www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Those violent gays, eyh?

stLouisx,

I love it! I love it! I love it! Damn the torpedoes!

Dan L

I actually have seen a gay pride parade in Knoxville. I don't know why they are called "gay," since they seemed like pretty unhappy folks to me. Did you also know that all of them wear khaki shorts?

And why the African type drumming not to mention the whistle blowing ? -- AAAAAAAAARGH my poor ears.

Have to say I've not really noticed the khaki shorts over here , but then we don't really have the weather for it :p

Khaki shorts! Would that they all wore them or something more than leather thongs. Yeh, free speech! Holy expressions of promiscuity, yeh, right! I come here to enjoy and participate in holy discussions about living a holy life. For the most part that is what we do. I understand that "Town Hall" holds a great deal of leeway. Yet, a defense of public ludeness is not what I expect to find. Yet some on this thread seem intent on doing just that. 'taint funny, McGee!

Dan L

Leather thongs would get you quickly arrested in Knoxville. The local judiciary is not very tolerant on issues of public indecency. Free speech is respected, but it has limits.

Please pardon me, Dan...but I think what I was reading in djs's posts was not in any way meant to condone homosexuality, which is as stated, and abomination. Rather, what was being pointed out is that regardless of our personal beliefs, we live in America, and there is a constitutional right for peaceable freedom of assembly. Now, you and I may certainly state that many of these "pride" parades are not, in fact, peaceable. We may also feel that parades are not part of "peaceable assembly". However, until such a time as the Constitution changes, all we can really do is to write letters to those responsible for granting parade permits, with documentation of the ills and lack of peaceableness that could legitimately result in the denial of a parade permit to them next year. Of course, this means attending the parade ourselves, with camera in hand...and, I, for one, am not willing to do any such thing, for the sole reason that I am disgusted beyond belief by them.

But, as long as it is argued that parades are a form of peaceable Freedom of Assembly, one cannot prevent them without proving that they are not peaceable, with evidence. All I understood from djs's statements (and those of incognitus) is that this is, in fact, a RIGHT. Freedom of Speech is vital, and a right which no Church ought to attempt to chisel away, because the way society is trending, we will need it, in order to prevent the government telling us we must only teach parts of our religion that the government agrees with.

Sadly, we ARE coming to that. When we do, it will be helpful to be able to have a parade of Christians for The Word of Christ, Not The Word of Governments.

Gaudior, disgusted by modern "morals"

Documentation, please? Most of the accusations were anecdotal but they were made many years after the alleged events. Can you offer contemporary accounts? Even if the media was opposed to the war, as it eventually was, one would expect contemporary accounts in, say, the VFW magazine, or the American Legion, or any of the pro-war press [US News and World Report never wavered in its support of the war].
As for the main topic, all I can say is give me a break. and St Louis has too much time on his hands.
-Daniel

If one supports gay pride parades one supports what happens in gay rights parades. What goes on in gay rights parades are self conscious acts of ludeness. I do not find support for that in the Consitution or public ludeness, acts of feigned sexual intercourse, and the like would have been specifically included in the Constitution. Why should anyone think that public ludeness is protected by the right to assemble. Assemble with clothes on. Do the march. But wear clothes and do pretend to be performing sex acts while marching. Moreover, how is the lude march protected by free speach?

Dan L

Antonius (and St. LouisIX)

And you also fail to quote accurately. My statement was not an absolute claim, but a comparative one.

That notion is already falsified in the writing of me and others on this thread. What makes you cling to clearly false ideas?

As mentioned first by incognitus and later by me, there are remedies in law for disorderly conduct. They need to be applied. A permit for a parade does not entail license for lewdness, violence, public drunkeness, etc.

Daniel,

Are you not willing to visit a VA waiting room to speak with Vietnam veterans? They can tell you their story in a far more compelling way than I can.

A quick Google search retuned a whole lot of information. One of the first was a book edited by Bob Greene titled: �Homecoming: When the Soldiers Returned from Vietnam� [amazon.com] on Amazon.com�s website.

Here are the two Editorial Reviews:

From Publishers Weekly
Chicago Tribune staffer Greene composed several of his syndicated columns around responses he received from Vietnam vets after he asked whether any of them had been spat upon. Unfortunately, the enormous impact of the columns is lost in their expansion to book form. Some servicemen were spat upon on their return, but more suffered verbal abuse or icy indifference. Many contributors point out that they did what their country asked them to do, and they were stunned by the cruelty, even savagery, of some of the anti-war protesters, many of whom proclaimed belief in love and peace. Some are still not reconciled to the treatment they received, while others welcome the change in the attitude toward them as a chance "to wipe a little spit off our hearts." Copyright 1988 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Library Journal
"Were you ever spat upon when you returned home to the United States?" asked syndicated columnist Greene of the Vietnam veterans among his readership. He received over 1000 letters in reply, many recounting specific details of just such a painfully remembered incident. Evidently this recollection of "hippies" (as they are often called in the letters) spitting on combat veterans has become one of the war's most unpleasant, enduring images. Conversely, other letters describe acts of generosity toward servicemen, from the typical free beers at the bar to a free show. But the over 200 letters excerpted here do more than confirm popular notions. They bring back the incidents of 20 years ago vividly, but not always with bitterness. And they reveal healing solidarity among veterans in response to what for many was not a happy homecoming. Recommended. Richard W. Grefrath, Univ. of Nevada Lib., Reno. Copyright 1989 Reed Business Information, Inc.

I�d be happy to post more links if you need them, but I highly recommend visiting a VA hospital and speaking first hand with the veterans themselves. I have no doubt that there are accounts in VFW magazine, or the American Legion magazine, or other veterans� publications. I do doubt that all the editions from the 1970s and 1980s when the wounds were fresh are all online and searchable.

As I noted in my previous post, mistreatment of returning Vietnam veterans didn�t happen everywhere, but there were plenty of examples of acts of spitting and throwing things at returning military.

Admin

And Bob Greene is certainly not a conservative dupe. Sadly, he is no longer a commentator but I followed his career as he blossomed into one of the best.

Dan L

I've no immediate access to a VA hospital, but I look forward with considerable interest to reading the two books the Administrator has recommended.

I've never claimed to be a Thomist, so I've not attempted to wade through all the Thomist quotes and analyses offered.

As to parading in public in large numbers in the nude, I thought that was the Dukhobors. Have I been misinformed?

Incognitus

Has anyone read the Bob Greene book? If so, what is the spit-count? From the reviews there were some thousand respondents, two hundred of which made the book. "Some servicemen were spat upon on their return, but more suffered verbal abuse or icy indifference..." Evidently spitting was extremely atypical, but it has been cultivated as an "enduring image".

I haven�t read the book, but from the write-up it seems that he asked the question of Vietnam veterans about whether they had been spit upon because it was being dismissed as a myth. If Greene approached the issue with fairness and balance one could expect that the 200 selections he made from the thousands of letters were a reasonable and responsible reflection of the total. I have no reason to doubt Greene at this point. Nor do I have reason to conclude that the letters he received exhausted the supply of veterans who were mistreated.

My point in posting it was to respond to Daniel�s claim that such mistreatment �never happened�. It did happen. It was not normative (typical) but neither was it �extremely atypical� (very rare).