part of it is and, for many men in Western culture, at least, the learned behaviour is to, at minimum, never admit, even to one's self in the most extreme cases, any homoerotic feelings/thoughts/behaviours for/about/around other men, unless it's within the accepted and strict confines dictated by society (patting your teammate's ass on the field or in the locker room or shower, or flashing of genitalia at each other for shock laughs, for instance).

It's funny when a guy gets grossed out by two sweaty, muscular men in short-shorts dancing on a float in a parade will pay to watch two sweaty, muscular men in short-shorts wrestle with each other in a UFC ring.

[ed.: c/e]

Edited April 18, 2012 by g_bambino

[Argus]

Part of it is and, for many men in Western culture, at least, the learned behaviour is to, at minimum, never admit, even to one's self in the most extreme cases, any homoerotic feelings/thoughts/behaviours for/about/around other men,

I would presume that for the majority of men, they don't HAVE any homoerotic feelings or thoughts about other men. I simply don't find the male body to be attractive or arousing in any way. Why would I have 'homoerotic' feelings towards it?

[g_bambino]

I would presume that for the majority of men, they don't HAVE any homoerotic feelings or thoughts about other men.

From all I've seen, heard, and read, I've concluded the opposite. There's no such thing as 100% heterosexual (or homosexual), for men or women.

[Guest American Woman]

Quite frankly, I see Gay Pride parades as entertainment, nothing else. I don't see it as a call for tolerance or gay rights, and therefore I don't see it as a "political" event that a mayor would be obligated to attend. I support gay rights completely, but I would have no desire to go to a Gay Pride parade. It's just not something that would appeal to me. As for winning people over, I actually think that in some respects they set back the hard-fought, respectful acceptance that a lot of gays have fought for. I have no problem if they want to put themselves out there in all their flamboyancy, but to expect everyone to accept it or be thought homophobic is nuts. This is not what being gay is all about; I would say it's representative of the minority of gays overall.

[Black Dog]

Quite frankly, I see Gay Pride parades as entertainment, nothing else. I don't see it as a call for tolerance or gay rights, and therefore I don't see it as a "political" event that a mayor would be obligated to attend. I support gay rights completely, but I would have no desire to go to a Gay Pride parade. It's just not something that would appeal to me. As for winning people over, I actually think that in some respects they set back the hard-fought, respectful acceptance that a lot of gays have fought for. I have no problem if they want to put themselves out there in all their flamboyancy, but to expect everyone to accept it or be thought homophobic is nuts. This is not what being gay is all about; I would say it's representative of the minority of gays overall.

What you have to understand is that the whole concept of Pride was born as a reaction to the years and years of repression, concealment and enforced denial that was the norm for gays for the better part of history. It's not intended to represent all gays or all lifestyles, but it's a political statement about a community that will no longer accept marginalization and oppression by mainstream society. Over the years as homosexuality has become more accepted, the political aspect has diminished, replaced by the entertainment aspect, but one needs to keep in mind where they're coming from.

[Guest Peeves]

What you have to understand is that the whole concept of Pride was born as a reaction to the years and years of repression, concealment and enforced denial that was the norm for gays for the better part of history. It's not intended to represent all gays or all lifestyles, but it's a political statement about a community that will no longer accept marginalization and oppression by mainstream society. Over the years as homosexuality has become more accepted, the political aspect has diminished, replaced by the entertainment aspect, but one needs to keep in mind where they're coming from.

All that being understood, and it is, for any having experienced the years of gay bashing and the like, the display by some caricaturing gays as is done in the said parade does nothing TODAY for any Pride or a public impression of Gays.

Those behaving thus present gays in many blatant examples as ribald grotesque poseurs, flaunting promiscuity and such as their public face. Unfortunately many in the public will judge the many by the few.

I think it but demeans and embarrasses many of them.

However that is my opinion and I would deprive none the right to display their exuberance, just maintain lawfulness please and thank you and don't expect those with good taste to applaud.

[g_bambino]

What you have to understand is that the whole concept of Pride was born as a reaction to the years and years of repression, concealment and enforced denial that was the norm for gays for the better part of history...

For the better part of Judeo-Christian history, you mean. And there was no concept of "gay" prior to the turn of the 20th century; people weren't categorised sexually in that way.

[Michael Hardner]

Don't B/S a Bull shitter. I told you to look them up yourself, I'm no flunky for one in denial.

I did all I needed to do by clicking on your link and looking into it. I'm not going to research your claims for you. I think you've shown me how obvious it all is, thanks.

I would not allow law breaking and I would fire any public official that breaks said laws.

There is clearly no proof that law breaking is being permitted. Even your attack-dog site found one example of flashing in 60 pictures. You don't think it's possible that some people are getting away with things when the cops aren't looking ? Please.

Somehow though some here want to deny me the right to expect laws to be enforced, to expect other's rights to be considered. Their oft time response is in attempting to label others with opinions as somehow less entitled.

Because you pick on one event, one of many where lawbreaking happens...

If anyone wishes to attend or take part, good on them, but, if they have rights to act (within the law) brazenly and portray gays thusly, the rest of us are entitled to stand on our values as well. Who the *&^$#@ are you lot to condemn others for their opinion, who indeed. Who died and made you judges and king shit of the hoi polloi ?

You have judges and cops, and so do we... the parade is happening and millions celebrate that. You seem to be the one calling to make changes to appease your point of view on things, as far as I can see.

[msj]

Most women I know, even the ones who wear thongs, have no interest in men wearing thongs, and wouldn't want their own man to wear one, regardless of what shape he's in.

Then don't look!

[Black Dog]

All that being understood, and it is, for any having experienced the years of gay bashing and the like, the display by some caricaturing gays as is done in the said parade does nothing TODAY for any Pride or a public impression of Gays.

It's the Pride Parade, not the Assimilation Parade.

Those behaving thus present gays in many blatant examples as ribald grotesque poseurs, flaunting promiscuity and such as their public face. Unfortunately many in the public will judge the many by the few.

Again, that's kind of the point. Part of it is taking these sterotypes, reclaiming them and shoving them back.

I think it but demeans and embarrasses many of them.

The gay community is no more monolithic than any other; I'm not sure why it even needs to be said.

However that is my opinion and I would deprive none the right to display their exuberance, just maintain lawfulness please and thank you and don't expect those with good taste to applaud.

There's a difference between Joe Nobody being unwilling to go to pride because it icks him out and the political leadership of the city ditching it for the same reasons. Rob Ford isn't just representing himself, as much as he (and I) wish it were otherwise.

[Guest Peeves]

I did all I needed to do by clicking on your link and looking into it. I'm not going to research your claims for you. I think you've shown me how obvious it all is, thanks.

There is clearly no proof that law breaking is being permitted. Even your attack-dog site found one example of flashing in 60 pictures. You don't think it's possible that some people are getting away with things when the cops aren't looking ? Please.

Because you pick on one event, one of many where lawbreaking happens...

You have judges and cops, and so do we... the parade is happening and millions celebrate that. You seem to be the one calling to make changes to appease your point of view on things, as far as I can see.

Alas, since I think such exposure here or on the street is to be avoided, I hesitate to provide that which most everyone agrees is apparent. Now you may view this further example, and whine, "OH! but..but it's only a few for a few seconds," but, the butts and schlongs are there and are flaggingly paraded for hours of exhibitionism along the route while our officials are pretending blindness like a Lord Nelson. Kids are in the parade and the viewing public.

Now while you may applaud that behavior, I don't.

Nor is it any secret that what I have opined on is taking place.

Toronto Pride’s pressure on Rob Ford already ramping up

by Patrick B. Craine

Tue Apr 17, 2012 07:57 EST

Comments (0)

When Toronto mayor Rob Ford skipped Toronto’s Gay Pride Parade last June, he was excoriated by the event’s organizers and the city’s media elites, humiliated by marchers bearing his effigy, and denounced by speakers.

Nice way to make someone feel welcome, eh?

Yet here they are inviting him back again for the 2012 parade. And like last year he’s waffling, at least publicly.

Last year, Ford dissociated himself from the 10-day long festivities by not attending any of the events, and he skipped the parade itself by offering the excuse of a long-held family tradition of spending Canada Day weekend at the family cottage in Muskoka. But he sent city councillor Frances Nunziata in his place and had her raise the Pride flag.

With the media pressure already ramping up more than two months ahead of the June 22nd parade, he’s going to need a lot of support again this year.

In December, Ford told CP24: “Everything depends on my schedule . . . if I can make it, I’ll make it.”

And he’s getting pressure even from his closest allies. Deputy Mayor Doug Holyday told the Toronto Star today that the mayor should go. “I don’t know what fits his schedule but he should do something. I’ll go with him if he wants,” said Holyday. “Not going just gives people a chance to criticize him, and it is a big public event.”

Obviously there would be a whole lot of negative PR yet again. But just because the two previous mayors opted to attend, does that make it a duty of his office?

In fact, if we expect our elected officials to stand for public decency, then really we should expect him not to attend.

Though organizers have tried to paint the parade as “family-friendly,” Toronto Pride is infamous for its public displays of full nudity, sado-masochistic attire, and public sex acts.

Really, rather than have him lend credence to the lewd displays by his presence, ought we not instead demand that he have the Toronto Police enforce our laws against public nudity?

Contact Information:

Mayor Rob Ford

Office of the Mayor

Toronto City Hall,
 2nd Floor

100 Queen St. West

Toronto ON
M5H 2N2

Phone: 416-397-FORD (3673)

E-mail: [email protected]

http://www.lifesite.net/blog/toronto-prides-pressure-on-rob-ford-already-ramping-up

Added in after thought, BTW, Patrick B. Craine,is not a pseudonym of mine nor any is other of the numerous articles or blog that supports my position written by me.

Just in case that was your next riposte.

Edited April 19, 2012 by Peeves

[Michael Hardner]

Alas, since I think such exposure here or on the street is to be avoided, I hesitate to provide that which most everyone agrees is apparent. Now you may view this further example, and whine, "OH! but..but it's only a few for a few seconds," but, the butts and schlongs are there and are flaggingly paraded for hours of exhibitionism along the route while our officials are pretending blindness like a Lord Nelson. Kids are in the parade and the viewing public.

Butts exposed don`t warrant exposure changes, I don`t think. Otherwise Caribana would be a bigger target.

I didn`t see anything obvious. The parade was warned not to show full frontal nudity - maybe somebody cheated.

Now while you may applaud that behavior, I don't.

Nor is it any secret that what I have opined on is taking place.

You have the letter of the law on your side, and indeed they have been investigated or told to cover up.

[g_bambino]

Rob Ford isn't just representing himself, as much as he (and I) wish it were otherwise.

He's a politician. Like all politicians, he ultimately represents that faction of the voting public that voted for him.

[g_bambino]

[T]he butts and schlongs are there and are flaggingly paraded for hours of exhibitionism along the route while our officials are pretending blindness like a Lord Nelson.

Now while you may applaud that behavior, I don't.

How about the World Naked Bike Ride? A Spencer Tunick photoshoot?

Kids are in the parade and the viewing public.

Oh, won't someone think of The Children!!

Overtly sexual displays, including parading in fetish gear, probably isn't the kind of thing one might want their kids to see; too many awkward questions ("Mommy, why is that man with his bare bum pulling that other man on a dog leash?"). But, nudity in itself isn't going to corrupt the minds of children. Sheesh.

[cybercoma]

He's a politician. Like all politicians, he ultimately represents that faction of the voting public that voted for him.

as mayor, he's toronto's mayor

[g_bambino]

as mayor, he's toronto's mayor

Obviously. That doesn't mean, however, that he represents Torontonians as a monolithic mass. As a politician, he's inherently a partisan figure.

[Black Dog]

Obviously. That doesn't mean, however, that he represents Torontonians as a monolithic mass. As a politician, he's inherently a partisan figure.

Oh don't get me wrong: I don't really care if he goes or not. I just wish he'd have the courage of his convictions and not hide behind his "cottage" plans.