Fifty years ago, Martin Luther King stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and gave his “I Have A Dream” speech and spoke of the day when people would be judged by the content of their character. I am not sure that the recent controversy over singer Donnie McClurkin is what MLK had in mind. McClurkin is a deeply religious man who says that God delivered him from being gay. That reportedly led to his being told that he was no longer welcomed at the anniversary performance of the speech.
McClurkin was scheduled to perform at the concert Saturday evening but gay rights activities objected to his participation ahead of the event.
Yet, Doxie McCoy, a spokeswoman for Mayor Vincent Gray, insisted that it was McClurkin who removed himself from the lineup to avoid controversy over his participation. She issued a statement that “[t]he Arts and Humanities Commission and Donnie McClurkin’s management decided that it would be best for him to withdraw because the purpose of the event is to bring people together.”
McClurkin however contradicted that account and said that he did not agree to be excluded. He states that he was “asked not to attend” the concert. That is quite a difference in accounts. Where the Mayor’s office is claiming that he removed himself, he is saying that he was barred because of his religious beliefs.
I can understand the feelings of gay rights advocates, particularly given the clear analogies of their own current struggle with the fight of Martin Luther King. However, the greater symbol of division can be found in barring people who share their admiration for MLK but subscribe to opposing religious views. I am equally concerned over what McClurkin is clearly suggesting is a false account from the office of Mayor Gray on the matter. The burden is now on Gray’s office to produce proof that the singer did opt not to attend to avoid controversy.
What do you think?
Source: Washington Post
Gene,
David and SF would have had a wonderful time if they lived back in the time of Aristotle. I am sure everyone remembers him, you know, one of the guys who came up with the idea of natural law. All those foreskins swinging about out on the athletic field. Perhaps David would have partaken of a bit of mano a mano as long as it involved oiled bodies in the context of an athletic endeavor.
“It’s why the country turned so quickly on gay marriage. The insults were striking too close to home for too many.”
I think it turned quickly because of really good propaganda, and the fact that most people know people who are gay, and don’t really want to be mean to them. Which, the Gay Movement Leaders will probably screw up for the rest of the gays by not having enough sense or desire to moderate their demands with some common sense.
Like the bathroom thing in California, and the Foreskin Brigade Boys. And other stuff.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
David confesses, “I don’t think it is proper for me to relate my personal stories to you of how homosexuals have attacked me.”
Thank you. I love you for your honesty, at last. And in a private thread I would love to hear all about it, and perhaps we would hug fiercely (as adult men do) at the end of it. I would hope for at least that.
And, here in the public square, we cannot allow criminals — those who attacked you, if criminals they be — to force us to paint ALL gay people with the same brush. Criminality occurs just as often among gay people. I know literally hundreds of people of various genders and benders and things you don’t even want to guess, and none of them are attackers. Not one.
This is what social media is teaching us, David: we are taking the notion of “home” with us now wherever we go. We are never far from the events in the lives of those we love, if we so choose. And boy howdy! have we chosen! So, everything hits us close to home, for good, or for ill.
It’s why the country turned so quickly on gay marriage. The insults were striking too close to home for too many.
Just as, I imagine, this entire subject strikes you, if what you claim is true.
There’s not going to be any going back in time, David. Even after the rhetoric, none of us has gone anywhere, and we are knitted close together unless we choose to unplug. We need to find ways to get along instead.
Do you intend that response to be a vote for “ignorance” as an explanation of your endorsement of hateful discriminatory policy?
You’ve already shown that you don’t have a clue as to what Natural Law means because, in part, you don’t understand nature. Homosexuality is a normal human sexual expression in a minority of our species. It is also normal sexual behavior in literally hundreds of other species. Yet you refuse to come to grips with this science fact despite it having been explained to you in detail more than once now. You have also shown you don’t know what Natural Law is in relationship to law, despite it having been explained to you in detail more than once.
Repeating yourself isn’t going to make you any more factually correct.
Your primary failure is a failure to understand basic facts and underlying theory of both science and nature. It’s pretty apparent that you engage in argumentum verbosium, argumentum ad ignorantiam, circular reasoning, petitio principii, equivocation, false equivalences, false attributions, ignoratio elenchi, the mind projection fallacy, the moral high ground fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc, a certain degree of kettle logic (particularly saying your for equal right but arguing against equal rights) and a host of other logical fallacies. Thinking, logic and argumentation are not strong suits you’ve displayed.
So which is it? Hater, theocrat, or ignorant? They are not mutually exclusive states of motives.
Well personally, I don’t think they are walking around in public enough. I think they need to do it a lot more often! In front of schools, in shopping malls, and restaurants. Just all over!
I mean, the only time you seem to see any restraint by gays (except for the chains and ball gag type) is when they try to shut straight people and ex-gay people up! Like the poor guy this post is about.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Davidm2575, “You think dancing naked men condemning religious practices and showing off their genitals is the bright future of society. I think that is the wrong direction.”
They are celebrating, David, as men have done since there have been men. They are therefore not in violation of any natural law. Moreover, there are not sufficient numbers of gay people in the present to threaten population counts. Not by a mile.
“Natural Law” joins the heap of threats that are not, in fact, threats. I really think you should cut back on your gay pride parade attendance. It has you whipped up into a bit of a fixation.
By the bye, if you were forced to live the dual life of the closet because of who you wanted share consensual touch, you’d celebrate a little when you were finally freed. Lighten up, Francis!
David said, ” They have framed the debate as a civil rights issue when it is not. It is a sexual freedom issue. The true issue of civil rights concerning the way Blacks have been treated is getting a huge blemish from the homosexual activists attempting to be the new civil rights movement.”
I feel like you are trapped in the early 1990s when you use language such as “attempting to be.” You act like this has not already happened. In fact, with the recent SCOTUS decision, gay people have achieved a key civil right. There is no “attempting” about it. It’s done, but for the screaming about it in places where state legislatures were lured into passing irresponsible constitutional amendments, backed by politicians who used the same failed theories as you have posted here today.
Who are you to say who is blemished and who is not?
Made-up hooey with disturbing racial overtones does not count as an actual threat, David. You are going to have to do better. You saved that paragraph above for near the end of your reply, which I initially applauded for your attempts to tone down the heat. I do not think I will fall for that gag again.
James Knauer wrote: ” In fact, with the recent SCOTUS decision, gay people have achieved a key civil right.”
Actually, what they won from the SCOTUS decision was a political applause from the high court. By making marriage strictly a State’s Rights Issue, they clearly departed from the logic of Loving v. Virginia that treated marriage as a fundamental right which necessitates the federal government stepping in to protect.
Facts got your tongue, David?
I’m going to call bullshit on that freed post, David.
It is most certainly a civil rights issue whether you think so or not. It goes to denying a fundamental right to a miniority absent any showing of specific harm to others and in contravention of the 14th Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. So . . . if you’re not a hater – which I also doubt – then the remaining options to explain your position are 1) you’re a theocrat seeking to impose your religiously based morality on others via the force of law (in contravention of the 1st Amendment’s Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses) or 2) you’re simply ignorant about how the law views this matter (which has been made manifest many times now).
So which is it? Hater, theocrat, or ignorant? They are not mutually exclusive states of motive, by the way.
If you don’t like people thinking you’re a hater, then maybe you shouldn’t endorse hateful discriminatory policy.
Gene H – there is another option, and that is my belief in Natural Law Theory rather than positive law. You think sexual mores can be whatever society votes them to be. I think laws should follow natural law and make sense in the context of nature. Violate that, and conflicts will arise and society will devolve away from being civilized. You think dancing naked men condemning religious practices and showing off their genitals is the bright future of society. I think that is the wrong direction.
David complains bitterly, “So I take it that you also walk around in public naked yelling, “FORESKIN PRIDE!”
One of the beautiful aspects of free speech is, properly permitted (with cash receipts), you get to know where all the foreskin showings will be up front so you can avoid them.
I appreciate steeples for much the same reason. I keep catching fire at the thresholds of the damned things, so best to know where they are.
David, for the love of all that is holy, please grow up. No one is forcing you to behold foreskins if that is not what you wanted to be looking at in the first place.
Not hearing any actual threats yet other than to your frail sensibilities.
James Knauer wrote: “One of the beautiful aspects of free speech is, properly permitted (with cash receipts), you get to know where all the foreskin showings will be up front so you can avoid them.”
I really don’t think you understand how far homosexual activists will go. In this particular parade, there was no notice of nudity about to come. It was part of a larger parade. Did you not see some of the ladies reactions in the crowd? Also, I have had homosexuals dance around naked in front of me right in public without any permits. Sometimes the police had to step in and instruct them to pull up their pants.
Jame Knauer wrote: “Not hearing any actual threats yet other than to your frail sensibilities.”
I don’t think it is proper for me to relate my personal stories to you of how homosexuals have attacked me. Then you really would think I am expressing hatred, and you would try one by one to explain them away as isolated incidents. Suffice it to say that I think the account in the Hebrew Scriptures about Sodom and how the homosexuals approached Lot to know his guests is a rather accurate account about the aggressive nature of homosexual activists. The culture war they are waging now is only just beginning. You will see soon enough that it is not about equal rights.
@GeneH:
Oh, I can just see them out prissing around to this music:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4S6D7iWAQQ
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Yes, we are are able to free comments trapped in the spam filter.
Thanks for asking.
(English is such a tricky language.)
Gene or other moderator – are you able to free a response I made to James earlier?
Everyone is a snowflake, Sqweak.
Even bigots.
Oh, you didn’t need me to set you straight on defective thinking, David.
You’ve demonstrated you’re pretty good at that without any instruction or assistance whatsoever.
Got to give credit where credit is due.
That would be quite a stork of luck, there, Gene…
Oh yes, gays are just like everybody else! All they want to do is just get married like everybody else. And walk around nekkid in public like everybody else. And go the girl’s restrooms, even though they are boys, just like everybody else.
Oh my, gays are such special snowflakes to some of you! Hilarious!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Clean titty bars! I’ve seen clean bars and I’ve seen clean titties, but never a clean titty bar. That’s just crazy talk, Juliet. 😀
Oh noes! Naked humans! Who’d have thunk it! What with every single one of us being born that way.
Being afraid of the human form and sexuality is part and parcel of the remnants Puritan dogma that makes America so sexually dysfunctional that some clowns think the way to lower abortion rates is to kill doctors instead of providing a proper education in human sexuality. You remember the Puritans, right? The people who were such a drag the Dutch told them to get the hell out. Lucky us. They came here. Their legacy? Homophobes and parents too ignorant or too afraid to tell their children they weren’t found under a cabbage or covered in stork slobber.
With the obvious exceptions of Sqweak and David who were found, of course, fully clothed out in the garden patch just dripping with bird drool.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Gene H wrote: “Being afraid of the human form and sexuality is part and parcel of the remnants Puritan dogma that makes America so sexually dysfunctional…”
Seriously? So those in society who think clothes should be worn in public are afraid of the human form and sexuality? Really?
So I take it that you also walk around in public naked yelling, “FORESKIN PRIDE!”
Well, I guess we should really thank the homosexual activists for setting us straight on this defective thinking. From listening to you, Gene, I get the distinct impression that they are the true saviors of civilized society. I’m just not sure everybody else in society sees it this way.
@NickS:
You asked: “Johnny, Have you ever seen a grown man naked?”
Well, if Little Johnny hadn’t, maybe he got the chance here!
VANCOUVER, B.C., August 12, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – When homosexual news service Daily Xtra reported last week that both Vancouver police and city officials “confirmed they had no issues with public nudity” at the city’s annual gay Pride Parade, LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) deemed necessary a fact check with the guardians of law and order.
While reports about this year’s August 4 gay parade mention only “scantily-clad revellers” and “skimpy attire,” last year’s parade was attended by a group of men called Foreskin who exposed their genitals in the city streets (WARNING: link includes graphic full-frontal male nudity).
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vancouver-police-officials-would-not-uphold-laws-against-public-nudity-at-p
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Morally bankrupt gays! Nudity should only happen in titty bars — clean, moral, hetero titty bars.