Gay couple asked to reverse "marriage is so gay" shirt at Dollywood

Amen.

phoenixphan :-) said:
Funny, from someone who has visited Dollywood on many occasions with a domestic partner I never experienced discrimination. At a meet and greet I introduced my partner, and still, no feeling of discrimination. And we conducted ourselves just as every other couple, gay or straight. It seems to me that the choice of attire was to draw attention to ones self. And that is exactly what happened, and the guest was asked to correct what the employee saw as a violation of park policies. No need for debates, no need for controversy.

I can also say that as someone who has always been open about his sexuality, never hesitated traveling to parks in otherwise "closed minded" areas, I have never once experienced anything out of the ordinary. There is also a certain amount of tact and self-respect that I have, and would never personally want to draw that kind of attention to myself or those around me. It sends a bad message (especially in a state that is struggling with equal rights issues) to everyone involved, and in the end nobody really wins.

Terrific post.

Jeff said:

GoBucks89 said:
Thats the kind of overdramatized garbage I was talking about. Verbally invalidated?? By someone at a turnstile? Nothing anyone working at a turnstile could ever say could ever invalidate anything in my life much less anything that is truly important to me. And comparing what happend to Rosa Parks?

Dude, you're going out of your way to take what I said out of context. My point was that living in a pattern of being dissed by society for who you fundamentally are wears on you. As long as you refuse even for a moment to show enough empathy to put yourself in her shoes, you won't get it. As a white, middle-class, hetero man, you're damn right I've had it relatively easy. That's why I try a little harder to see things through the eyes of other people.

I don't think I have gone out of my way to do much of anything in this discussion. I quoted what you said in the context of the ongoing discussion. If there is a problem with that, I would suggest that you revisit your intent doesn't matter point a couple of pages back. ;)

Its ironic to me that in a post accusing me of taking what you said out of context, you appear to have have taken what I have said totally out of context. What exactly is it that I don't get? I fully support same sex couples getting married. I voted against Ohio's same sex marriage ban amendment in 2004. Though if the government is going to stay in the marriage business (and I think there are good arguments to be made that government shouldn't be in it at all for same sex or opposite sex couples), I would label all government recognized unions "civil unions" for everyone giving same sex and opposite civil unions the same benefits/penalties given by governments today to married couples. Leave marriages to religions (as it historically had been) with whatever definitions/requirements any given religion wants to have. And if government wants to continue in the marriage business, I am fine with same sex marriages as well.

And I understand the frustration that same sex couples have with respect to marriage issues. And I understand the LGBT community has fought, and continues to fight, a number of issues with respect to discrimination, acceptance, etc. Much progress has been made but much more needs to be made. So its not a matter of refusing to show empathy or not getting it or seeing things through some else's eyes.

The first thing that was taken out of context in this matter was what the employee said to the woman. The concern with it being a family park wasn't because she was a lesbian or there with her partner (she tied the two together). If that was the issue, she wouldn't have been able to enter the park at all. Or do the things that other couples do in the park (like holding hands, etc.). The problem was the shirt. Someone wearing an "Obama is so gay" t-shirt isn't likely to get into the park either. Doesn't mean the park needs to be more inclusive of republicans. Or democrats if the reference was to G. W. Bush.

And I understand the frustrations and how those can accumulate over time. But I don't understand taking them out on someone who, from the sounds of what I have seen in this thread and online about the park and the LGBT community, is very accepting of the LGBT community. Of all the issues facing the LGBT community as a whole, it seems to me that being able to wear that shirt into an amusement park or not being able to do so because its a family park have to be incredibly far down the list. And it wouldn't surprise me that if she had been able to wear the shirt without incident, she would have been disappointed.

Should the issue of race make coaster news would it be o.k. for me to suggest on the forums here that many blacks lead a lifestyle god disapproves of? I'm white by the way.

How many years would we have to go back for such a comment to be passable?

http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/

Interesting link, Aerodynamic. Thanks.

Admittedly not adding anything, just weighing in:

Homo here. Not a fan of "... is so gay"; find it offensive. In this particular context, not so much, but question the appropriateness of it's use in a theme park setting. There is a time and a place; not sure this was it.

I fully realize my feelings on the subject are mine and may not be shared by others.

The park was within it's right. Period. I don't get the impression DW was being discriminatory.

I do not find "family-friendly" offensive, and personally know no others who do.

Anyone else remember the Graham Norton show when he visited DW? Very funny and entertaining, btw...

aerodynamic said:

http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/

I love this, thanks aerodynamic. I think I'll post this on facebook :)

aerodynamic said:
Should the issue of race make coaster news would it be o.k. for me to suggest on the forums here that many blacks lead a lifestyle god disapproves of? I'm white by the way.

How many years would we have to go back for such a comment to be passable?

http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/

I think I'm on the same side of the gay issue as you are (given that you linked that), but these are two totally different issues.

A person IS black. There is no such thing as refraining from black behavior. There also aren't any biblical references to a black person being outside of God's intent for creation.

Even if a person IS gay (which I happen to believe is the case - as opposed to choosing gay behaviors), there are specific behaviors that go along with homosexuality that, in theory a person could abstain from. Whether it is wrong or right is not relevant to the distinction I'm making. I'm just saying it is an identity AND a behavior whereas race is just an identity. There are also a lot of biblical reference to homosexuality being outside of God's intent for creation (and probably a whole lot more references to loving people in all conditions and not judging others, etc.).

^I hear ya Andy. That's why I say if I am never with another guy, I am still gay. Totally gay. Even if I tried to go out with a girl (which I did when I was 20) and *winces* kissed her - I'd still be gay.