Gay Parents Line Up For White House Easter Egg Roll Tickets

Associated Press ^ | 4-13-2006 | Associated Press

[WildPlum]

WASHINGTON -- Hundreds of gay and lesbian parents hoping to take their families to the annual White House Easter Egg Roll plan to start lining up Friday evening to make sure they get tickets for the Monday event.

Thousands of tickets — an estimated 16,000 last year — are given away on a first-come-first-come basis beginning at 7:30 a.m. Saturday.

National Park Service officials said Wednesday that children of all ages may attend as long as there is at least one child 7 years old or younger, and no more than two adults per group.

First lady Laura Bush's office issued a statement saying all families are welcome to attend.

[END OF EXCERPT]

[little jeremiah]

? No one would ever class me as a "fundie". And I prefer not to class anyone as such.

[scripter]

Dealing with bad behavior is something we can agree on, we'd just have to define that bad behavior. I define making a political statement at an event for children as bad behavior.

[cyborg]

That's good. Unfortunately, sometimes people can be well...downright offensive and nasty in presenting christianity. Not sure why because it's pretty counterproductive.

[little jeremiah]

You've made a lot more comments on this thread than I have.

I would not care if homosexuals attended this function as private individuals, without rainbow emblems, without any political devices, announcements, plans, en masse attendance, etc.

Since that is not the case, I care, because I care about the promotion of homosexuality as normal and natural when it is neither.

[Torie]

Is two men with a couple of kids participating in the event, bad behavior?

[sinkspur]

A person who sees everything in relation to the Supreme Lord, and sees all entities as His parts and parcels, and who sees the Supreme Lord within everything, never hates anything, nor any being.

This is on your home page.

Do you actually believe this, or is it just for show?

[Antoninus]

If any of these people wear "message" T-shirts than it would appropriate to exclude them..If they wear Multi-colored leis, I don't see where that's a problem.

Good to see that you've backed off of your position somewhat. As for the rainbow leis, since this is all a propaganda effort, here's what's going to happen:

At the event, the media will pick out some of the homo-cheerleaders by the leis. They will then interview them and get some excellent soundbites about how they did this to show that homosexuals make wonderful parents and that those who would deny them access to children via adoption and foster parenting are just evil, bigoted homophobes.

But then again, you probably agree with the soundbite, so it's no wonder you're in favor of letting it happen.

Politically, you and I are not on the same side. You are a social liberal who believes in an amorphous definition of what makes up a "marriage" and a "family", and thinks that the right to have consequence-free intercourse trumps the right of the child produced by such intercourse to live and not be chopped into pieces and vacuumed out of his mother's womb.

I will pray for you.

[cyborg]

It's a political move.

[Torie]

It would be more effective for the "gay cause," if the media interviewed a gay couple without the leis, who appeared perfectly "normal." As a political stragegic matter, if I were an advisor for whatever gay group, I would advise to can the fashion accessories.

[Antoninus]

You & your fellow libs & DUmmie implants should just leave FR and start your own lib, leftist site... all 6-8 of you.

It is amazing that it's always the same 6-8 posters taking these positions. They can't resist threads like this. It really smokes 'em out.

[Antoninus]

Just leave.

They won't just leave. They're paid by the post. How else are they supposed to earn a living?

[sinkspur]

Since that is not the case, I care, because I care about the promotion of homosexuality as normal and natural when it is neither.

You think because homosexuals show up at someting with rainbow leis that they are promoting homosexuality.

Is it possible for someone who is not homosexual to look at a rainbow lei and, all of a sudden, start liking a person of the same sex?

There are lots of people (lots of people!) on this board who think American Muslims ought to wear a scarlet letter until they trash their own beliefs. Do you think that's rational?

[little jeremiah]

It seems as though a number of people on this thread are pretending that those of us who are concerned about this hate homosexuals and want to prohibit any homosexuals from attending this event.

This is a classic straw man argument.

I know for a fact that you (scrip) do not hate homosexuals; on the contrary, you have spent much time and effort trying to help them (and others) understand the causes of homosexuality, the dangers of the "gay" life, and most important, that no one has to be "gay". That there is a way out of homosexuality. I feel the same way you do.

Again, as if it hasn't been stated clearly enough, if homosexuals, as private individuals, attended this function without any political statements, plans, emblems or behavior, then it would be a-okay by me. But since that is not the case, it is not a-okay.

Childrens' functions should not be used as a political demonstration by homosexuals or anyone other special interest group.

[lentulusgracchus]

Do you realize that a good 80% of America won't even know that this event took place?

Oh, baloney. The gays' allies in MSM will be going on about it morning, noon, and night, if the gays pull this off. And yes, they will tell us straight out -- it's a win for "inclusivity" and for defining deviancy down for gays and up for traditional families.

In a recent essay in The American Scholar titled "Defining Deviancy Down," Daniel Patrick Moynihan offers an arresting view of the epidemic of deviancy -- of criminality, family breakdown, mental illness -- that has come to characterize the American social landscape. Deviancy has touched such incomprehensible proportions, argues Moynihan, that we have had to adopt a singular form of denial: we deal with the epidemic simply by defining away most of the disease. We lower the threshold for what we are prepared to call normal in order to keep the volume of deviancy -- redefined deviancy -- within manageable proportions.....

Moynihan's powerful point is that with the moral deregulation of the 1960s, we have had an explosion of deviancy in family life, criminal behavior and public displays of psychosis. And we have dealt with it in the only way possible: by redefining deviancy down so as to explain away and make "normal" what a more civilized, ordered and healthy society long ago would have labeled -- and long ago did label -- deviant.

-- Charles Krauthammer, "Defining Deviancy Up", The New Republic, Nov. 22, 1993, p. 20.

Gotcha, Sinky.

Of course, I also wonder whether you yourself believe what you just said, it is so incredibly dense.

[sinkspur]

They can't resist threads like this.

Amazing that those 6-8 posters always find you on these threads, too.

[little jeremiah]

Are you saying that wearing rainbow ensignia is not promoting the political cause of homosexuality?

And note another strawman - no one is saying that homosexuals wearing rainbow insignia will cause others to become homosexual.

Where do you think up these ridiculous faux arguments? Are they in a little book, or do you invent them yourself? Is there a book "Homosexual Promotion for Dummies" or what?

[little jeremiah]

What on earth is this scarlet letter Muslim thing?

[sinkspur]

In a recent essay in The American Scholar titled "Defining Deviancy Down," Daniel Patrick Moynihan offers an arresting view of the epidemic of deviancy -- of criminality, family breakdown, mental illness -- that has come to characterize the American social landscape.

I can't seem to find a single reference in anything Moynihan or Krauthammer said that mentions homosexuality.

Maybe it's in there, but I just can't find it. Would you point out where Moynihan or Krauthammer mentions homosexuals in reference to deviance?

[lentulusgracchus]

Kids are a lot more tolerant than adults are. Haven't you noticed that?

Yes, we have.

They also don't twig to John Gacy in a clown suit, or to that piece of filth that stole and murdered a young girl in Florida a couple of years ago.

That's why we have adults called grownups stand over them and protect them and teach them to grow up straight.

Morally straight, sexually straight, honor bright, and tell no lies. You remember all that stuff, don't you?

[Antoninus]

It would be more effective for the "gay cause," if the media interviewed a gay couple without the leis, who appeared perfectly "normal." As a political stragegic matter, if I were an advisor for whatever gay group, I would advise to can the fashion accessories.

Why do that when you can wear the accessories, show up, push your disgusting sexual practices in everyone's face, and still have the First Lady say: "No, problem. Y'all come."

It's a total win-win for them and will further divide the president's base.

Tolerance of homosexual propaganda--especially in front of kids--is a losing political strategy no matter how you slice it. I'm sick of the GOP cowering before this group that will NEVER vote for them in significant numbers anyway.