Killington Pride weekend

[KBL Ed]

is every " deviant" (departing from usual or accepted standards, esp. in social or sexual behavior.) behavior now acceptable?

No.



There, you got your answer.

[f.a.s.t.]

Gay this, gay that........everyday and everywhere is gay day. Now K is into it too.
If they want to be treated equally, why do they need special treatement and events?
Many gays agree with this too before you give me crap.

As long as we're doing away with special treatments and events, let's eliminate the Saint Patrick's Day parades and celebrations along with those for Columbus and other ethnic heroes. Let's take Christmas Day off the Federal and State holiday lists. What other celebrations and special events do we need to eliminate? How about Black History Month? My God! Who needs a whole month when others only have one day? Keep it going. What else should we do away with?

I never said K should do away with the event as you propose, they have the right to do the event if they want to. However, you can't compare this event to other holidays or other events that you list because none of them involve sexual orientation and NONE of them are being forced upon us on a DAILY basis. You didn't answer the question about the LGBT's being treated equally, how does special treatement at Killington equate to equality when heterosexuals or those who believe in traditional marriage are not getting the same type of special treatment? Everyone has the right to ski at Killington and the right to go to any bar, restaurant, hotel or anywhere else, doesn't matter who or what they are.

Let's face it, K is doing this for profit and not for pride, shouldn't the LGBT community be offended that their lifestyle is being taken advantage of by a large corporation?

[madhatter]

is every " deviant" (departing from usual or accepted standards, esp. in social or sexual behavior.) behavior now acceptable?

No.



There, you got your answer.

not, not exactly... so which of those deviant behaviors are no longer deviant, but the new norm? and who decides that? and what basis is used to decide that? so far the argument seems to be its "predisposed" or genetic...

So if that is the the metric by which we decide, then the rest of the question needs to be answered as well... which of those and other behaviors are genetic and thus "rights" that make it immoral to oppose them? and how does that affect society and the social contract? and even rule of law?

[Andy J]

Pretty annoying to see them make such a big deal. SO what people are gay.....big whoop. I hate the gays that try and make a scene. They suck.

[f.a.s.t.]

So if I wanted to marry my sister it's cool right? Is she a good looking chick and good in bed?

What about if I want to have 10 wives? One is generally enough. How much nagging can you take?

What about if I want to have a husband and a wife? Just makes your affair more legitimate.

It's all in the name of love...

Seriously, if you want to say it's a slippery slope, just say so. But, if society evolves toward multi-person relationships and it's all among consenting adults, then that is what society will evolve to. The right or wrong of it is a judgment call. We developed to where we are today as a result of many factors, including religion and asset ownership. But there was at least one religion we all know - Mormon - where multiple wives were the norm and the religion only disavowed that in order for Utah to become a state. There is no absolute right or wrong when it comes to love and behavior between or among consenting adults and society will evolve however it may.

Yes there is absolute right or wrong when it comes to love and behavior with adults according to the US Supreme Court. If you oppose same sex marriage you are villified, deamonized and discriminated against as homophobic, a bigot and full of hatred. The US Supreme Court in a recent ruling even said so. The 5 to 4 majority ruled that marriage can not be defined as between one man and one woman, to do so is unconstitutional and based solely on discrimination. This was a disgrace, those that argued in favor of defining marriage as between one man and one woman gave testimony in front of the Court based on historical, social and religious reasons and facts. When the majority rendered their written opinion, they never even argued why the historical, social and religious reasons and facts were unconstitutional, they just said it was discrimination and based on hatred, they totally ignored the opposing view and facts presented in testimony in front of them. So, you are incorrect to write there is no absolute right or wrong in this matter given what the Court did, they said there is a right and wrong, and to hell with anyone who thinks otherwise.

[moneygripp]

Monumental event for Friday night!! http://youtu.be/AJNAhVH_2GE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[skiersleft]

Yes there is absolute right or wrong when it comes to love and behavior with adults according to the US Supreme Court. If you oppose same sex marriage you are villified, deamonized and discriminated against as homophobic, a bigot and full of hatred. The US Supreme Court in a recent ruling even said so. The 5 to 4 majority ruled that marriage can not be defined as between one man and one woman, to do so is unconstitutional and based solely on discrimination.

Unfortunately, this statement reveals that you have not read United States v. Windsor and have, instead, relied on (erroneous) third party accounts of what the SCOTUS held in that case. Contrary to what you point out, the SCOTUS did NOT hold in Windsor that marriage cannot be defined as between a man and a woman. Rather, it held that the federal government must accept how each state defines marriage according to local state laws. If a given state allows same sex marriage, the federal government must accept that definition and afford to such couples the same benefits that it affords to heterosexual married couples. This is a rather elementary point regarding the distribution of power between the federal and state governments. Marriage has historically been a matter within the province of states and not the federal government.

However, if a state defines marriage as between a man and a woman - as many states still do - there is NOTHING in Windsor holding that such laws are unconstitutional. Of course, the Supreme Court may hold in the future that state laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman are unconstitutional deprivations of the Equal Protection protected under the 14th Amendment or of the right to liberty implicit in the 5th and 14th Amendments. This was the issue that the SCOTUS was asked to address in the other gay marriage case - Hollingsworth v. Perry. The SCOTUS refused to rule on the merits of the case, holding instead that there was no standing to contest the challenge to California's Prop 8. Commentators speculate that the SCOTUS refused to decide Hollingsworth v. Perry because a majority of the Court is still not willing to hold that state laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman are unconstitutional. As of today, therefore, the SCOTUS has NOT held laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman unconstitutional. States are thus free to define marriage in however way they see fit.

This was a disgrace, those that argued in favor of defining marriage as between one man and one woman gave testimony in front of the Court based on historical, social and religious reasons and facts. When the majority rendered their written opinion, they never even argued why the historical, social and religious reasons and facts were unconstitutional, they just said it was discrimination and based on hatred, they totally ignored the opposing view and facts presented in testimony in front of them. So, you are incorrect to write there is no absolute right or wrong in this matter given what the Court did, they said there is a right and wrong, and to hell with anyone who thinks otherwise.

Again, this couldn't be more mistaken. If these are your personal views, fine. But please do not present them as what the Supreme Court actually said, because it simply isn't. These things can be corroborated. Just read the opinion next time.

Just to reiterate, the SCOTUS did not say that a particular definition of marriage was right or wrong or constitutional or unconstitutional. Rather, they said that the federal government cannot enact a law that denies marriage benefits to same-sex couples that were lawfully married under validly enacted state laws. States remain free to define marriage in however way they see fit. But if a state defines marriage in a way that allows same sex couples to marry, Congress must respect the state definition of marriage even if it does not like it. Nothing less, nothing more.

Feel free to read the opinion. You can find it here:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12 ... 7_6j37.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[GSKI]

Yes there is absolute right or wrong when it comes to love and behavior with adults according to the US Supreme Court. If you oppose same sex marriage you are villified, deamonized and discriminated against as homophobic, a bigot and full of hatred.

The issue for many opposed to same sex marriage is that the word "marriage" is considered a religious sacrament and gays attempt to use this word is their way of forcing acceptance from the Catholics rather than the tolerance than currently exists. Same sex civil unions are legal in most states. I think the state should be out of the marriage business at any rate and every one should get a civil union contract from the state. If you want to get married you would then go to Church to get that done. Politicians simply use the issue for political points. Honestly most people do not care who you have sex with.

[hillbangin]

Didn't this post start out talking about a parade and funny clothes and some parties?

Or am I missing something?

I missed the part about SCOTUS and the all the other stuff...........

[spanky]

I would move this to political but believe at some point it was skiing/Killington related. I have neither the desire nor time to separate the skiing related content from the political discussion. Let's keep it in Chatter and if the discussion continues beyond this weekend, then move it to Politics.

Disclaimer: this is neither a pro nor anti gay rights post.

[boston_e]

It sounds like a good party. Im going to mention it to a couple of gay friends and see if they want to come up. I could go for a wobbly steak on Friday night.

[Killington_Lover]

It is disturbing some of the arguments being made in here. I hope those of you that cannot comprehend science meet your maker with the same judgement and intolerance you dealt to those in this world.

I want to have faith in the world but some people are too damn close minded to understand that IT IS NOT A CHOICE. IT IS NOT THREATENING MARRIAGE. YOUR GENERATIONS HAVE GIVEN MY GENERATION A GREAT PERSPECTIVE ON MARRIAGE: THE MAJORITY OF YOU ARE INCAPABLE OF FINDING GOOD MATES. WHY ARE SO MANY HETEREOSEXUAL MARRIAGES FAILIING? WHO ARE THE SOCIOPATHS THAT GO AROUND BLOWING UP PEOPLE (PRODUCTS OF HETERO-MARRIAGES I BET). THE FACT IS THAT BEING GAY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MORALITY. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A SLIPPERY SLOPE OR A CLASSICAL DEFINITION. YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE DEFINITION CHANGING? SOUNDS LIKE YOU SHOULD BE BEAT IN THE HEAD WITH A 2X4 TIL YOU GET IT... TWO PEOPLE COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO YOU HAVE NO BEARING ON YOUR LIFE. DID YOU KNOW GAYS TEND TO RAISE PERHAPS MORE WELL ADJUSTED CHILDREN? I HAVEN'T MET ONE PERSON FROM A GAY HOUSEHOLD WHO I WAS WORRIED ABOUT SHOOTING UP THEIR OFFICE WHEN THEY GET FIRED...AS FOR THE REST OF YOU HETERO BIGOTS, MOVE TO ALABAMA, DAWN A CONFEDERATE FLAG, SIT ON YOUR STOOP WITH A SHOTGUN AND ROT.

sorry, but I am not sorry. I wish all haters across our country would magically vanish. rough I know, but those of us who actually care about civil rights for all brothers and sisters get it. Don't tread on me. It is what this country was founded on. life liberty and pursuit of happiness, funny a lot of you white anglo christians cant let others live in that pursuit.

And for those that compare homosexuality to bestiality or polygamy...you are hopeless, see yourself out the back door with a swift kick in the ass.

I am not gay, but I love humans. I hate power mongers. I hate people with a fear of the unknown. Its as if you people think all of a sudden people decided to be gay. People have had a genetic disposition FOREVER. did you know other species have HOMOSEXUAL SEX. FOR FUN? without the aim of procreation OH MY GOD! Lord forbid 2 well adjusted adults be allowed to adopt and raise a kid better than your sorry assess ever could. My last post was the polite one. Admins feel free to edit or remove this if this is too controversial for this forum.

And of course I mean no threat or harm to any members of Kzone. Just a young, open minded person here scratching their head at people stuck in their ways (who probably listened to one-to-many brain washing sermons in some denomination or another).

GOOD LUCK ALL.


EDIT: ignorance makes me intolerant.

[iRock]

I knew I should've placed my bet of this thread turning into a highly-heated rant fest that has lost nearly all connection to Killington.

[freeski]

Killington Lover: So you would like to beat the people who do not agree with you over the head with a 2X4 and kill them and then you want them to go to hell? I see you're angry and think you make some good points, but I don't agree with the way you went about it. When you got to your point about animals having sex for fun all I could think of was Michael Scott on The Office giving his race speech. You brought up this is partially generational and I completely agree with you. The kids of today do not think nearly as much about this as my generation. And there is more tolerance in my generation than the older baby boomers. This is a good thing. I appreciate your post.

[Nyknicks4412]

.