Thursday, January 15, 2009

Gay Activists Plan Obama Inaugural Celebrations

Fox News reports that homosexual activists are pulling out all the stops for inaugural-night parties on January 20:
Unprecedented inaugural celebrations for President-elect Barack Obama by gay activist groups, social organizations and ordinary citizens suggests many view his election as a signal of a forthcoming sea change for the gay rights movement in America.

Not surprisingly, the story indicates that these "gayla" party events may not be so family-friendly. According to Americans for Truth (cited in the Fox News article), the Doubletree Hotel Washington will host an inaugural weekend "pig sex" orgy to run concurrently with the "Mid-Atlantic Leather Weekend," the latter being described as "an annual homosexual sadomasochistic celebration" at the Washington Plaza Hotel in D.C.

Rim Chairs

Some of the raunchy orgiastic activities planned are sexual escapades featuring "rimming stations" used to facilitate oral-anal sodomy in the hotel's business conference rooms (one man lies on the floor with his face pointing up, as seen in the photo above). A more explicit description of the gay orgy activities is found here, in an e-mail announcement of the sadistic event.

No doubt that "
No on 8" backers and their "progressive" allies are jumping for joy at all of this gay rights "inclusion."

Meanwhile, the inaugural celebration for Barack Obama is expected to be
the most expensive in history, at $150 million, which will put the costs of George W. Bush's second inauguration in the shade ($43 million). Note that Obama takes office amid the most serious downturn since the Great Depression, which raises questions of propriety amid hardship. Of course, we won't be seeing anti-inaugural protests amid the grand splurging, unlike in 2005, when the GOP administration was attacked for "inaugural excess."

It's all double-standards and "rimming-seats" for the Democrats, naturally. Who would want to spoil the progressive-left's rainbow celebrations?

43 comments:

JBW said...

Oh my God, gay butt sex between consenting adults! Scary stuff, Don. And not disingenuous at all to associate every one of Obama's supporters with this small minority on the left. As I've said before I'm sure there are plenty of Aryan Nation assholes who agree with you on many issues, so I should automatically lump you all together, ya?

shoprat said...

It will all come crashing down on them soon enough.

JBW
Prof Douglas has gotten in hot water several times for attacking right wing extremists on this blog (real extremists, not mere conservatives) and I know of one blogger who's so far to the right you wouldn't believe it who does nothing but spout obscenities at the good professor. Point is that Donald Douglas holds these people to account as well, so why don't you match him and demand an accounting from the extremists on the left like he does the right.

repsac3 said...

Of course you should, JBW... Sweeping generalization is another tool in Donald's box.

Given the fact that of late, it's been Cons rather than liberals who've been charged with illegal acts connected with their going the "gay way," perhaps we ought to be wondering whether Donald is making the trip to the Doubletree, himself... (Just based on the same kinda sweeping generalization he's making about all liberals, y'understand...)

Frankly, I have no more interest in what these fellows do behind closed doors while at a hotel than I do what any poster here does behind closed doors while at a hotel. And I find the fact that Donald & so many of his fellow Con bloggers have posts on this thing, more than a little creepy... Individual freedom and a right to privacy only go so far, I guess...

That said, yes Donald, I am pretty happy about the many mainstream activities (parades, rallies, and other public gatherings) that the homosexual community--along with pretty much every other community here in America, up to & including the "Freepers" & other wingnut protesters that I'm sure will also attend--plan to hold. As you yourself have noted, it's going to be a historic ceremony, and a change that has been too long in coming. I'm glad so many of the various people who make up America will be represented & included in the festivities.

I'm sorry that once again, you choose to focus on what you perceive to be wrong with this American celebration, rather than the positive aspects that most of your fellow Americans intend to celebrate.

Tim said...

Sorry, this post made me giggle.

Thanks Donald. Good information. I guess I won't be staying at that hotel for the inauguration!

Norm said...

It is amazing how left wingers can use so many words and just say nothing. Obviously, these two lefties above me do not like the good professor's posts...well, go someplace else. My wife just informed me that the tuna companies just reduced the size of their cans from 6 ounces to 5 ounces and kept the same price per can. Now that was more factual information then you lefties have gave us for the past few days. Whining is your forte.

TRUTH 101 said...

You know Don. I underestimated your sense of humor and grasp of what the Bush Administration did to America. The irony of gays sodomizing one another in celebration of the end of the Bush sodomozation of America is a good observation on your part. Excellent post Don! You deserve a pat on the rear end for this one.

Donald Douglas said...

JBW: Here's the thing: This is your coalition. This is your rainbow celebration. Why don't you denounce the "gay butt sex" instead of me for being outraged at this kind of activity?

Donald Douglas said...

Thanks for the backup, Shoprat. I call 'em as I see 'em, and in this case, with all the gay radicals and their progressive backers, it's pretty bad.

Donald Douglas said...

Your response is a clear indication that you're whipped, Reppy.

Here's your comment from last night:

"Your suggestions that I support peace at any price & bareback gay licentiousness are similarly creations of your own imagination, and cannot be backed with any hard proof."

It's not a creation of my own imagination to say you're a total hypocrite.

These guys are not "behind closed doors" but in the hotel conference room doing the rim-jobbing bareback thing, and you're "not-my-business" take indicates your complete collapse of moral backbone.

Not only that, you smear me as a gay faggot because I linked to Keith Olbermann's extremist diatribe against Prop 8 supporters, which you endorse by posting it at your blog. My link to Batnutz here indicates you are a "progressive" partisan and supporter of the gay rights agenda, that's all. In response, you allege I'll be making reservations at the Doubletree. What an utter show of futility and incoherence, characteristic at that.

This is your coalition, Repsac3. This is not the "negative" aspect of what I perceive as "wrong" with the Obama inauguration. This is what's wrong with your freaking whacked ideology.

More than anything else, when you are shown up, you stick up your chin like a smarmy little schoolboy and pretend you're being bullied. You asked for examples of your support for the gay agenda, and when it's right in front of your face you plead foul.

But thanks for calling me out as a gay fag. I've got that on record for all to see. You're worse than weasel-worm Dr. Biodenialnihilist. Not nearly as clever either. You have absolutley no class, and you're revealed again for the supreme nihilist that you are, a dishonest one at that.

TRUTH 101 said...

Look Professor. We can find some agreement out of this messy situation. I don't get the gay thing either. Women look better. They smell better. They feel better. They sound better. Their naughty stuff was made for accomodating male naughty stuff. Women don't need to be congratulated after a loud fart or belch. If we were women Don, with our sense of good taste, we'd be lesbians. If you think about it in that context of empathy and acceptance of those with different tastes, you would also be willing to live and let live.

Donald Douglas said...

Truth101: Keep in mind that personally support full rights for gay Americans. It's just, as I have shown before, gay marriage is not a civil right. Those who attack me for my positions are totally hypocritcal when we see the real consequences of that kind of gay licentiousness I spoke of last night.

Jason said...

So this is what the "gay" life is about. Once again proving it is nothing more than a lifestyle -- a perverted and deviant one at that.

Gay is not the new black. Homosexuality is, and always has been, people who suffer from abnormal sexual impulses.

Get therapy, not excited about it.

Debbie said...

Infiltrate.

Take pictures.

Post pictures.

We all laugh.

Bwhahahahahaha

Debbie Hamilton
Right Truth

Tom the Redhunter said...

If gays just wanted to keep it in the closet, then no problem.

If all they wanted was "tolerance" and equal rights, then no problem.

But they don't. They want to remake our society. Our country. And that will not be allowed to happen. They are going to have to keep their perversions to themselves.

Donald Douglas said...

Jason: I think you're really hitting the nail on the head. I nevertheless try to be tolerant. I draw the line on same-sex marriage.

Donald Douglas said...

You're right, Debbie. We laugh because these idiots just make their agenda totally extreme. More the merrier ...

Tim said...

Yes Jason, because heterosexuals never do this stuff. Ever.

Can we please have some more ignorance to go around?

Donald Douglas said...

"They want to remake our society."

Thanks Tom the Redhunter. It needs to be said, because the leftist draw a blank when their own cohorts descend to such behavior.

TRUTH 101 said...

I don't see that punishing all gays because a few of them lack discretion, to be as clean as possoble here, by withholdng rights heteros enjoy is fair. I don't happen to think a hetero sexual orgy to celebrate a political victory is of good taste either. But as distasteful as find it, if two heteros want to lick each others butts they can get married. There's nothing on a marraige license application that says you're disqualified because you are butt licker. If the Professor doesn't want butt lickers to be married in his church I understand and support his church's right to conduct it's affairs according to it's beliefs.






I'm sorry Professor. Just because I support the rights of gays and conservatives doesn't mean I can't have a good laugh at their expense every now and then.

repsac3 said...

Pretty testy there, Donald... Take it easy...

I never called you gay... I simply looked at the cases of Mark Foley, Ted Haggard, Larry Craig, Bob Allen, and Glenn Murphy Jr. (just to name a few), and used the same kind of sweeping generalization to surmise that all Cons are closeted hypocrites, as you did in painting all homosexuals as leather clad rimmers, and all liberals as being in support of such things... If you're suggesting that *my* generalization about Cons was wrong, perhaps you'd be so kind as to rethink your own withstand intellectual scrutiny, either...

As for whether a hotel conference room is the right place for such activities, of course they aren't, but the folks at the hotel says that AFTAH is wrong, and such activities will not be taking place in their conference rooms... As far as I'm concerned, one's morality should end at the tip of one's most protrusive body part... What consenting adults do in private isn't your business, unless you are one of those adults.

"...you smear me as a gay faggot because I linked to Keith Olbermann's extremist diatribe against Prop 8 supporters..."

I have no idea what you're talking about, Donald. I went back & looked at your KO post, & my KO post, and in neither the text or comments of either do I say or suggest anything about your sexual proclivities. And here in this post, your first mention of KO was in the comment to which I'm replying...

As I said, all I did was suggest that the same flawed reasoning that allows you to say all liberals support rim jobs in hotel conference rooms allows me to say that all conservatives are closeted homosexuals. Of course Donald, neither your statements or mine are actually true, because the reasoning we used to make them is so flat out wrong... ...and that was my point. It had nothing to do with your linking to me, and everything to do with your suggesting that public rim jobs are what all gays &/or liberals are all about.

Where do I say anything about being bullied or cry foul? (Or are you just making things up, again, because the truth doesn't suit your purposes.

I never asked for proof of my support for the gay agenda, Donald. I asked for proof of my support for bareback gay licentiousness, and only after you made the spurious & unprovoked accusation that I support such things. And so far, you've still not offered any...

Namecalling will never get you anywhere, Donald... But I do hope it soothes your wounded ego, so as not to make it a total waste of everyone's time...

repsac3 said...

I've asked this before (here and here), but no one's bothered to answer. But since both Donald & Tom have again expressed some degree of support for equal rights &/or civil unions, I figured I'd try again:

Putting the terms "marriage" & "civil union" aside for a second, what rights & privileges would you grant to homosexual couples who choose to enter a legal "relationship," and what rights/privileges would you withhold from them?

In other words, under federal, state, & local law, how should the legal "relationship" between homosexuals differ from the legal "relationship" between heterosexuals, regardless of what our government or we, the people, call either relationship?

Anyone?

Tom the Redhunter said...

repsac3: It's not a question of "withholding" any right. You state it that way so you can then claim that we are denying civil rights.

Put correctly, I would say that gay "couples" could not do something exclusively reserved for married hetrosexual couples.

This includes such things as the ability to file taxes jointly. There are issues in contract and property law too. If a married person dies with no will the spouse automatically gets the estate. Married couples can't be compelled to testify against each other in court.

Gay couples of course shouldn't get any of these things.

But I won't give you a list, as I assume you have google on your computer too.

Tim said...

Currently, it's mainly about ownership of the word marriage.

You see, marriage has within its meaning has encompassed dowries, bigamy, polygamy in the traditional sense. And all of these issues have tied into a particular religion.

So when the gays want to step on their tradition (which also includes the tradition of annulment and divorce) the heteros cry foul.

No, it makes zero sense, and it's a zero sum argument for them to make.

In a matter of years this will all sound like crazy talk, we just have to be patient. Gays, for now, cannot play in the zone that is owned by heteros.

I would also like to know who on the right also feels things like sodomy should still be outlawed. I'm sure there are many who would like to legislate what two people do in the bedroom.

BTW: The hotel in question is who this issue should be taken up with, not liberals. The little old lady up my street who voted for Obama would probably be shocked by all this talk. Shocked!

repsac3 said...

Tom: I wasn't looking for an answer I could find via google, I was looking for your opinion, given what you said earlier about equal rights.

If memory serves, Donald has said some things in the past that suggest he'd be willing to offer more than that... On the other hand, at least one person here has suggested that recriminalization of homosexual behaviors is the only change in law she's willing to offer, so you're answer is already assured of not being the worst I'll here from this blog...

Donald Douglas said...

" ... perhaps we ought to be wondering whether Donald is making the trip to the Doubletree, himself ... "

No, Repsac3, there's no analogy that you can twist and distort to defend making a statement like that.

I am not making "sweeping" generalizations. JBW's clueless, and you're just riding off of his mindless hand-waving.

You endorse the gay rights agenda, but when it gets a little too wild you jump ship. It doesn't work that way, bub. This is your coalition. These are your allies! You are a full-blown gay rights advocate ... you can't turn it on and off whenever you want. Instead of denouncing it, you attack the messenger.

Also, the hotel only says that it "claims ignorance about event." Yeah. Right. They claim this when they are caught red handed, plain and simple. What a total fraud, all of it, and completely immoral.

You can spin this every which way to hell and back, but you're down with these brothers. These people are the gay rights activists at base of the Democratic coaltion. I guess they're not too mad about Rick Warren after all ... it's all about power, and your support for their agenda only empowers this total disregard of moral goodness and decent values.

I reject all of this in total, and I reject your obfuscastion and prevarication as the best indicator of total intellectual and moral incompetence.

TRUTH 101 said...

No offense to the guys I generally side with, but gang, this is hilarious. When will we ever see a University Professor do a post about gang buttlicking in a hotel conference room. And even add pictures. For along time I thought I would hate it if one of my kids was stuck in a classroom with this stuck up blowhard. (Nothing tawdry meant by the word "blowhard" Don.) But now I see him for the fun loving guy he is. Bottoms up Professor!

Donald Douglas said...

Truth101: I have a feeling you like running with the progressive crowd, but you're really not down with their agenda. I'm a great guy, a barrel of monkeys. But this is not funny, sorry. I'm a professor who respects traditional culture, and not one of you on the left has stepped up to defend your own gay rights allies.

This is your base. This is the "moral imperative" Andrew Sullivan's constantly harping, while he himself - Barack Obama's biggest fanboy - is the epitome of hypocritic gay man-love extremism.

Repsac3 is on the exact same page ideologically. He's advocated the exact same positions. He posts wild Keith Olbermann screeds against traditionalists, and then denies he's ever supported the nihilist gay agenda. It's postmodern nihilism.

Now, would you like to abandon these folks, Truth? Maybe you're ready to emerge from the dark side?

Tim said...

Donald: No one here is supporting it, but we are getting a good laugh out of it.

Personally, I wonder if this wasn't concockted [sic] by some right wing stooge.

Now, will you condemn heteros that have s & m conventions too?

JBW, as ever, sums up the argument very well. You need to get over making everyone guilty who happens to be a liberal.

repsac3 said...

That ain't the half of it, Truth...

There are Cons all over Right Blogistan with similar posts, pictures, and in some cases, descriptions of the acts they think may be performed, should these hotel conference rooms heat up the way this one single batshit-crazy website that Don links to above suggests they will. (It's like an outbreak of verbal syphilis, with all these Con blogs catching it from one another & passing it on, and the AFTAH site as "patient zero.")

Funny, considering the supposed morality factor of the people involved, but scary, too...

I was thinkin'... Should Debbie get her wish, I hope she identifies the political affiliation of everyone she photographs... For all the talk of this being a liberal issue, leather clad conservatives are far from unheard of, especially in Washington... One wonders whether she might uncover the next Ted Haggard...

Donald, there's no need for me to distort anything... All anyone need do is read the whole paragraph, rather than your little snippet to see that I was calling you out on suggesting that all liberals who support gay rights support hotel rim jobs... It's right there, where I say "(Just based on the same kinda sweeping generalization he's making about all liberals, y'understand...)" You can feign misunderstanding if you wish, but there's little use in trying to convince your intelligent readership.

You endorse the gay rights agenda, but when it gets a little too wild you jump ship. It doesn't work that way, bub. This is your coalition. These are your allies! You are a full-blown gay rights advocate ... you can't turn it on and off whenever you want. Instead of denouncing it, you attack the messenger.

I see... You believe that if one supports any gay right or behavior, one must support EVERY gay right or behavior... That's just nuts, and the proof of it is your support for some gay rights, but not gay marriage. Why is it you can support parts of the homosexual agenda but not others, but I must either support everything, or denounce everything?

Contrary to your wacky beliefs, liberals do have spiritual or human morals, and it is possible for us to say it's ok to marry, but not ok to consummate the marriage in public, whether the couple in question is gay or straight... The idea that support for gay marriage carries with it support for any & every gay act one can imagine, is frankly pretty stupid, and more than a little offensive, besides.

Just as there are swingers & swappers in the heterosexual population, performing acts with which you may not agree, in places you would prefer not to think about, there are swingers & freaks in the gay community, as well. NEITHER represents the heterosexual/homosexual community as a whole however, and to suggest otherwise makes you seem foolish.

Also, the hotel only says that it "claims ignorance about event."

I'm sorry Donald... That is incorrect. WND story:

"LaBarbera said he contacted the Washington hotel's sales director, who confirmed the lease to the 'Fort Troff' group. But the spokesman said he knew nothing of any sex events planned there. He said such events could not be held in the hotel's conference rooms, because they are 'public space,' LaBarbera said.

The spokesman, Felix Barreras, told LaBarbera the contract for the rooms was handled 'like any other piece of business.' The hotel did not respond to a separate WND request for comment.

Barreras said sex is not allowed in public areas, and it could pose a health hazard to other guests."


Sounds to me like they're saying such activities cannot take place in their conference rooms. YMMV...

Reject away, Donald... You've failed to make your case. Again.

Donald Douglas said...

I do reject you, Reppy. I reject your wild nihilist ideology and your postmodernist epistemology where you think it's okay to smear me as homosexual in response to a post where I point out that you support the gay agenda as a "progressive." You have no ethics and you've been beaten so many times in debate with me you're willing to sink to the lowest of the low filth to extract a pinch of revenge to satisfy your craven yet juvenile radical epistemology.

You're a fraud, Reppy.

Unlike you, I do not consider homosexual sodomy as a legitmate form of sexual activity. It's deviant and it violates moral norms. It's bad enough that this licentiousness is so easily accepted by you and your LBGT allies on the progressive left, or blown off as the same promiscuity in the hetero community.

I reject it all, Reppy. I'm no hypocrite like you. I take extreme hetero swingers to task as well as gay licentious leatherbacked idiots. And of course, you're even more defiled as this is YOUR INAUGURATION and YOUR RADICAL HOMOSEXUAL DEMOCRATIC BASE.

You cannot pick and choose whom you associate with on this issue. These people are not fringe elements at the margins of the gay rights movement. THEY ARE THE MOVEMENT, and you are a die-hard supporter tying to have your cake and eat it too.

It doesn't work thay way, buddy. Your Messiah is being sworn in, with these gay activist living it up with in-your-face sexual deviance. You'd just rather folks like this are not out and proud. The problem, of course, is that the leading spokesman for gay marriage are also the most hypocritical practitioners of bareback homosexual depravity.

Here's this, from the Village Voice:

*****

"Andrew Sullivan, the premier gay writer at The New York Times, was about to speak on "The Emasculation of Gay Politics." He would take questions afterward "about any public issue," the man who introduced him announced. The chuckling audience knew what that meant. They had come to this June 7 lecture not just because of Sullivan and his topic but because of the scandal that surrounds him.

It all began in April, when Sullivan published a mocking account of his recent visit to San Francisco. "The streets were dotted with the usual hairy-backed homos," he had snarked. "I saw one hirsute fellow dressed from head to toe in flamingo motifs." Wandering into a gay bar, he recoiled: "Rarely have I seen such a scary crowd. Gay life in the rest of the U.S. is increasingly suburban, mainstream, assimilable. Here in the belly of the beast, Village People look-alikes predominate, and sex is still central to the culture. . . . I'd go nuts if I had to live here full time."

This was classic Sullivan, right down to the contempt for what he calls the "libidinal pathology" of gay sexual culture. He considers gay marriage the only healthy alternative to "a life of meaningless promiscuity followed by eternal damnation." He has hectored gay men for their obsession with "manic muscle factories," and written at length about the need for "responsibility" in the age of AIDS. But thanks to the outing squad, we now know that this gay moralist is guilty of the same sins he disses others for committing.

Using the screen name RawMuscleGlutes, Sullivan posted on a site for bare backers (the heroic term for gay men who have sex without condoms). He was seeking partners for unsafe anal and oral intercourse. Sullivan revealed that he was HIV-positive and stated his preference for men who are "poz," but he also indicated an interest in "bi scenes," groups, parties, orgies, and "gang bangs." This hardly fit the gay ideal Sullivan had created in his book Virtually Normal. In fact, RawMuscleGlutes is just the sort of "pathological" creature who raises Sullivan's wrath. Hypocrisy has always been a rationale for outing, and it's the justification for a group of gay journalists who teamed up with the tabs to expose him.

*****

I reject you, Reppy. I reject idiots like Andrew Sullivan and their hypocritcal postmodern takeover of traditional culture. I reject attempts by licentious nihilists like Sullivan and his allies like yourself to label me as "Christianist" or "bat shit" conservatives.

No, this is your movement, Reppy. These "hairy-backed homos are your allies. You're constantly calling for their "rights" are you not?

You have no credibility with me, and the more you protest the more unintelligent and cravenly unprincipled you look. You're fraud, a rank namecaller, and an intellectual mountebank.

You need to show more respect at my blog, my house.

This thread is done. Start a new thread above.

repsac3 said...

Sorry to've gotten you so upset, Donald.

Continue to believe what you will, and live in your own little world, if that be your preference.

(Sure, I could point out all the contradictions in your latest screed, but what is the point?* You refuse to see what is so plainly visible to so many others, and all the pointing I can muster won't help...)

Be well, Donald. Perhaps as you say, we'll meet in a new thread, somewhere above. (But since it's "your house," I'm pretty sure you'll have to start it.)

*perhaps the most "nihilist" sentence I've ever posted, here.

JBW said...

Wait, Don: non-gay butt sex is bad too? Your sputtering over this topic is hilarious and revealing. Should I start talking about martinis now?

cracker said...

Quick question Professor,

Do you believe the Democratic base....are all radical homosexuals?

or just "Reppy's democratic base"

TRUTH 101 said...

Professor: I appreciate the invite, but I will never join you the dark side. I am a Democrat like my Father.

Tim said...

As this thread is over, I only have this...

I am a die-hard San Francisco Giants and 49er fan, as I come from the bay area originally.

Now, both of these teams, quite logically, have a large gay fan base, at least those local gays who are into sports. Probably not a large majority.

Now, the 49ers have won 5 Super Bowls, the Giants have been to the World Series three times and lost.

If, god forbid, the Giants DID win the World Series, you can bet there would be some big celebrations in the City. Some of those might even be gay groups having butt sex in celebration.

So, given all those variables, am I damned to hell and Donald's vitriol for endorsing private gay butt sex because we all support the same team?

Is it really my job to search them out and condemn them? Hell to the no.

This post is the equivalent of entrapment: Find the most deranged group (which, by the way comes from a radical right-wing group that "researches" all the gay stuff in America) and post their goings on and thus make everyone either condemn them or be condemned?

This group, btw, clearly has a prurient interest here. Which makes me completely cynical of their real agenda. I would bet Larry Craig is a member.

Violet said...

Uh, how did those fine, upstanding Christians get a hold of those licentious emails? Perhaps one of them was on the guest list?

repsac3 said...

Hey... Leave my democratic base alone there, Cracker... (Mostly because my base, along with the rest of me, is more Green than Dem... I've dabbled, but I never inhaled...)

Feeling unsatisfied with the abrupt ending, I had to reply to all those contradictions, after all... American Nihilist: I feel rejected... All nihilists, denialists, and wild postmodernists welcome.

Average American said...

When will people STOP using the word "gay"? It's either queer or faggot. All this PC BS is why all this crap gets accepted so easily. Tom the redhunter---right on.

It seems like the leftists in here are all claiming to be hetero but all support the fags rights to do and be whatever they want, including married. So where does it stop? What if someone wants to marry their dog or their monkey? How about a brother or son? How about more than two people in the relationship? Where does it end?

Marriage is one man plus one woman. Period!

cracker said...

Dear Professor

In a late night final review, re- reading all the brimming (rimming?)comments....and taking one last look at the ridiculous photo you posted.......I have to say ......errr no .no there is nothing left to say of ANY reasonable....I uh....man oh man.

Welp let me just say,,,,, if you are gay....its cool.

kidding kidding kidding ; )

(thats a ha ha wink, not a funny like weird {come sit on my throne} wink)

Violet said...

I swear to God, the right wingers are more obsessed with the mechanics of homosex than homosexuals are. The queers don't seek to convert you. They don't seek you out; you seek them out. They don't peek into your bedrooms; it is you who are consumed with what goes on in theirs.

To the pure all things are pure.

Tom the Redhunter said...

repsac3 - I seem to have come into this late because I'm not sure now what type of answer you want.

Violet - surely you jest? Gays and leftists are obsessed with sex, we're just reacting to it. What you really want is us to ignore that Gays are trying to force everyone to approve of their lifestyle.

repsac3 said...

Tom:

repsac3 - I seem to have come into this late because I'm not sure now what type of answer you want.

You mean as regards my question about how a legal straight union should differ from a legal gay union?

I wasn't looking for any particular type of answer. The one you gave was fine. I disagree with it of course, but all that means is we believe different things about individual rights and the role of government in our private lives.

In truth, the question wasn't really written for someone like you. I was asking it of Donald & those like him who support "full civil equality for gay Americans," (including civil unions, if I understood him correctly) but not "full-blown same-sex marriage rights." (Both of those terms are exact quotes, btw...)

What I'm trying to get at is, legally--that is, according to the government--, how would these relationships differ? What rights & privileges, if any, would be granted to heterosexual couples but denied to homosexual couples?

Seeing as how you don't seem to believe "equal rights" includes equal treatment under law--not even contract law, judging by your answer--and you obviously don't support civil unions, either--the question wasn't really meant for you, as you can provide no insight into the mind of those who say that same-sex civil unions are ok, but same-sex marriages are not.

(And judging by the lack of response every time I pose the question, I'm guessing that the folks who say that don't have all that much insight into what they actually mean, either.)

If you want to venture a guess as to what they're thinkin' anyway, be my guest. If you're still in any way unclear about what I'm askin', try following this link, where I explain more about what I'm asking, and why.

AnLsMom said...

Don, first of all, you’re ignoring half the gays when you obsess about what gay men do. Some estimates say that lesbians are much more than half the homosexual population. What about them? Secondly, the leather culture is found in both gay and straight circles. So maybe some of these guys have desires that are different from yours or mine. Why do you even care, except that it somehow makes you seem superior to people different from you.

Most homosexuals are regular people who spend their lives going to work, paying their taxes and looking for love. Many of them have kids, either with another homosexual partner, or from previous heterosexual relationships. You don’t see them or hear about them because they’re not showing up for the parades, they’re just boring people living their lives, mostly trying to make ends meet just like the rest of the world.

I’m a woman, so I can’t really speak to why men do what they do. But I expect that gay men are very similar to straight men in that some of them do things I wouldn’t ever consider. Put two men together and what do you have? Right, even more male behavior. Maybe that’s why SOME gay men are so out there about their sex lives. But it’s their business, not yours, and again, most

Stop obsessing about the few gay men who do what you consider bizarre, and start thinking about the millions of kids in those families with same sex parents who don’t have equal rights to other kids with heterosexual married parents. They are what marriage equality is about, and nothing you can say about male sex changes the fact that you want to deny those kids their constitutionally protected rights.