TIME FOR BAN ON GAYS OPENLY MARCHING IN SOUTH BOSTON PARADE TO GO!!!

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from enuffisenuff. Show enuffisenuff's posts

    Re: TIME FOR BAN ON GAYS OPENLY MARCHING IN SOUTH BOSTON PARADE TO GO!!!

    In response to andiejen's comment:

     

    In response to Beach-Spider's comment:

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

    In response to Beach-Spider's comment:

    In response to andiejen's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to Beach-Spider's comment:


    Ya know ... I've seen "LGBTQ" used for the first time in my life

    and got to wondering what the 'Q' stood for.

    ... I sorta knew it didn't mean what I first thought it meant!

    So I googled "LGBTQ" and came up with this ...

     http://www.depts.ttu.edu/scc/Virtual_Library/lgbtq.php

    My enterpretation of "Q" means there is now an open door

    for impressionable youth, etc..

    Frown That bothers me.

     



    You think it "opens the door for impressionable youth"? You think a kid can somehow be duped into being gay? Either a person is gay or they are not. 

     



    Exactly. I have had gay friends forever and I am still straight as an arrow.

    It does not rub off.

    Sorry spidey. I have to disagree with you on this one.

    I don't think you and I are at a point of disagreement since you and I have not had much of a discussion on this gay matter.

    .. What does the 'Q' in 'LGTBQ' mean to you?

    I too have had many friends that are gay and I have had many opportunities to observe and discuss, with them, their gay leanings.

    Therefore I have concluded that my opinion/s are the correct opinions.

    I've lived in downtown Bostons theatrical (gay) district for several years, visited P-town and Key West many times both before and after the gay revolution.

    I've raised 5 children and none of them are gay because we believe in mother nature's natural way and not nature's un-natural way ...



    Then it's entirely one of your five spawn is a "Q".

     




    I don't understand what you mean ...

    Please explain ...

     



    Just guessing what jed meant, spidey.

    There are 5 letters in the acronym that ends in "Q". You have 5 children.

    So, it is entirely possible that one of your children is a "Q".

    Of course this would mean our population is divided evenly among the people represented in that acronym...which it is not...so I am probably not correct.

    Or something to do with the percent of our population that is homosexual. 

    I believe it is app. 10 percent so if you had 10 children, statistics point to one of them being homosexual.

    jed is obviously going to have to give you a definitive answer.

     




                   Do you have proof of the 10% theory you claim?  All research available points to much less of a percentage. 

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: TIME FOR BAN ON GAYS OPENLY MARCHING IN SOUTH BOSTON PARADE TO GO!!!

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:

    Captain, she can't take any more DERP! She'll fly apart!

     



    Sigh.

     

    I guess that's what I get for asking you to back up your assertion.

    Common dodge for you.



    Says the guys dodging MY questions. 



    Are you questions science?

    So I can only ask you questions about science???

    what you are trying to do is catch me in some errant comment so you can call me a bigot.  

    First, that's YOUR assumption. I have no desire to call you a bigot. Second, if you're not a bigot then you have nothing to worry about. I just simply want my damn questions answered. I'm just looking for you to be a man.

    I am asking a simple thing: for WhatNow to back up his assertion that the science is settled on this.  He can't or won't.

    So to that point, my ONLY point, your questions are irrelevant.

    See how I answered YOUR questions? When you decide you want to man up and stop being a coward by answering my questions let me know.






    You only answered the first question, with a question.

    I don't know why you think I am obligated to answeryour questions, which have nothing to do with my original request to WhatNow to provide the science that backs up his assertion that the sceince of homosexualitry is settled.

    Funny how the left is so easily confused and seem to blow a head gasket by a simple question asking them to back up their assertions that the science is settled, both here, and with global warming.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: TIME FOR BAN ON GAYS OPENLY MARCHING IN SOUTH BOSTON PARADE TO GO!!!

    In response to enuffisenuff's comment:

    In response to andiejen's comment:

     

    In response to Beach-Spider's comment:

     

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

    In response to Beach-Spider's comment:

    In response to andiejen's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to Beach-Spider's comment:


    Ya know ... I've seen "LGBTQ" used for the first time in my life

    and got to wondering what the 'Q' stood for.

    ... I sorta knew it didn't mean what I first thought it meant!

    So I googled "LGBTQ" and came up with this ...

     http://www.depts.ttu.edu/scc/Virtual_Library/lgbtq.php

    My enterpretation of "Q" means there is now an open door

    for impressionable youth, etc..

    Frown That bothers me.

     



    You think it "opens the door for impressionable youth"? You think a kid can somehow be duped into being gay? Either a person is gay or they are not. 

     

     



    Exactly. I have had gay friends forever and I am still straight as an arrow.

     

    It does not rub off.

    Sorry spidey. I have to disagree with you on this one.

    I don't think you and I are at a point of disagreement since you and I have not had much of a discussion on this gay matter.

    .. What does the 'Q' in 'LGTBQ' mean to you?

    I too have had many friends that are gay and I have had many opportunities to observe and discuss, with them, their gay leanings.

    Therefore I have concluded that my opinion/s are the correct opinions.

    I've lived in downtown Bostons theatrical (gay) district for several years, visited P-town and Key West many times both before and after the gay revolution.

    I've raised 5 children and none of them are gay because we believe in mother nature's natural way and not nature's un-natural way ...



    Then it's entirely one of your five spawn is a "Q".

     




    I don't understand what you mean ...

    Please explain ...

     



    Just guessing what jed meant, spidey.

    There are 5 letters in the acronym that ends in "Q". You have 5 children.

    So, it is entirely possible that one of your children is a "Q".

    Of course this would mean our population is divided evenly among the people represented in that acronym...which it is not...so I am probably not correct.

    Or something to do with the percent of our population that is homosexual. 

    I believe it is app. 10 percent so if you had 10 children, statistics point to one of them being homosexual.

    jed is obviously going to have to give you a definitive answer.

     




                   Do you have proof of the 10% theory you claim?  All research available points to much less of a percentage. 



    Not all research. I admit the research varies. The below article, besides giving their estimate at 20%, also explains why the numbers vary.

     

    What percentage of the population considers themselves gay? This number has always been hard to pin down: sexuality is fluid, and plenty of people still feel pressured to hide their sexual orientation. But a new study has tried, and come up with a number that’s higher than most.

    According to a study from the National Bureau of Economic Research, about 20 percent of the population is attracted to their own gender. That’s nearly double the usual estimates of about 10 percent. The authors explain that their methodology might have something to do with it:

    Participants were randomly assigned to either a “best practices method” that was computer-based and provides privacy and anonymity, or to a “veiled elicitation method” that further conceals individual responses. Answers in the veiled method preclude inference about any particular individual, but can be used to accurately estimate statistics about the population. Comparing the two methods shows sexuality-related questions receive biased responses even under current best practices, and, for many questions, the bias is substantial. The veiled method increased self-reports of non-heterosexual identity by 65% (p<0.05) and same-sex sexual experiences by 59% (p<0.01). The veiled method also increased the rates of anti-gay sentiment. Respondents were 67% more likely to express disapproval of an openly gay manager at work (p<0.01) and 71% more likely to say it is okay to discriminate against lesbian, gay, or bisexual individuals (p<0.01).

    Essentially, using a veiled question rather than a direct one uncovered a whole group of people who would not directly say they weren’t heterosexual. This kind of veiled questioning can get at all sorts of answers that people don’t want to give, like the incidence of rapeDaniel Luzer at Pacific Standard explains that uncovering these hidden biases is really important for understanding how accurate these kinds of surveys actually are:

    The most important takeaway isn’t a final tally of the gay people in society, but, rather, an understanding of the ways in which surveys and other existing attempts to measure such things might be slightly misleading. “The results show non-heterosexuality and anti-gay sentiment are substantially underestimated in existing surveys, and the privacy afforded by current best practices is not always sufficient to eliminate bias,” note the researchers, who were just looking at the way surveys might under-count both homosexuality and attitudes toward homosexuality.

    There may never be a time when people will accurately answer surveys, but at least survey givers are getting better at tricking us into being honest.

    More from Smithsonian.com:




    Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/what-percent-of-the-population-is-gay-more-than-you-think-5012467/#17TKMwACVHghJlpQ.99

     

     

    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/what-percent-of-the-population-is-gay-more-than-you-think-5012467/?no-ist

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: TIME FOR BAN ON GAYS OPENLY MARCHING IN SOUTH BOSTON PARADE TO GO!!!

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

    In response to andiejen's comment:

    In response to enuffisenuff's comment:

     

    In response to andiejen's comment:

     

    In response to Beach-Spider's comment:

     

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

    In response to Beach-Spider's comment:

    In response to andiejen's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to Beach-Spider's comment:


    Ya know ... I've seen "LGBTQ" used for the first time in my life

    and got to wondering what the 'Q' stood for.

    ... I sorta knew it didn't mean what I first thought it meant!

    So I googled "LGBTQ" and came up with this ...

     http://www.depts.ttu.edu/scc/Virtual_Library/lgbtq.php

    My enterpretation of "Q" means there is now an open door

    for impressionable youth, etc..

    Frown That bothers me.

     



    You think it "opens the door for impressionable youth"? You think a kid can somehow be duped into being gay? Either a person is gay or they are not. 

     

     

     



    Exactly. I have had gay friends forever and I am still straight as an arrow.

     

     

    It does not rub off.

    Sorry spidey. I have to disagree with you on this one.

    I don't think you and I are at a point of disagreement since you and I have not had much of a discussion on this gay matter.

    .. What does the 'Q' in 'LGTBQ' mean to you?

    I too have had many friends that are gay and I have had many opportunities to observe and discuss, with them, their gay leanings.

    Therefore I have concluded that my opinion/s are the correct opinions.

    I've lived in downtown Bostons theatrical (gay) district for several years, visited P-town and Key West many times both before and after the gay revolution.

    I've raised 5 children and none of them are gay because we believe in mother nature's natural way and not nature's un-natural way ...



    Then it's entirely one of your five spawn is a "Q".

     




    I don't understand what you mean ...

    Please explain ...

     



    Just guessing what jed meant, spidey.

    There are 5 letters in the acronym that ends in "Q". You have 5 children.

    So, it is entirely possible that one of your children is a "Q".

    Of course this would mean our population is divided evenly among the people represented in that acronym...which it is not...so I am probably not correct.

    Or something to do with the percent of our population that is homosexual. 

    I believe it is app. 10 percent so if you had 10 children, statistics point to one of them being homosexual.

    jed is obviously going to have to give you a definitive answer.

     




                   Do you have proof of the 10% theory you claim?  All research available points to much less of a percentage. 



    Not all research. I admit the research varies. The below article, besides giving their estimate at 20%, also explains why the numbers vary.

     

    What percentage of the population considers themselves gay? This number has always been hard to pin down: sexuality is fluid, and plenty of people still feel pressured to hide their sexual orientation. But a new study has tried, and come up with a number that’s higher than most.

    According to a study from the National Bureau of Economic Research, about 20 percent of the population is attracted to their own gender. That’s nearly double the usual estimates of about 10 percent. The authors explain that their methodology might have something to do with it:

    Participants were randomly assigned to either a “best practices method” that was computer-based and provides privacy and anonymity, or to a “veiled elicitation method” that further conceals individual responses. Answers in the veiled method preclude inference about any particular individual, but can be used to accurately estimate statistics about the population. Comparing the two methods shows sexuality-related questions receive biased responses even under current best practices, and, for many questions, the bias is substantial. The veiled method increased self-reports of non-heterosexual identity by 65% (p<0.05) and same-sex sexual experiences by 59% (p<0.01). The veiled method also increased the rates of anti-gay sentiment. Respondents were 67% more likely to express disapproval of an openly gay manager at work (p<0.01) and 71% more likely to say it is okay to discriminate against lesbian, gay, or bisexual individuals (p<0.01).

    Essentially, using a veiled question rather than a direct one uncovered a whole group of people who would not directly say they weren’t heterosexual. This kind of veiled questioning can get at all sorts of answers that people don’t want to give, like the incidence of rapeDaniel Luzer at Pacific Standard explains that uncovering these hidden biases is really important for understanding how accurate these kinds of surveys actually are:

    The most important takeaway isn’t a final tally of the gay people in society, but, rather, an understanding of the ways in which surveys and other existing attempts to measure such things might be slightly misleading. “The results show non-heterosexuality and anti-gay sentiment are substantially underestimated in existing surveys, and the privacy afforded by current best practices is not always sufficient to eliminate bias,” note the researchers, who were just looking at the way surveys might under-count both homosexuality and attitudes toward homosexuality.

    There may never be a time when people will accurately answer surveys, but at least survey givers are getting better at tricking us into being honest.

    More from Smithsonian.com:




    Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/what-percent-of-the-population-is-gay-more-than-you-think-5012467/#17TKMwACVHghJlpQ.99

     

     

    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/what-percent-of-the-population-is-gay-more-than-you-think-5012467/?no-ist



    I'm not sure what the percentile of the human population being gay has to do with anything. 

    Here's an interesting question..............

    Statistically and scientifically speaking, which is more likely to exist;

    A) Gay people?

    Or

    B) Some sort of "god"?



    Good point , jed.

    And if I can play, I choose "A".

    And to turn it around, is there any settled science that proves that a god does exist?

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: TIME FOR BAN ON GAYS OPENLY MARCHING IN SOUTH BOSTON PARADE TO GO!!!

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    In response to andiejen's comment:

     

    In response to Beach-Spider's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to andiejen's comment:

    Should gays be allowed to openly march in the South Boston Parade this Sunday?

    We go thru this year after year after year. 

    With all the progress in gay rights it would seem that it is about time that this "tradition" of banning gays from opening marching in the parade should be the next tradition to go.

    At least some of the politicians are geting it right. MartyWalsh is NOT going to march. And in NYC Mayor Di Blasio is also not going to march.

    I believe this ban's time has come to go...and for quite some time.

    Thoughts???

      

     



    We just went through all this about a week or two ago.

     

    Look back at some of the old threads to find your answers



    Being that there is no search function perhaps you would be willing to spend a lot of time, finding and posting links to them.

    .. Jus' Sayin' ..



    Thanks spidey. 

    Also...when I started this thread, the issue of marching in this year's parade was still an open question. Mayor Walsh was still negotiating with the organizers to find a compromise solution.



    Mayor Walsh made the wrong decision and Rep Lynch made the right decision.

    Activists with agendas should march in their own parade.

    No one excluded gay marches, the point of the parade was to celebrate Irish Heritage.

    Activists need to stop hijacking other events it just creates animosity, where there wasn't any.

     



    Exactly. And no one has banned gay Irish from the NYC parade. Everyone is welcome.

    It is a  family parade for Irish heritage not a parade to express or make your political or cultural points.

    As far as I know the Gay community of NYC has their own parade which occurs I believe during Halloween. 

    I saw it one year the night of Oct 31 when I went down to run the marathon the following morning on Nov 1.. We went to the village for dinner and came upon the Gay parade while walking around.

    Very festive, great custumes and quite fun and entertaining and quite frankly where all of it belongs...In the Gay parade.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: TIME FOR BAN ON GAYS OPENLY MARCHING IN SOUTH BOSTON PARADE TO GO!!!

    In response to -V-'s comment:

     

    In response to andiejen's comment:

     

     

    Anybody know what was in the post that was removed just above?

     

     

    FYI .. Below is what was removed.

    [screenshot]

    posted at 3/20/2014 9:07 AM EDT

    In response to andiejen's comment:


    ron,

    "oh, BTW, spidey if off his rocker"

     

    spidey is not off his rocker.

    His online postings were completely out of character for him.

    For some reason his attitude concerning homosexuality had never come up before. All the posters involved get along fine with him.

    IMO he felt nobody was listening to him and he pushed back real hard.

    I say this as a liberal and a strong supporter of gay rights.

    Also, there is a difference with putting a label on a poster and disagreeing

    with certain remarks they made during an extremely heated exchange.

    [The removed post]

    First of all I would like to THANK Andie for her understanding, empathy, and support.

    Second: I was attempting to discuss how some adolescents can be influenced to become homosexual. (Objective)

    Third: I posted video links, text links (probably never read) that would further lead to the understanding of the Objective.

    Fourth: Then 'the peanut gallery' went ape over some of the material I posted.

    Fifth: Many remarks such as "ugly"-"sick"- "idiot", "etc." were directed at myself and not the material presented.

    Sixth: Having been a FL certified teacher for several years I soon recognized the animosity being directed at myself and announced (5-19 early this am) that I was going to discontinue this topic and its Objective.

    However I didn't say that I would not reply to past - present - future posts!

    Sooo .. Be Prepared .. You Others May Get A Surprise Post.

          Once Again .. Thanks Andie ...

    [end screenshot]



    You are most welcome, V. You more than deserved it.

    BTW, that otherr forum is still processing my application.

    When I am approved, I will send you a PM. I figured out how to do that and what your name is there.

     

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts