Candidate Paul Congemi upset over St. Pete Pride coverage
ST. PETERSBURG -- Mayoral hopeful Paul Congemi said he was upset about the coverage the St.Petersburg Times gave to the St. Pete Pride festival this weekend.
"It is not pride, it's shame," said Congemi, who pledged to follow in Mayor Rick Baker's footsteps if elected and not attend the event or sign the City Council's proclamation making June St. Pete Pride month.
"Homosexuality is an abomination, according to the Bible," Congemi said. "In my opinion, it's a perverted event, by perverted people. And something like that shouldn't be in the newspaper."
Three mayoral candidates participated in Saturday's Pride parade along Central Avenue: City Council member Jamie Bennett, former City Council member Kathleen Ford and real estate investor Scott Wagman.
To read about all the candidates and their positions, go to tampabay.com/mayor.
Heather Urquides, Times staff writer
*
From the writers of the St. Petersburg Times, Bay Buzz offers the latest news on Tampa Bay politics. This is a public forum sponsored and maintained by the St. Petersburg Times. When you post comments here, what you say becomes public and could appear in the newspaper. You are not engaging in private communication with candidates or Times staffers.
Paul Congemi just showed that he is not qualified to be mayor of St. Petersburg.
"Homosexuality is an abomination, according to the Bible," Congemi said? What bunk! If the Bible told Congemi to jump off a cliff, do you think he would jump? Oooops! I think he just did…
Posted by: I'm not gay and I'm not stupid! | June 29, 2009 at 11:04 AM
Paul Congemi will not even prove a factor in this race. What is ridiculous, is not the times coverage of St. Pete Pride, but rather, the St. Pete Times coverage of Paul Congemi.
Posted by: Disgusting... | June 29, 2009 at 11:06 AM
Congratulations to all candidates who avoided this public embarrassment of an event. No wonder the Rays want out. These freaks give a whole new meaning to “The Boys of Summer”.
The Pride Group, the Stonewalls, et al… no longer deserve any attention whatsoever for their un-natural lifestyle choice. They are hypocrites who cry for equality while limiting the equality of others, and charge the world with discrimination while actively engaging in discriminating acts against others.
Bennett, Ford, and Wagman just lost my vote consideration.
Posted by: Disgusting... yes they are | June 29, 2009 at 11:34 AM
Actually Paul, eating at Kentucky Friend Chicken is an abomination.
Posted by: saintpetersblog | June 29, 2009 at 11:36 AM
I would suppoort the Pride event if they knew how to behave. I have many gay friends who don't go because THEY are embarrased about what many of the participants do and wear.
GAY PEOPLE AT PRIDE EVENT - why can you not have an event that states what you purport to want - EQUALITY. Why the drunken-ness, nudity, drugs??? Many of you shame the rest of the "normal gay citizens of St. Pete".
I support your rights - but this event is getting out of hand.
Posted by: .. | June 29, 2009 at 11:41 AM
I guess if you are a straight old white guy, the bible sounds pretty logical. To the other 80% of the Earth's population may think a little differently.
To the women who marry these egocentric jerks who still believe in beating women and children wih a rod, lording over all people with skin pimentation and being the kings of their castles-well, pick up a book and get an education. Study a little women's history.
Congemi, you and your bible are an abomination to human rights all over the world!
Posted by: The bible is an abomination of human rights | June 29, 2009 at 11:41 AM
Oh no... looks like the snickerdoddles at the local wi-fi cafe have their knickers in a twist!
Homotesticleism and lesbotarianism is an abomination… and it has nothing to do with the bible.
Two wrongs don’t make a right, and two men can’t make a baby. It is not of natural order, period!
Posted by: Mama Nature! | June 29, 2009 at 11:51 AM
Heather,
In what way, did Bennett, Ford & Wagman "participate" in the Pride Parade?
Posted by: Driftwood | June 29, 2009 at 12:28 PM
It is very sad that the mayorial candidates now think they need to pander to such a small but annoying members of the population. If the Times and a few clueless candidaes ignored them, their whines would not be heard.
Posted by: Disappointed | June 29, 2009 at 02:34 PM
Disappointed - that is why I am supporting Bill Foster. He will not put up with these kinds of things
Posted by: JT | June 29, 2009 at 02:35 PM
Why so much nakedness and drunkeness at this "pride" event?????? Why not just a celebration of "to be who you are". It was spoiled by too much weirdness. In fact, they made ME feel unwelcome on Saturday because I was not strange and drunk and almost naked.
If you want to reach out to the straight world you need to do it a better way and keep some of your VERY VERY VERY strange friends at home.
Posted by: Josh | June 29, 2009 at 02:44 PM
you will have to learn to live without KFC.
Posted by: get over it Paul | June 29, 2009 at 03:21 PM
Those who are commenting about the drunkenness and nudity were not there or they are just trying to stir up problems and continue the hate.
Were there guys walking around in shorts? Yes -- nothing worse than you see on the beach. Were there topless women? None that I saw. Were there drunk people? Some, but far fewer than Rays game later that day.
Quit spreading the lies. Quit trying to frighten people.
Posted by: I was there -- and you are not being honest... | June 29, 2009 at 03:22 PM
I'm sure Josh the poster has not been offended by bikini contests, wet t-shirt contests, hooters waitresses, wing house girls and hef's many young girlfriends.
Almost naked not-yet-women do not seem to offend society.
Beauty pagents, wing house waitresses, high school cheerleaders-all very "mainstream" hugh?!
Why?
Why on earth is it okay to exploit young females, but these consenting males can not put themselves "on exhibit" for all to see? Why is it offensive when a chiseled male wants to take off his shirt, wear shorts up to his but t crack and "flirt" with anyone who looks his way?
Josh, want to protest something uncomfortable in society-go protest a wing house, strip club, cheerleading competition or a beauty pagent.
Posted by: Almost naked teenaged girls | June 29, 2009 at 03:27 PM
Because strip clubs, hooters, and bikini contests do not pretend they are to educate us about equality. People choose to go. Participants choose to participate. However, the Pride event pretends to be something it is not.
Posted by: Josh | June 29, 2009 at 03:35 PM
The guys walking around in their underwear is not appropriate for a noon parade on Saturday afternoon. The comparison to the Hooters girls is not valid. The Hooters girls are not in their underwear in the middle of the street. I happen to live in Kenwood and this was the first parade that I have witnessed. 90% of the parade was what most people would consider acceptable (even the drag queens) But when you have a parade running through a residential neighborhood men in underwear on floats is not acceptable. Hooter girls do not do this.
Posted by: John | June 29, 2009 at 03:55 PM
BANG-O-RANG, 3:35!
Posted by: Peter | June 29, 2009 at 03:57 PM
The Pride Group, the Stonewalls, et al… no longer deserve any attention whatsoever for their un-natural lifestyle choice. They are hypocrites who cry for equality while limiting the equality of others, and charge the world with discrimination while actively engaging in discriminating acts against others.
Posted by: Bottom Line | June 29, 2009 at 03:59 PM
I'm sure Josh the poster has not been offended by bikini contests, wet t-shirt contests, hooters waitresses, wing house girls and hef's many young girlfriends.
Bikini contests, hooters waitresses and wing house girls - these all take place in bars. Hefs girlfriends are of age and they are not walking through Kenwood on Saturday afternoon as the last poster stated
Posted by: JT | June 29, 2009 at 04:03 PM
If guys walking around shirtless in shorts is a problem for you, then it needs to be made illegal. It should not be allowed when people are doing yard work, going to the beach, or just lounging around.
The only difference between the guys in the parade and the guys on the beach is location.
I've never heard anybody say they wouldn't take their kids to the beach because there are too many shirtless guys in shorts.
Obviously the problem is not that they are walking around in their shorts.
Posted by: I was there -- and you are not being honest... | June 29, 2009 at 04:19 PM
Shirtless and shorts is different than shirtless and underwear. I have never seen any guys at the beach or doing yardwork in thei underwear.
At least in Kenwood I have never seen anyone doing yardword or washing their card in Kenwood
Posted by: John | June 29, 2009 at 04:23 PM
"I've never heard anybody say they wouldn't take their kids to the beach because there are too many shirtless guys in shorts."
No... I think it was the kids asking thier parents why the two guys were french kissing and grabassing in public.
sick freaks...
Posted by: If you were there -- then you are not being straight (npi)... | June 29, 2009 at 04:24 PM
I think Paul is hot!
Posted by: . | June 29, 2009 at 04:25 PM
I was at the parade and "I was there -- and you are not being honest... " is not being honest
Most people were appropriate - by their were the bears and bar floats who were only wearing skimpy underwear and the leather gear so some of the commentors have a point
Posted by: Sue | June 29, 2009 at 04:28 PM
Did they toss condoms from the floats instead of beads again?
Posted by: No son, that isn't a water baloon | June 29, 2009 at 04:39 PM