Killington Pride weekend

[BoozeTan]

Years ago I had a friend that was gay. I had no idea that he was. I found out when we were at a concert and I was talking to this chick. Her friend asked about my buddy. So I went over to him and said hey that girl thinks you are hot, come talk to her while I hit on her friend. He looked at me kind of funny and I asked him if she thought she was hot. He then said well ya shes hot, but Im not into her, or any girls actually, Im gay. This completely floored me. I had no idea. It didnt bother me, I was just shocked that I didnt know. So then I said joking, well if you're gay how come you never hit on me? What Im not good enough for you? He said well I know you arent gay, thats why. He was one of the nicest and coolest ppl I have ever known.

Anyway, I have no problem with gay ppl, and I have no problem with them adopting and raising kids. Isnt it better for a child to be in a loving home regardless of the sex of the parents, than to be in a home where they are unwanted, unloved and abused?

I think it will be a fun weekend at K, I mean have ever meet an angry gay person?

[freeski]

As a heterosexual (sorry guys) I find, in terms of spelling and grammar, the Pico Lift Cable episode of The Killington Zone humorous. However, the contemptuous ‘gay as insult’ and the associated undercurrent of racism betrays the ignorance that we all must confront… and that isn’t the least bit funny.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=38457" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

When you attack someone on the internet you don't get to choose the response.

[rogman]

There are a couple of points that need to be addressed here:

First of all, social mores do change. What is considered acceptable today may not be tomorrow, and vice versa. If you’re looking for absolute truth, you won’t find it here, the Bible, or any other “holy” book. Clearly the ancient Romans and Greeks were more tolerant of homosexuality than much of today’s society. Fortunately, that is changing. I say fortunately, because there is a great deal of scientific and statistical evidence that some people are just wired differently. We are much better informed than our forefathers. Thus I consider it unlikely that we will see a future era where gays are forced back in the closet.

Secondly, I find the ongoing discussion of “slippery slope” disturbing, i.e. who’s to rule as to what is deviant and what is not? The concept of “informed consent” pretty much deals with that issue. What two consenting adults do is really nobody’s business but their own. However, beastiality is deviant: an animal is not capable of giving “informed consent”, likewise, pedophilia is as well: children are not capable of giving informed consent either. Polygamy? Tougher issue: since it is not always a relationship among equals.

Finally, “what about the children”. The, “I don’t want to explain to my kids why two guys are holding hands”. In actual practice, the conversation tends to go more along the lines of:
“Daddy, why are those two guys holding hands?”
“Sometimes men like other men, sometimes women like other women”
“Oh. Okay, Can I get some ice cream?”

The issue of gay rights is by no means a “solved problem” in this country. Arizona is exhibit ‘A’. Consider the following exchange on Anderson Cooper:


I applaud Killington for taking a stand on basic human rights for all.

[boston_e]

Finally, “what about the children”. The, “I don’t want to explain to my kids why two guys are holding hands”. In actual practice, the conversation tends to go more along the lines of:
“Daddy, why are those two guys holding hands?”
“Sometimes men like other men, sometimes women like other women”
“Oh. Okay, Can I get some ice cream?”

Inapropriate public displays of affection happen every weekend at Killington and are no more likely to be near where kids are during this LGBT weekend than they are during any other weekend.

[madhatter]

Finally, “what about the children”. The, “I don’t want to explain to my kids why two guys are holding hands”. In actual practice, the conversation tends to go more along the lines of:
“Daddy, why are those two guys holding hands?”
“Sometimes men like other men, sometimes women like other women”
“Oh. Okay, Can I get some ice cream?”

Inapropriate public displays of affection happen every weekend at Killington and are no more likely to be near where kids are during this LGBT weekend than they are during any other weekend.

https://www.google.com/search?q=gay+pri ... 24&bih=625" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


ya sure?

[f.a.s.t.]

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.


Not so fast there Skiersleft
It has set federal precedent making it easier to deny the definition of marraige.

The case on the federal law was the more important one from a legal perspective, setting the terms for challenges to state bans on same-sex marriage. Justice Kennedy’s reasoning, as Justice Scalia noted at length in dissent, could just as easily have applied to state laws as to the federal one.

“The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the state, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.” No one is saying that they are less respected, it is not in the record.

He said the law was motivated by a desire to harm gay and lesbian couples and their families, demeaning the “moral and sexual choices” of such couples and humiliating “tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples.” This is a total lie and disgrace.

Dissenting from the bench, Justice Scalia said that that declaration took “real cheek.”

“By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency,” Justice Scalia said, “the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition.”

[boston_e]

Finally, “what about the children”. The, “I don’t want to explain to my kids why two guys are holding hands”. In actual practice, the conversation tends to go more along the lines of:
“Daddy, why are those two guys holding hands?”
“Sometimes men like other men, sometimes women like other women”
“Oh. Okay, Can I get some ice cream?”

Inapropriate public displays of affection happen every weekend at Killington and are no more likely to be near where kids are during this LGBT weekend than they are during any other weekend.

https://www.google.com/search?q=gay+pri ... 24&bih=625" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


ya sure?

IMO no different than the Jack Daniels Girls, the pimps and hos party, the mini skirt party, skimpy bikinis at pond skimming, etc etc.

Sure you might see a couple of dudes making out at the after party at the outback, but no different than a dude a chick making out then either... and I'm not likely to have my kids at the outback / wobbly / pickle late night regardless of there being a primarially hetro or homo sexual crowd..

[madhatter]

Finally, “what about the children”. The, “I don’t want to explain to my kids why two guys are holding hands”. In actual practice, the conversation tends to go more along the lines of:
“Daddy, why are those two guys holding hands?”
“Sometimes men like other men, sometimes women like other women”
“Oh. Okay, Can I get some ice cream?”

Inapropriate public displays of affection happen every weekend at Killington and are no more likely to be near where kids are during this LGBT weekend than they are during any other weekend.

https://www.google.com/search?q=gay+pri ... 24&bih=625" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


ya sure?

IMO no different than the Jack Daniels Girls, the pimps and hos party, the mini skirt party, skimpy bikinis at pond skimming, etc etc.

Sure you might see a couple of dudes making out at the after party at the outback, but no different than a dude a chick making out then either... and I'm not likely to have my kids at the outback / wobbly / pickle late night regardless of there being a primarially hetro or homo sexual crowd..

yep same thing:





















note NONE of these pics are late night at a bar...

[Stache]

I am NOT the "Weather God".
Heqq, I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
But I am pretty sure the temps for the weekend will preclude such states of dress (or undress) on the slopes.

[Terrapin Station]

Alec Baldwin weighs in!

http://www.vulture.com/2014/02/alec-bal ... -life.html

[skiersleft]

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.


Not so fast there Skiersleft
It has set federal precedent making it easier to deny the definition of marraige.

The case on the federal law was the more important one from a legal perspective, setting the terms for challenges to state bans on same-sex marriage. Justice Kennedy’s reasoning, as Justice Scalia noted at length in dissent, could just as easily have applied to state laws as to the federal one.

“The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the state, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.” No one is saying that they are less respected, it is not in the record.

He said the law was motivated by a desire to harm gay and lesbian couples and their families, demeaning the “moral and sexual choices” of such couples and humiliating “tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples.” This is a total lie and disgrace.

Dissenting from the bench, Justice Scalia said that that declaration took “real cheek.”

“By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency,” Justice Scalia said, “the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition.”

Again, please read the opinion as opposed to third party summaries. An elemental proposition in law is that law is made by the holding of the case, not by third party accounts. Also, Justice Scalia's characterization of Kennedy's opinion is legally irrelevant. After all, Scalia is dissenting because his opinion is NOT the law of the land. As a result, his description of the majority is not determinative of anything. If you want to figure out what the court held, please read the majority opinion in its entirety instead of dissenting opinions. This is all law 101. I suggest that if - as you obviously do - you lack any knowledge about legal reasoning and the nature of legal precedents, you abstain from making ignorant statements about what the SCOTUS held or didn't hold in a given case. After all, people go to law school and spend years studying law to master how to read legal opinions. I suggest you do the same before you keep claiming that you know what a SCOTUS opinion holds. If you want to know where to start, your lack of knowledge would be greatly increased by learning about the distinction between HOLDING and DICTUM. Then come back and tell me what the HOLDING of Windsor was. Who knows, you might end up learning something.

[Stormchaser]

If being gay isn't a big deal (my opinion), then why is being called gay a big deal? Sticks and stones hurt, words shouldn't.

[Dr. NO]

If being gay isn't a big deal (my opinion), then why is being called gay a big deal? Sticks and stones hurt, words shouldn't.

Guess it shouldn't matter. When one comes forward do they say I'm coming out or do they say oh btw, I'm Gay? My experience is "I'm Gay". Not that I am mind you.

[Nyknicks4412]

.

[f.a.s.t.]

The argument about having a sanctioned event for gay people at killington is not so much the off chance that children may see something or that patrons will have to be around gay people throughout the day. Let's face it we see this stuff on a regular basis. The argument is that as a business killington should leave the politics alone and let anyone who pleases come up and enjoy the resort. They don't need to throw a specific party just for gay people it's simply unnecessary as it is a controversial topic for many as should be obvious by the small sample response in this thread. Would you all be in support of a resort throwing catholic weekend? What about hetero weekend? I would doubt it...you'd call them bigots. You can't compare jack Daniels weekend where killington is partnering with another private business on the same scale as hosting a weekend centered around social issue in the country today

Gets back to the question about Killington doing this for profit and not for pride. No one is commenting on the fact that Killington is doing this to increase their bottom line. If Killington thought this would cost them revenue, they never would have done this event. Maybe Killington should be boycotted that weekend for getting involved in what is a political debate for profit.