I second that mate !

I’m with you 50%. I do not oppose civil unions for the purposes of clearing up some of the legal problems. I do not want it to “develop from there.” If that is half a loaf, then it is half a loaf.

Trust me, in places like Virginia a half a loaf is a feast when you have nothing. Same-sex marriage isn’t a priority in my mind and focusing on it right now is a distraction from other things I believe are more important. Repealing DADT is top priority for me as far as these issues go.

I reviewed a case some years back that involved a lesbian couple who separated. The daughter went with the partner who was not the birth mother. (I forget the details.) That partner took the daughter into the Roman Catholic Church. The birth mother sued to regain the daughter based on the fact that she didn’t want her genetic offspring participating in homophobic religion of any type and the RC’s in particular.

It no doubt sounds cruel: but too bad for the birth mother. She gave up the right to make such decisions when she gave up responsibility of raising her child to former partner. Also, homosexuality isn’t the only thing many Catholics part ways with the leadership on so it’s not exactly correct to claim that the Church is “homophobic”. Heck, even if one believed what the Catechism teaches about this hatred of gays isn’t part of it.

Then you may wish to talk with them about it.

“Folsom is the one time of year where the largest number of leather folk from around the world are able to come together,” said Demetri Moshoyannis, executive director of Folsom Street Events, who expects hundreds of thousands of people to attend.

Moshoyannis added, “We are proud of who we are and what we stand for and in no way do we want it ever used against us. We’d rather come out in full support of what exactly San Francisco values are, what they mean to us, why we love living here, and why we welcome so many people from around the world and hope that they share in our values.”

Don’t yell at the Republicans for telling the truth about what Democrats and gay organizations support. Yell at the Democrats and gay organizations who support it.

I’m fine with some kind of civil union for now and let matters develop from there.

I’m with you 50%. I do not oppose civil unions for the purposes of clearing up some of the legal problems. I do not want it to “develop from there.” If that is half a loaf, then it is half a loaf.

I reviewed a case some years back that involved a lesbian couple who separated. The daughter went with the partner who was not the birth mother. (I forget the details.) That partner took the daughter into the Roman Catholic Church. The birth mother sued to regain the daughter based on the fact that she didn’t want her genetic offspring participating in homophobic religion of any type and the RC’s in particular.

Forget the rest. This is cruel and unusual punishment for a child of God. However, the liberal courts and the lunacy of our Springer/Wimfrey society cause us to think we can deliver the “wisdom of Solomon” by sound bites, opinion polls and a word from Dr. Phil.

Without question the case I have cited could have involved a hetero couple and it would have been as messy and tragic for the child. But, everyone is pretty clear about the “whys” and “wherefores” of the traditional family. When you add the gaylesbianbisexualtransgender aspect to the equation, you find that the ground has turned to quicksand.

If gays ever hope to achieve marital parity with the traditional society, they will have to dispel any stigma of perversion that adheres to their behavior. I seriously doubt that wearing clown wigs and nuns habit’s and crashing communion is much of a start.

To be clear: I am saying that liberal gays are way too far out in front to do gays in general any particular good.

I am quite reluctant to hit the submit button on these comments. But, I can not forget a great friend who lost his life to AIDS. He was a much admired and valued member of our community. He served as mayor, was active on important boards and a terrific intellect. Socially, we all accepted his partner as well. His partner was a charming and enjoyable accessory, but nothing more. In the aftermath of the tragedy, we discovered that the partner was a bit of tramp. This happens in the hetero world, too. But statistically, it is an epidemic in the gay world. I can not see how to lead the general society to be indifferent to the sexual differences and the tragic costs of those differences. That is too big an order.

I will give anyone my Christian love. But please don’t take up a lot of my energy by repeating dumb stuff over and over. My momma didn’t raise no stupid children. We all have our vices and differences. But it is true that when you always do what you have always done, you will always get what you have always gotten. A little concern for common respect and a sense of community will go a long way to blending in with the greater society.

If 1 phone call from Pat Boone represents all conservatives having “anti-gay tirades” (your words) on a “regular basis” (you words), then it must be equally fair to say the demented rants of Rosie O’Donnell represent the views of all left liberals.

Now, are you really this dumb, or can you just not admit that you can’t back up your accusation about conservatives engaging in “anti-gay tirades” on a “regular basis?”

“Antigay, good luck.”

Bastard. You made me laugh with this line and I almost had to explain why to my co-workers! Eh, I disagree with you on civil marriage but am pragmatic about it. I’m fine with some kind of civil union for now and let matters develop from there. What I have serious problems with are the amendments that disallow everything in that department.

I’m scared of the Fulsom Street fair myself. That doesn’t represent me or any gay people I associate with. So stop pretending that the radical frings (S/M, circuit parties and the like) represent most gay people, even gay liberals. It’s a lie, and you know it is.

I disagree with NDT about Boone, it’s clear what the intent was behind that robocall. Yet I will say that while things like FSF do not represent all or perhaps even most gay people, this fringe is allowed to flaunt themselves in public with impunity. I don’t think that is necessarily a gay or even gay liberal thing, but it does reflect the mindset in Frisco where a public orgy can be held and the law doesn’t step in to make arrests. I find that to be reprehensible and such hedonism regardless of sexuality is NOT what I want in my part of the country.

And how did Rosie O’Donnell and the 9/11 Conspiracy Wingnuts come to represent mainstream Democratic views. Rosie is a comedienne and TV personality. She’s never been elected to anything. She’s no more representative of my views or opinions than Ann Coulter is to a moderate Republican’s. But if you are going to play the game that way, V/K, the Ann Coulter has had plenty of tirades including saying that 9/11 widows were “dancing on their husbands graves” and “I can’t talk about John Edwards without using the word faggot”. Forgive me if I misquote slightly. I haven’t committed Coulter’s venom to memory.

So don’t act like the radical fringe is representative of anyone’s views but their own. I didn’t do that to you.

What Boone did is claim that because gays supported a candidate that he was going to give us everything we wanted, which has never been true of any candidate for governor in the past and isn’t now. It was a scare tactic. I’m scared of the Fulsom Street fair myself. That doesn’t represent me or any gay people I associate with. So stop pretending that the radical frings (S/M, circuit parties and the like) represent most gay people, even gay liberals. It’s a lie, and you know it is.

After all, opposing Folsom Street and the behaviors that take place therein IS ANTIGAY, according to gay leftists, gay Democrats, gay organizations, and Nancy Pelosi.

H-m-m-m. I wonder if Houndentenor is on to something here.

I always tread lightly when the “gay issue” comes up. As a hetero, I have no issue with people’s private lives unless they are molesting, cannibalizing, enslaving or being deceitful lowlifes.

I oppose gay marriage. I am not unwilling to take that stand or to explain why I hold that view. I would not hold a difference of opinion on that subject against any friend, co-worker or employee.

So, for all of my otherwise good intentions, perhaps I am ANTIGAY and “in the closet.” Perhaps I need to “come out” and put a sign on my door that says: “Antigay, good luck.”

I would stand and fight any effort by gay activists to introduce their sex lives or fantasies to the public square. (I oppose heteros who grope one another in public.) I assume that gay bars are not meant to include heteros, although I have successfully navigated Key West.

If Houndentenor insists that supporting gay marriage is a litmus test for being antigay, then I plead guilty….but only to Houndentenor, because I have too many gay friends to walk away from.

Yup.

Can you imagine someone attempting to turn Kentucky into San Francisco (or even wanting to)? It was gay-baiting.

Now Houndentenor, why on earth would people in Kentucky be upset with being like San Francisco?

Again, you keep acting like there’s something to be ashamed about when a politician supports every homosexual cause, is endorsed by homosexual groups, and wants to make a state just like the homosexual capital of the universe.

Why shouldn’t Kentuckians know, as V the K so aptly put it, that the Democrat Party’s view of Main Street is that it should be like Folsom Street?

After all, opposing Folsom Street and the behaviors that take place therein IS ANTIGAY, according to gay leftists, gay Democrats, gay organizations, and Nancy Pelosi.

And if it were a tirade (which it isn’t), I could, using your example, cite Rosie O’Donnell to prove that “liberals rant that 9-11 was a conspiracy by the Bush Administration and fire can’t melt steel” on a regular basis.

tirade: A long angry or violent speech, usually of a censorious or denunciatory nature; a diatribe.

And, anyway, why is it “gay-baiting” to accurately portray that a Democrat agrees with gay activists on marriage, adoption, trans-gender rights, and so forth. I mean, you agree with all those things, don’t you?

And why shouldn’t people know that Democrat politicians support San Francisco’s values?