I have a large problem in my heart when people endanger children. Two good, decent, responsible adults raising a child works for me. But an indiscriminate covey of licentious individuals being in charge of children is very bad. And those same people calling me out as a conservative guarantees I won’t vote for what they vote for.

Look back through our history — the Blacks, Jews, Catholics, Japanese, Women, and others have all been suppressed. Don’t stand for it! Not for a minute. Fight with every ounce of strength you have. Be a man in full, a citizen complete. Be an American. And don’t back down.

You had me until you quoted this, which is patently NOT true. Any anthropology class is enough to learn that marriage, throughout history and cross culturally today, can only be defined as a union between two legal adults. Virtually every culture has had marriage and there are plenty that have allowed, do allow, and likely will continue to allow same sex marriages. I agree that the benefits of gay marriage need to be brought to the forefront, and that this particular ‘point’ needs to be addressed, but not because it is a valid argument. It needs to be dispelled because it simply isn’t true.

Unless I completely misinterpreted the intent here, and then we probably agree completely.

Christopher Bizilj, lost control of the Uzi as he was firing it, forcing the gun upward and back, causing him to shoot himself in the head, police say.
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7012809224

I would always want to take young children out to practice with an UZI!

All said and done, I guess I would just point out that everyone has their own ideas of what is appropriate for young children.

And in regards to the cute frat boy, with the wonders of Google Image, you can get a peek of the young writer and his friends.

Again, ILC you’re so clever. But I was hoping for a hard copy of the Agenda. You know the one that all good faggots and dykes get at their coming out parties. Just like the instruction manuals parents get when they have children.

We have to live our lives as examples that gay guys and gals are just normal people with normal problems, not much different from straight guys and straight gals. And part of that means we have to get our own house in order, admit that the community has problems, and deal with them. We have to learn to accept criticism with grace and recognize that concede there are problems and working to fix them makes our position stronger not weaker. That also means we have to learn to give criticism with grace and give the system the benefit of the doubt instead of screaming “discrimination” at every remove.

We’ve made enormous progress over the last thirty-odd years. But it’s time to admit we need new methods and to examine why the people making the greatest strides for gay acceptance are ordinary people who live ordinary lives.

You would be surprised, Steve. There are lots of hard core conservative folks out there who have got absolutely no problem with gay guys and gals, and are quite willing to aid and abet us finding guys and gals we can settle down with. It’s this strange concept called friendship. And yeah, they might well be freaked out at the idea of two guys kissing at an altar, but there are plenty of people who’re willing to make the effort and deal with their own discomfort because they value their friendships with us.

But there are plenty of liberal folks who consider public sex, or serial infidelity, or rampant promiscuity as immoral, and certainly unwise. There are plenty of straight “bigots” who disapprove of heterosexual swingers, and the opinion of the heterosexual man or woman who routinely cheat on their significant other (in or out of wedlock) is best described using terms not suitable for polite company. And while America does equate the worth of a man with the number of his conquests, we still do disapprove of the man (and to some extent the woman) who uses others for their own sexual gratification with no real interest in what they want.

However, very few people consider that situation among heterosexuals as the ideal. What the Folsom folks, and the gay “advocates” at large have done, is link being gay (ie, finding the same gender romantically and sexually attractive) with a set of sexual acts and behaviors, and then argue that you must accept all of them as one set package. The end result is a stereotype of the gay man as the amoral effeminate sex-starved slut who defines everything in terms of homosexuality. And we all know more than enough people who do behave that way – and worse, who think that’s what they have to be because they are gay.

To add to the fun, nobody likes the pushy guy trying to shove his beliefs down your throat yet who cannot concede that he is anything but perfect. Any criticism of anything gay is now “homophobia” and our advocates are almost completely unwilling to admit that there might be anything wrong with the community – and indeed, many bemoan the fact that it is less “tight-knit,” more “gentrified,” more “heteronormative.”

“We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it” was necessary twenty years ago; it’s now become obsolete. Not just obsolete, it’s counterproductive. And the end result is that we’re squandering a lot of goodwill that straight men and women are willing to give us. Why have we seen drastic revisions in public (and especially under 30) acceptance of homosexuality? It’s not because we have gay teens marching in skimpy underwear (or less) in pride parades, or lining up to have sex with twenty different people in a bathhouse. It’s because straight people keep seeing more and more gay guys and gals who are exactly like them, except in the gender of whom they find attractive.

Promiscuous gay men may not be the source of our oppression, but by demanding that people accept their behaviors (and not just the gender of those they are attracted to) as perfectly acceptable they certainly are making it much more difficult to convince straight guys and gals that gay men and women are real people with real problems and not just the freak show.

And therein lies the problem; rusty doesn’t understand the difference between taking children to a gun show and a horrible ACCIDENT….versus DELIBERATELY taking children dressed as sexual slaves to an event to “show off” to naked and semi-naked people masturbating and having public sex and calling it an educational experience.

I was just pointing out that a child, 8 years old, died at a gun show, an event that would be just as questionable as a family event…
The aisles that I am referring to are [on the one side] those folk who want to pigeon hole all LGBT folk as promiscuos, and on the other side [the folk being rightly or wrongly pigeonholed]…

Sorry, I still don’t get the connection… unless the connection might be, your holding a stereotype (which I would find false) of gun owners as redneck anti-gays, perhaps clinging bitterly to their guns and religion; and equally, a stereotype of gays as anti-gun.

the cute *frat* [emphasis added] boy… at Stanford

More stereotyping?

if anyone has ever received the Gay Agenda, please let me know

Just click here, then start clicking the sidebar menu items, such as “Racial and Economic Justice”, or “Anti-Gay Industry” which is their euphemism for the particular Christians they want to bash.

Mind you, it’s not *my* gay agenda. It’s a set of left-wing issues and positions whose authors proclaim (and whose readers implicitly accept) as the gay agenda. Notably absent is, as we’ve been saying in this thread, is:
- Anything about cleaning up events such as FSF so children are protected.
- Anything about engaging gay marriage constructively to show them how gay marriage would uphold widely accepted ideals like monogamy, and therefore benefit society as a whole.

I was just pointing out that a child, 8 years old, died at a gun show, an event that would be just as questionable as a family event. But the parent of the child, (not really sure about his sexual orientation but if your really curious, I am sure you will be able to find out).

The aisles that I am referring to are those folk who want to pigeon hole all LGBT folk as promiscuos, faulty members of society and on the other side, folk who are tired of be berated because they don’t fit the heterosexist norm and are just looking for a piece of the American Pie.

I for one, have never attended the FSF, nor am I waiting for my FSF prize package. I am not interested in attending the FSF or even most Pride events. I guess it may be ‘anti-american’ but I really don’t like parades or large social events.

I am not here to condemn anyone. But if you feel it necessary to condemn, to judge, to cast the first stone. . . please feel free.

This post was initially to discuss the merits of the gay marriage. It will take some time for folk to come to terms that gay marriage is here to stay. It took women from the time of the writing of the declaration of Independence to move from ‘All Men are Create Equal’ to gaining equality and breaking glass ceilings through folk like Hillary and Sarah. But it was a long journey. I guess the remarkable thing, highlighted in the essay by the cute frat boy,Yishai Kabaker, at Stanford, is that Gay Folk have really been moving the Grand Gay Agenda at a remarkable rate. Oh, by the way, if anyone has ever received the Gay Agenda, please let me know, I would like a copy.

Why would you assume that the boy was brought to the show by a heterosexual dad, not by gay, bisexual, secretly-gay or secretly-bisexual dad?

And why would you think it answers NDT’s criticisms of Folsom gays? Or my or Rob’s or GPW’s criticisms of the “No on 8″ campaign? Why would you think it bears any connection with anything here? What could possibly put gun owners – many of whom are gay – on “the other side of the aisle” (your term) from gays?

You once again exemplify that, when confronted with dangerous and wrong activity, gays like yourself will do nothing other than blame straight people.

Well, it is certainly a tragedy, but I would also like those folk who want to bring up Folsom again as ‘inappropriate’ venues for children. I agree there are some places children shouldn’t really be in attendance.

Possibly this gun show is an example that adults make mistakes on both sides of the aisle.

People like, Rob, can bash the Folsom Street Fair folks are they want. But that merely denies the broader truth that images to conservative gay men kissing at an altar is almost just as alienating to moderate voters

Ah, and the false dichotomies. For the record: A campaign based on “images [of] gay men kissing at an altar” is not what I’ve been proposing. I don’t believe it’s what Rob had in mind, either.

The No on 8 forces put together a campaign based on poll testing and focus group analysis…
So get real, people, and stop whining about the well-grounded tactical choices of the No on 8 campaign.

In the same post as this:

I won’t be… diverting tons of contributions to No on 8.

LOL As for this remark:

If we wanted to sensitize the California electorate to same-sex marriage, we should have spent years doing that before storming into the state supreme court

Indeed! My point exactly.