Brokeback Bunny

[Marcia]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/12/AR2006041201892.html

or try

http://tinyurl.com/pms5c

Gay, Lesbian Families to Join American Tradition En Masse -- Article about Gay Families planning to attend White House Easter egg roll, wearing rainbow colored leis as an identifying symbol

 

[Daisy]

Why not? The event is for the kids, not the parents. Why should those kids not participate in the Easter Egg Roll?

 

[rbell]

Sure...it'll be fun for daddies and daddies of all ages...

But seriously...usually the WH has a "no clothing protest" kind of rule for its events. How is it they are getting away with the leis?

I'm not starting an argument about whether or not the rule is just...that's for another thread. I'm just saying the "gay gaggle" of parents are apparently going to get away with more than what other groups would...the WH is usually very strict about people wearing clothes that make political statements at its events (that's been a strong policy for the last 10-15 years, at least).

 

[Daisy]

Without the leis, they'd look like everyone else...wouldn't that be more to the point anyhow?

 

[Marcia]

The problem is that these parents are doing this to make a political statement which will further their agenda of having gay relationships being accepted as a normal relationship.

They think that people are against homosexuality because of their image of homosexuals -- and in some cases, that may be true. But the problem from a Christian view is not that we don't like gay people or are ignorant of them having children, it's the issue of accepting homosexual relationships as a valid option and as normal. Biblically, we cannot do that.

If they keep marketing the image of gay families, this only furthers a broader acceptance of homosexuality. They are not doing this for their kids to have fun at the egg roll - it's to further acceptance of their concept of a family (which also furthers the idea of homosexual marriage).

 

[rbell]

Yeah...if you want to be part of the American fabric, then why do you wear something to call attention to the fact that you practice homosexuality?

It re-iterates my point that for most of these folks, I don't think it's about "acceptance." They don't just want folks to tolerate their lifestyle and not discriminate...they want folks to embrace their lifestyle and equate it with a heterosexual lifestyle. It goes back to the modern re-definition of "tolerance."

Am I weird in that I've never known anyone to participate in an "egg roll?" I thought they were "egg hunts." 'Round these parts, "egg rolls" are fixed by Jenny (her american name) at Grand Buffet.

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Daisy:
Without the leis, they'd look like everyone else...wouldn't that be more to the point anyhow?

Daisy, did you read the article? The organizers want to wear leis so that people know they are gay. If they didn't, no one would know. They want people to see the gay families and see that they are "normal." That is the whole point of this litte exercise.

 

[Marcia]

They call it an egg roll because I think part of it rolling an egg across the ground with a spoon or something. Not sure, but it's done every year on the White House lawn and is always in the news. The First Lady has said that all families are welcome. She usually participates in some way.

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by Marcia:
Daisy, did you read the article? The organizers want to wear leis so that people know they are gay. If they didn't, no one would know. They want people to see the gay families and see that they are "normal." That is the whole point of this litte exercise.

No, I didn't read the article; I just accepted your description of the event. I had heard about it on the radio as well. Apparently, the Egg Rolling has gone on since the mid-1800s - a long tradition for the US.

Rbell mentioned the dresscode prohibitions and it does seem to me that they'd look more normal without leis - this ain't a luau...maybe rainbow t-shirts could stand the scrutiny.

Exactly how Christian are the Easter Bunny and egg rollings? All in all, it seems rather paganish to me.

 

[Marcia]

You should read the article, Daisy. They explained why they decided not to do t-shirts.

The article isn't long! It takes me longer to explain things than it would for you to read it!

As to how the easter egg rolling relates to Easter -- it's the White House. They are not doing it as a Christian thing as far as I know. It's just a tradition. If you really want to know, you should ask the White House.

 

[Bro. James Reed]

I don't think this is about Christians not wanting gays at "our Easter egg roll, hunt, whatever".

As far as I'm concerned, I don't really care if they go and take their kids.

The fact that they will be wearing something to distinguish themselves as homosexual, and doing so at an event specifically geared towards children, shows me that they have no intentions of assimilating into regular society and expecting us to accept them. It seems to me more likely that they are making a political statement and more or less shoving their message down peoples' throats at this non-political, everyone's-invited event.

They want to stand out and they want us to recognize their sexuality and basically give them a reward for being gay.

Why can't they just live normal lives like the rest of us, even if it is with a same-sex partner?

When I was a little boy, we had neighbors down the street, 2 women, who had 3 children. I played with the youngest son, we went to school together, I stayed over night at their house, we had halloween and Christmas parties for all the kids at their house. It never occured to me until I was older that they were lesbians. They didn't try to force their way of life on any of us. They never did anything that would distinguish themselves from any other neighbors, other than the fact that they were 2 women.

Why can't all gay people be like that?

It's getting to the point where I just expect some people to start putting up signs in the yard stating "I'm Gay!"

Maybe all of the straight people at the event should wear hats to distinguish themselves. Maybe all of the ex-cons at the event should wear a pair of handcuffs. Maybe all of the Democrats at the event should wear...wait...they were all covered by the leis and handcuffs.

Seriously though, it's just ridiculous.

 

[Daisy]

Um, Bro James Reed, they are not forcing their "lifestyle" on you, they are merely forcing the knowledge that they are gay but otherwise normal on you. I realize that comes under the category of Too Much Information for many, but since their goal is equal rights for themselves and their families, I'm guessing that they feel that that is a minor discomfort to cause you.

From the article (you win, Marcia

):

"I met a family that was home-schooling eight kids, a guy reading a Bible on the Palm Pilot. And they all met me, a lesbian parent," Gillespie said. "Sure, there was a little hesitation, little awkwardness. But now, when someone is on TV saying negative things about my family, they have a visual picture of what that family looks like. It's just me, a mom. And I'm waiting in the freezing cold so my daughter could get some Easter eggs."

BJR: When I was a little boy, we had neighbors down the street, 2 women, who had 3 children. I played with the youngest son, we went to school together, I stayed over night at their house, we had halloween and Christmas parties for all the kids at their house. It never occured to me until I was older that they were lesbians. They didn't try to force their way of life on any of us. They never did anything that would distinguish themselves from any other neighbors, other than the fact that they were 2 women.

And yet the Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings, made a tremendous stink over some episode of a kid's program where an animated rabbit, Buster was visiting two unrelated women who lived together with a child, Emma, on a farm in Vermont. These were real women who happened to be lesbians, but their sexual lives were most definitely not mentioned on the episode although Emma did say that she loved her mommy and Gillian. The entire segment lasted some 30 whole seconds out of a 30 minute show. That episode was never aired. (link to one source).

 

[ASLANSPAL]

I respect those who use democracy in a peaceful way (guns and tanks not in the streets) yes the pro life movement used tactics I did not care for
but they were for the most part peaceful with a few whack jobs killing and maiming people...I respect the mass peaceful demonstrations of immigrants legal and illegal who took to the streets peacefully with some lame brains flying Mexican flags...I disagree with them but it looks as if they have played by the rules and not used violence. Now the civil rights movement
for gays...are they being non-violent are they
being in your face are they raising their voice..
are they being like the pro-lifers and the immigrants...well yes! but they are not being violent..so to those who are concerned you have a right to counter them and organize as well but all I ask is that both sides not turn to violence.

Marcia you know I respect your concern but I have held for a long time these children of God are born the way they are and once those chains fall away from Christendom then we can finally start serving them and accept them. It is the same path as in the past with slavery and interracial marriage ..this will pass and we can get back to the Good news! if you know what I mean.

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by ASLANSPAL:

Marcia you know I respect your concern but I have held for a long time these children of God are born the way they are and once those chains fall away from Christendom then we can finally start serving them and accept them. It is the same path as in the past with slavery and interracial marriage ..this will pass and we can get back to the Good news! if you know what I mean.

1. So basically, you are saying that the practice of homosexual sex is okay in God's eyes?

2. Also, do you also believe everyone is a child of God? If so, then why does the NT tell us that we are adopted by faith into God's family? We are all creations of God, but not all children of God. That's according to scripture.

I am most interested in the anwer to the first question.

 

[rbell]

Aslanspal,

Slavery? Interratial relationships? Total agreement on those fronts. But not here. On this issue, you and I are at an impasse. I cannot accept your answer that gays are "born this way." I feel that is an unbiblical tenet. Because of that foundational difference, you and I will never have agreement regarding this issue. God Bless.

 

[Bro. James Reed]

Um, Bro James Reed, they are not forcing their "lifestyle" on you, they are merely forcing the knowledge that they are gay but otherwise normal on you. I realize that comes under the category of Too Much Information for many, but since their goal is equal rights for themselves and their families, I'm guessing that they feel that that is a minor discomfort to cause you.

Daisy, I'm not worried about myself seeing that there are gay people with families. I'm speaking solely of doing this type of thing at an assembly of children. When the children ask their parents why all of those people were wearing the flowers, the parents will either have to explain that those folks are gay, or they'll have to lie to their kids.

In any event, if they want to protest, that is fine and dandy with me. If they want to march on Washington with 500,000 people and wear leis signifying their sexulaity, that's there prerogative. They are not, however, doing that. They will be doing this at a gathering of children. That is what I do not like about it.

The 2 women I spoke of earlier never wore leis or pink shirts or rainbow flags or anything else for the sole purpose of pointing out their sexuality to the rest of the neighborhood and the children. They were just normal parents.

If these people want to be accepted by society, then they need to be like the rest of society when gathered for an event such as this. If they want to protest, do it later. That is all I'm saying.

Marcia, funny thing is one of those ladies I was speaking about shares your name. You're not her incognito, are you?

 

[Bro. James Reed]

Originally posted by rbell:
Aslanspal,

Slavery? Interratial relationships? Total agreement on those fronts. But not here. On this issue, you and I are at an impasse. I cannot accept your answer that gays are "born this way." I feel that is an unbiblical tenet. Because of that foundational difference, you and I will never have agreement regarding this issue. God Bless.

I will give Apal that they are born with a predisposition to want this type of sin. But, that is no different than someone who has a predisposition to any other kind of sin. Many, if not most, men have a desire to "be" with women. It becomes sin when that man goes the next step and "is" with the woman...without, of course, being married to her.

If this is a condition these people feel very hard-pressed to control, then they need to commit it to prayer and ask God to help them.

This is completely different from slavery or interracial marriage. Those things are not inherently sinful. This is.

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Bro. James Reed:

Marcia, funny thing is one of those ladies I was speaking about shares your name. You're not her incognito, are you?

It would be very strange if I were, given my comments that I've posted here.

I am sure there are enough "marcia's" to go around for plenty of people. It's not a common name, but not that unusual, either.

 

[ASLANSPAL]

Simply put they are born the way that they are
stuck in the middle of the sexes ...a hell for them in and of itself in a majority of heterosexuals whom practice supposed gay sex on each other after church...you don't hear anti-oral sex from the pulpit anymore that's because too many fine Christians practice it in the privacy of their own homes...so stop that first then perhaps try to control others sex lives in the privacy of their domain.

The evidence is getting larger and larger that they are born that way and that it is genetic ..I do believe their are a minority that just plain practice perversion and most are hetero.

Once we get past this and we see these people are hybrid(gay) ..then we can minister to them..the bottom line the test is this....LOVE.

It is soooooooooooooooooo easy to pick a fight with this group because they are a minority and can be easily scapegoated...so my position will be unpopular to those who do not take science seriously and research and the evidence just keeps piling up ...THEY ARE BORN THAT WAY!

Getting back to topic if they as a movement are organized and fight for civil rights out of deep
conviction that they are different ..so be it..as long as they do it non-violently and to those who want to ignore science and research it is your right to oppose them in a peaceful manner.


They opposed slavery and womans right to vote ..opposed interracial dating/marriage ..so go for it...oppose the gay civil rights movement.

It really is just a matter of years this issue is settled through the great work of science and genetics. Then Christendom must pivot and go about sharing the good news even with them and serving them...which means accepting them and how they were born.

but more good news in the area of genetics these people who are stuck between the sexes may in the future be able to opt out of the limbo they are in with the great advances of genetics.

Wow! people didn't you see the major news story about the twins on a major network ..one liked g.i. joe the other liked barbie..had nothing to do with conditions in the home...had everthing to do with how the one gay twin was hard wired at birth.

 

[Bro. James Reed]

Apal,

even if you are correct, that still does not change the fact that this is an abominable sin.

I think it's insulting to compare slavery and women's suffrage with homosexuality.

If they are born gay, they still must choose to participate in their lewd behavior.

I have yet to see any black person or woman be innocent of sinning only until they start being a black person or a woman. That is impossible. It is not impossible for a person with homosexual tendencies to not sin in that respect anymore than it is for a single, straight person to not sin.