The Macy’s mannequin mess

The Macy’s mannequin mess

There’s been a furor in Massachusetts over a mannequin display at Macy’s in Boston. This is Gay Pride week and in Boston everybody turns out in support, including the big department store at Downtown Crossing. This year, Macy’s turned a window display into a pride week calendar and included two mannequins. The mannequins are ostensibly male with one wearing a rainbow flag as a skirt. Some observers say that the mannequins’ chests appear to have breasts, although I don’t see what the point of that would be.

At first, when traditional values groups protested Macy’s brushed them off, but eventually when it got national notice and calls began pouring into the national headquarters, the department store removed the mannequins and kept the calendar. That set off the liberal politicians and gay groups who charged Macy’s with giving into “hate groups.”

Even the supposedly more conservative newspaper in Boston resorted to name-calling outside the editorial and op-ed pages and seemed to leave behind objective journalism with this headline: “Pride and Prejudice,” describing those who objected to radical homosexual activism in the form of Pride Week being paraded about town. When I speak of radical, that’s what is. The MassResistance blog is cataloging the bizarre excesses. This isn’t just a minor blip on the gay scene either. If you’ve ever been to a “gay” town like Provincetown on Cape Cod or San Francisco, you see depravity dressed up as normalcy all the time. The happy image they want you to see are the two chinos-clad, normal-looking, professional guys with the white picket fence and two kids adopted from a Third World hellhole. What they don’t want you to see is the bondage, self-mutilation, open sexual activity, bigotry, and outright rage that is very common.

Technorati Tags:,

Update: Some pro-gay blogs linked this post and just so I don’t have to sit here and monitor the thing all night, I’m closing comments on it until tomorrow.

Update 2: Comments are now open again.

  • Of course, adam, you can twist my words and declare I said something I didn’t. But it doesn’t advance your argument any.

    A few years ago, my family was vacationing on Cape Cod, including my niece who was about six at the time. We decided to go for a ride one day and ended up driving through P-town. After all, just because there are all kinds of homosexuals there, there would be anything disturbing that could be seen from inside the car, right?

    Wrong. I was constantly having to obstruct my niece’s view of the images of naked men and women, shop windows full of bondage gear, and the like. A drive through San Francisco requires the same vigilance against depravity played out on the streets and in the shop windows.

  • In response to Adam’s sarcastic remarks, does he think that anyone should be concerned about the minor youths that are being encouraged and even transported to the Gay pride events by the PFLAG counsellors at their Gay/Straight Alliance clubs in the public high schools? The PFLAG organizers are encouraging the youths to attend the Gay Pride events they are organizing as can be noted on the website. The Director of the Mass. Dept. of Public Health HIV/AIDS Bureau, Kevin Cranston, stated in an interview with Etham Jacobs in a Bay Windows article :“HIV in youth on rise”(7/10/03):“that young gay men are at particular risk for contracting HIV when they seek out partners in the adult gay community. The higher rate of HIV infection among older gay men in Massachusetts, many of whom Cranston says are experiencing “prevention fatigue” and are less careful about practicing safer sex, puts youth at greater risk for contracting the virus when they choose adult partners.”
    Does Adam have any concern for the attempts of those PFLAG “counsellors” to get the youth to join with these “older gay men” at the Gay pride events, knowing full well that many of these men would love to “mentor’ the youth in same-sex activities? Will the HIV infection rate rise still further? Does Adam care about this reality?

  • Hey Adam
    Bottom line.  Macy’s is going out of business because of their ridiculous decisions and a lack of courage and conviction.  They launch themselves right into the middle of one of the top 3 hotly debated political issues and wonder why people would feel strongly about their weak attempt to choose sides.  If you decide to engage in risky conduct at least have the honesty, courage and character to accept the consequences;  that goes for Macy’s, consenting gay adults, and pflag recruiters.

  • Shelley said:
    The only things serious in P-town, as I understand it, are fun and art. 

    Don’t you think the serious negative health consequences of homosexuality ought to be another serious item on the P-Town agenda?

  • Shelley: I gave a snapshot of one experience to illustrate my point. I’ve been to San Francisco on business several times and I’ve seen news and blog coverage of gay pride marches from around the world. I’ve also spoken with others about this very same phenomenon. I also had a roommate in college once who was a former homosexual who verified all this. Anyone who’s going to claim that this stuff doesn’t go on isn’t going to get very far with me.

  • Anyone who thinks I’m making this up is welcome to Google “gay pride photos”. I wouldn’t do this is children or sensitive people are in the room or at work. The photos would be very explicit.

  • Shelley,
    You sure seem to know a lot about P-Town yourself.  Are you really basing your perceptions of certain kinds of behaviors (it’s a tiny blip in a much bigger community) on that one trip to P-Town that you took?  Sounded good when you were discrediting Dom’s comment.  But now it just sounds hypocritical.

    And I am glad to see that you agree that cutting 20 years off of one’s life is a serious issue. 

    Further, I am no stock analyst, but Macy’s stock was good, but I would not risk buying it now.  It is sure to go down . . . and down . . . and down . . . . etc.  Choices have consequences . . . even if your stock price once “was” good.

  • Regarding Shelley’s remarks as to why one small town should be held responsible for the increase of HIV infections, I’d like to know if Shelley thinks that the school administrators in all of the towns and cities in Mass. should be held responsible for allowing the PFLAG members who organize the Gay Pride Festival and March events and then make sure that the school kids in the Gay/Straight Alliance clubs that PFLAG organizes in the school systems, especially the boys, get transported into the events where they link up with older gay men to celebrate Gay Pride and run the risk of being compromised into meeting these men to engage in same-sex sex acts?  If a minor youth contracts the HIV infection and tests positive at a clinic, such as a school health clinic run by the Mass. Dept. of Public Health(MDPH), the clinic workers are mandated NOT to inform the parents or anyone else that the youth has tested positive for the HIV infection. This is stated in the brochure:“HIV and AIDS, Information for young People” put out by the MDPH. The older gay men are protected from being held accountable by this secrecy.
    The public school administrators are complicit in these activities by their lack of objection. Do you think that anyone should be held accountable for allowing this to continue? It’s not just one town that should be held accountable, but all of those in which the school administrators are silent and allow this to happen. Do you agree, or disagree?

  • I wasn’t talking about cutting. I was talking about self-mutilation through so-called “gender reassignment” surgery.

    And I wasn’t talking about deviant sexuality among straights in this thread. I was talking about gays. And, frankly, deviancy among gays is much more prevalent than among straights.

  • Dom’s post objected to a commercial window display because it shows only one aspect of homosexuality—one, it seems, he and many of his commenters seem to believe is far from common and is, he suggests, misleading the public by putting a nice preppy face on sexual deviants.

    Shelley: Can you quote my post where I say that? Where do I object to a commercial window display because it shows only one aspect of homosexuality?

    This is what I’m referring to when I saw Adam Gaffin twisted my views. By quoting me out of context and using the most pejorative statement, he put words in my mouth.

  • Dom, I agree with Hilary! Please use the “Sarcasmo” Troll spray before the infestation of convoluted fallacious rhetoric in defense of acts of same-sex sex gets more outrageous!

  • Molly said:
    Most of the people I know are the type I’ve mentioned, who live quietly and peacefully among their neighbors.

    Really?  Do your quiet Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood friends publish the Little Black Book?  (  Do they not engage in deviant sexual behavior?  Do they exploit their “own” miserable children by forcing them to wear Daddy is a Tranny T-shirts?  Do they get “married” without any legal authority and claim they are just like everybody else?  The parade will brazenly disprove that falsehood—the similarity to the other 98% of society.  Do they hijack symbols of childhood by mistake?  Do they infiltrate the educational system?  Do they indoctrinate children into an unhealthy lifestyle?  Do they put before the legislature a health care bill that encourages unhealthy behaviors without a hint of a warning to the poor children subjected to this propaganda?  Do they ask that the legislature legalize beastiality?  If not, then who the hell is doing all of the above?  Certainly not quiet peaceloving “normal” people like your friends.  Then who?

  • Molly
    All of what I mentioned above is aggressively being done by gay activism which is in full gear here in Massachusetts; including the desire to make beastiality legal.  For you to ignore the reality is to either be in denial or is by design.  So your claim of a Mr. Rogers neighborhood lifestyle is a fantasy.  And as you know, your attempts at propaganda (transfer, association, disassociation, etc.) are not that subtle and in my opinion are highly unwelcome.

  • Also, I take it from your answer that you are well aware of the little black book filth.

  • Molly said:
    I don’t know that particular family, no.

    Well molly that pathetic “family” exists.  What a shame for this poor boy who needs our prayers FOR HIS CIVIL RIGHTS.  He has a civil right to a mother and a father.  He has a civil right not to be aheld prisoner of people who want to exploit him for their own political reasons.  No wonder he looks sad and miserable.  See

    That is not Mardi gras.  That is not playing “dress-up.”  That is outright child abuse.

  • Your friends might want to check the legal authority of their “marriage” certificates before relying on it for too long, because there currently is no legal authority for same-sex marriage, as the lawyers, the judges, and the Governor are all well aware.  17 year olds who hold fake ID’s are no more licensed to drive than is someone who holds a same-sex “marriage” license from Massachusetts, because they were handed out without legal authority.  Therefore, they are VOID documents and ultimately meaningless.

  • Molly
    How does Joe HoSchmo getting married to his partner affect you, WIN, in any way, any more than Joe HetSchmo marrying his?

    By hammering away at the same propaganda, it appears you think somehow you are being subtle.  The point is that the laws of Massachusetts are being violated on a massive scale.  So how does same-sex “marriage” affect me?  Well lets start with, the destruction of democracy.  By the way, are you in favor of or against letting the people have a vote on the marriage amendment?  Most people who promote the gay agenda, do not want democracy.  That directly affects every one who lives in our society, including me.  How can anyone who wants to live in a free country, promote the outright disregard of our laws?  They can’t.  So anyone promoting a massive disregard for our laws is not in favor of freedom.  Currently our laws do not permit same-sex “marriage,” but are being disregarded across the board to accommodate people who wish they could be accepted as normal (regardless of whether or not they actually are normal)..

  • Michael,
    I am not surprised but you are thoroughly misinformed.  The law against same-sex marriage is the entire marriage law codified in all of Chapter 207.  It is simple read the Goodridge case.  Chapter 207, according to the SJC in Goodridge, DOES NOT PERMIT same-sex marriage.  It never has, and the law has never been amended to permit same-sex marriage; nor could it be under the Massachusetts Constitution without a specific constitutional amendment.

    The “marriage” certificates that are being handed out by Mitt Romney are illegal, (i.e., VOID).  If you mean the law does not explicitly mention same-sex marriage, that is correct.  But simply because the marriage statute does not explicitly identify a particular kind of “marriage” as void, does not make it a legal marriage.  See Milford v. Worcester, ___ Mass. 47, 55 (1810).  Under your theory, a marriage between two brothers would therefore be a legal “marriage” because no law says that two brothers can’t get married.  That is illogical and an utter disregard for the principle of legal authority.

  • Molly
    First, your conditional answer that you are only in favor of letting the people vote on protecting traditional marriage essentially boils down to the answer, “No.”  Think about why I might consider that a problem. 

    Second, you don’t want to hear this, but the laws of Massachusetts are being circumvented across the board.  Do you really think this has nothing to do with me?  This should matter to everyone.  Because it is tyranny (judicial, legislative, and gubernatorial) and ultimately impacts everyone negatively.  If you don’t understand this, I cannot help.  Laws need to be followed.  Changing the rules by force, threats, coercion, intimidation, or general disregard of them,  . . . but not by changing the laws within the legal process, and, therefore, in violation of the Constitution,  means that we are not a free society.  Think about why I might consider that a problem. 

    Brothers are not prevented from having sex with each other under any law of Massachusetts (other than by laws that prevent homosexuality—e.g., the sodomy statute).  This is not a slippery slope argument, it is basic facts and logic. 

    It is ironic that you cite the incest statute.  The hard part here, is that before you make a claim like you have, you might think about reading the law that you cite before making your argument.  Because the words of the incest statute DO NOT PREVENT brothers from having sex with each other.  The words of the incest statute prevent homosexual sex.  Read the statute (Chapter 272: Section 17. Incestuous marriage or sexual activities).

  • Molly said:
    1) Suppose you successfully kept your kids from knowing there are gays or alternatively, kept them from knowing gays are three-dimensional people. What happens when they grow up and have to deal with a gay boss, co-worker, student, friend?

    Lets be honest, we aren’t supposed to talk about all dimensions of these 3D people . . . isn’t that true?  It is just not nice to tell the facts.  Be better to only talk about how much fun it is to be gay than to discuss the realities.

    I will tell my kids about alcoholism, drug addiction, criminal behavior, mental depression, domestic violence, suicide, homosexuality, and every other behavior that can harm them, when I feel they are old enough to discuss each of these topics.  However, I will not be CELEBRATING any of these harmful behaviors.  Nor should our school system, our government, nor Macy’s be telling half-truths.

    When is the Alcoholics Pride week and what display does Macy’s have for that?  A male mannequin holding a bat near the head of a child mannequin?  But he’s not going to hit the boy, simply getting ready for a game of ball.

    Molly said:
    2) Suppose gay marriage were put to a vote, and by whatever fluke, the people voted in favor of it. Would you stop speaking against it?

    I certainly would not prevent the people from voting on it—like the promoters of gay marriage have done to the overwhelming number of people who do want to have a vote on it.  I am not afraid of democracy in action.  Our government is of the people, for the people, and by the people—anyone afraid of letting the people vote, like senator therese murray, whose lackie said:  “Do you really trust the people to vote on this issue?” is against freedom and democracy.

    Gay marriage is a moral wrong, abortion is a moral wrong. There is no need to suppress people from freely speaking about these things.  Why you would suggest this is interesting.

  • Molly said:
    3) Do you believe that any gay person anywhere has contributed anything positive and lasting to society, and are you willing to let your kids participate in anything a gay person had anything to do with, even if that person is no longer alive (yes, this is a slippery slope type question)?

    . . . can you say . . . more propoganda? 

    Do you believe that any depressed person anywhere has contributed anything positive and lasting to society, and are you willing to let your kids participate in anything a depressed person had anything to do with, even if that person is no longer alive?

    Do you believe that any alcoholic anywhere has contributed anything positive and lasting to society, and are you willing to let your kids participate in anything an alcoholic had anything to do with, even if that person is no longer alive?

    Do you believe that any drug addict anywhere has contributed anything positive and lasting to society, and are you willing to let your kids participate in anything an drug addict had anything to do with, even if that person is no longer alive?

    Do you believe that any criminal anywhere has contributed anything positive and lasting to society, and are you willing to let your kids participate in anything a criminal had anything to do with, even if that person is no longer alive?

    Do you believe that any mentally depressed person anywhere has contributed anything positive and lasting to society, and are you willing to let your kids participate in anything a mentally depressed person had anything to do with, even if that person is no longer alive?

    Do you believe that any wife-beater anywhere has contributed anything positive and lasting to society, and are you willing to let your kids participate in anything an wife-beater had anything to do with, even if that person is no longer alive?

    Do you believe that any person who committed suicide anywhere has contributed anything positive and lasting to society, and are you willing to let your kids participate in anything a person who committed suicide had anything to do with, even if that person is no longer alive?

    Should we
    a. discourage
    b. tolerate, or
    c. celebrate and encourage

    negative behaviors such as alcoholism, drug addiction, criminal behavior, mental depression, domestic violence, suicide, and homosexuality?

    Oh yeah, I need to sound friendly and happy so . . . It’s hip hip hip and away I go

  • Would you consider a lifestyle choice that as studies show lops 20 years off of your life to be a negative behavior?

  • I also believe that if you took a sample of gay folks and a sample of straight folks WHO ENGAGED IN THE SAME BEHAVIORS and compared life spans, there wouldn’t be a statistically significant difference.

    The flaw in this reasoning is the assumption that gays and straights engage in the same acts at the same rate.

    By analogy, it would be like saying that if non-drug addicts and drug addicts shot up with heroin, you’d find that the life spans would be the same. Of course, but then non-drug addicts don’t engage in the same behaviors.

  • They CAN engage in it, but for homosexuality the acts define the lifestyl, just like a non-drug addict can occasionally do drugs, but is not an addict. But for someone who lives the drug lifestyle (and I don’t just mean people in the gutter, but anyone who regularly does drugs), the behavior defines the lifestyle.

  • Are you a vegetarian if you eat the occasional hamburger?

    As I said, a straight person could experiment with deviant sexual acts and not be gay. But a homosexual is someone who is defined by those deviant sexual acts and/or attractions.

  • Depression, criminal behavior, and homosexuality are not things that we as a society should be celebrating, but rather, attempting to minimize, in order to protect vulnerable (and unknoweldgeable or deceived) people, expecially children.  Tolerate homosexuals, no problem.  Discourage behavior with negative health consequences, great idea.  Celebrate an unhealthy lifestyle and tell half truths about its dangers, ridiculous.

    Homosexuals would prefer that we ignore all of the studies that show how bad homosexuality is for one’s health.  Homosexuals would prefer that we ignore all of the studies that show that gay marriage or its equivalent, lead to the destruction of the family, and therefore of society’s basic foundation.  Homosexuals would like us to forget that homosexuality prior to 1973 was a mental disorder.

    “The story of how homosexuality was declared ‘normal’ by the American Psychiatric Association is one of the most depressing narratives in the annals of modern medicine.  Indeed, it is diffficult to contemplate the details without wondering if our society is not in a state of advanced deterioration.  In brief, a group of homosexuals stormed the APA annual convention on successive years and with deliberately disruptive tactics actually forced the psychiatrists to accede to their demands and declare homosexuality a ‘normal condition.’  In effect the nature of medical opinion was altered by strong arm tactics.”  See Dannemeyer, Shadow in the Land; Homosexuality in America (1989).  Prior to 1973, it was considered a personality flaw, an illness, a mental disorder (based on scientific analysis, not political strongarming tactics). 

    It is not hard to understand what Domenic means by “deviant” unless of course you don’t know what normal is.  Deviant is an adjective that means:  Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society.  Clearly, homosexual behavior is deviant sexual behavior.  And yes some heterosexuals perform deviant sexual behavior, and some human beings kill people.  Killing does not become normal because some, or a lot of people behave that way.  Homosexuality does not become normal because some or a lot of people behave that way.  Nor does it become normal, simply because homosexuals want to strongarm society into submission.

  • Dear .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)/praying for You:
    Glad you could join the discussion.  All you can add is a personal attack?  Why not keep the discussion to the substantive issue?  Is your faith in your own position being shaken?  It is good to get through the anger, then you might be able to overcome the denial, and who knows . . . possibly even become open minded enough to learn something . . . maybe even reassess your beliefs?