Tuesday, July 28, 2009

A Kiss Is Just a Kiss

There have been several situations in the country recently where gay people have been hassled or arrested for ... being gay. There was a completely bogus raid on a gay bar in Fort Worth, Texas, on the anniversary of the Stonewall riots, where at least one customer was severely injured by police, who were busting people for being drunk in a bar. It was a reprehensible incident, and the city of Fort Worth is making some changes, though I can't say I was that surprised to read that some cops in Texas didn't like gay people.

Last month in El Paso, some gay people were eating at a restaurant, a couple kissed, and security guards told them in Spanish that "faggot stuff" is not allowed at the restaurant. Police came and actually told the customers their behavior was illegal, which is incorrect.

Another situation is more interesting. It seems that Salt Lake City, for some reason, sold a block of downtown, including sidewalks, to the Mormon Church. Mormons and homosexuality, let's say, do not overlap on a Venn diagram, at least one drawn by the church. The church posted security guards along their stretch of property, and one night when some guys were walking home from a concert they paused for a quick kiss and ended up getting knocked around, handcuffed, and cited for trespassing.

Straight people might feel uncomfortable when they see two men or two women showing affection to one another. Well, it's time to get over that. Though we have seen LGBT people coming out of the closet in a verbal way, that is, they might tell their friends and co-workers about their orientation, they have generally kept their feelings hidden from public view. That may have been a good idea at one time, the reaction that kissing in public elicits may have resulted in a step backward for the movement for gay and lesbian civil rights, at a too-early stage in the movement. As certain people are fond of ironically saying, "I don't mind if somebody's gay or what-not, I just don't like them shoving it down my throat." By that they mean they don't like people actually acting gay where they can see it. It's okay to be that way if you have to, just don't, you know, do anything.

A group of people have organized the Great Nationwide Kiss-In to take place August 15th at 2 PM, EDT. Gay people are going to congregate in public places and kiss where everybody can see them.

From their web site:
We suggest that you locate a popular park, promenade, or other thoroughfare in your town or city, some place where you will be seen and heard. Make sure that whatever place you locate doesn’t directly block auto traffic, since this may present problems later when trying to obtain a permit (and we’ll talk about that later). While the idea may be tempting, we do not condone congregating in front of churches or places of worship whose doctrine directly opposes homosexuality; this would be unnecessarily inflammatory. Examples of places being considered in other cities are the Boston Commons, New York City’s Bryant Park or Central Park, and San Francisco’s Union Square. The Great Nationwide Kiss-In

I don't see Washington, DC, listed here, maybe somebody will put something in the comments section if they know where this event will be held. Maybe Montgomery County will have its own Kiss-In.

More ...
The primary purpose of this event is bring people together, to create a warm and fun and exciting environment, and to show religious and other conservative individuals that we are united for a cause, that we are a group that works together, and that there is nothing wrong with anybody kissing anyone, anywhere. As you plan this event, consider the sorts of fun, yet tame, events that would bring people together – music, dancing, socializing. Figure out what the community in your city or town would enjoy, and plan around that.

We strongly recommend that you plan for entirely inoffensive programming. We trust that you understand what we mean. The religious / conservative / far right seeks out anything that resembles deviance; we don’t want to give them additional fuel. They will probably come after us anyway for creating this event; when the event finally occurs, though, we want them to feel rather sheepish for making a big deal out of nothing.

We also strongly recommend that you remind your organizers/coordinators and event participants beforehand to behave as inoffensively as possible when it comes to the kissing and affection portion of the event. There shouldn’t be any blatant French kissing, or licking, or anything that appears crass or sloppy, nor should there be any removal of clothing, grinding, or groping. This is not only a mixed event, but it’s also public; if we play our cards right, there is likely to be a significant amount of media attention. Think of it this way: if we were a film, we would be a 1960s-era Disney picture. We’re aiming for a G rating – General Audiences.

This is the kind of thing that has to happen now. There is too much tip-toeing around the obvious, and the obvious is just not that shocking. I attended a Citizens for Responsible Whatever meeting a year or two ago where they showed a series of videos of shocking gay people in tu-tus and overdone make-up, frightening their audience with bizarre stereotypes. I think it's time to make a nice, clear statement gay people are just people, and the thing that's different about them is that they like one another, and that is a good thing.

37 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"don't see Washington, DC, listed here, maybe somebody will put something in the comments section if they know where this event will be held. Maybe Montgomery County will have its own Kiss-In"

It's on the third lane of outer loop of the beltway right under the Metro overpass before the split to the 270 spur.

Don't worry. The cars will stop.

Wear your best gay pride parade costume.

"There shouldn’t be any blatant French kissing, or licking, or anything that appears crass or sloppy, nor should there be any removal of clothing, grinding, or groping."

You notice they have to make this very clear.

They know how homosexuals tend to act if unrestrained.

"This is the kind of thing that has to happen now. There is too much tip-toeing around the obvious"

Actually, if you want to avoid a backlash, you might want to tiptoe around as if you're in ballet slippers.

Americans are funny about lewd displays in their public places.

"(July 28) -- The state of Hawaii and the U.S. House of Representatives are doing their best to put the Obama birthplace controversy to rest.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs admitted Monday that nothing will change the facts cited by the "birthers" -- who insist President Obama is not a natural-born American citizen and therefore is not eligible to hold the highest office in the land."

In other words, Obama will not produce the original certificate.

Hope he has it locked away.

The help has been known to sneak this stuff out for the press.

Remember when documents under subpoena in a manslaughter investigation were found in Hillary's living quarters?

"Despite Minnesota Republican Michele Bachmann's attempt to block the vote, the House Monday passed a resolution that includes this declaration: "President Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961.""

Oh, yeah.

Congress can just change history by passing a resolution.

I think the USSR used to do that too.

"And for good measure, Hawaii's health director issued a statement saying she has doubled-checked the "original vital records" and, yep, just as she said last October, Obama was born in Hawaii."

Any reason those "original vital records" can't be viewed by the public?

"CNN's Lou Dobbs is under fire from the left for questioning Obama's citizenship."

Watch out, Lou. The left has its ways to take care of people like you who dare to question their verdict.

"But what if Obama hadn't been born in the USA?

"I wouldn't give a damn if Obama was born in a cave in Afghanistan," Mark McKinnon wrote in Tuesday's Daily Beast.""

A call to ignore the Constitution.

From the Beast, no less.

July 28, 2009 12:03 PM  
Anonymous liberal jerk said...

I think most Americans would actually ignore the Constitution if it turned out that Obama didn't know he was born in Kenya.

If it turns out he's been covering up though, he'll be tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail.

July 28, 2009 12:18 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Any reason those "original vital records" can't be viewed by the public?

Yes, Hawaii state law. FOX NEWS reports:

"State law bars the release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who does not have a tangible interest."

Each state determines how it will handle such documentation.

he'll be tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail.

You are obviously a jerk, a dangerous one IMHO.

The rule of law is important to uphold. Vigilantism is illegal.

July 28, 2009 3:08 PM  
Anonymous liberal jerk said...

"State law bars the release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who does not have a tangible interest."

Please. Every American has an interest in this.

Besides, no one's talking about a release. Just a controlled viewing.

It's pretty obvious something's being covered up. It might be something other than residency though.

"The rule of law is important to uphold. Vigilantism is illegal."

Oh, I agree.

But if it turns out he gained the Presidency by fraud, they'd give him a trial.

Then, if found guilty, they would get a Constitutional amendment allowing him to be tarred, feathered and ridden out of town on a rail.

If all that doesn't work, I think they'll just let him join OJ on the golf course.

Besides, I was obviously speaking metaphorically.

I don't really think people would literally do that.

I just think they'd be real mad.

Of course, some people might like his style.

As the old adage goes, steal a little and they throw you in jail but steal a lot and they make you king.

Oprah might just produce a talk show for him.

July 28, 2009 3:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

that's a right

from King World Productions

July 28, 2009 3:47 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

"State law bars the release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who does not have a tangible interest."

Please. Every American has an interest in this.


You can't be bothered with details, huh Sybil? Do some research and then come back and tell us the difference between a "tangible interest" and "an interest."

July 28, 2009 3:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

can't be bothered with the Constitution, Anon_B?

we need to know what's being covered up here

July 28, 2009 4:15 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

What part of the Constitution are you asking about, Sybil-Lucy?

The GOP Governor of the State of Hawaii has affirmed that President Obama was born in the State of Hawaii and is a US citizen.

Quit self-medicating for once and try a dose of reality.

July 28, 2009 4:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

certification by a governor is not the Constitutional requirement

natural-born citizenship is

Obama's hasn't been established and there is reasonable doubt

the matter needs to be cleared up to satisfy the requirements of the Constitution

we have an individual who spent much of his youth overseas and went to foreign schools and who, arguably, has not always acted in the best interests of our country and who's wife once let it slip that she grew up not being proud of her country and who's 20-year pastor would regularly say things like "God damn America"

we need to clear this up

when you have the White House issuing statements and Congress passing resolutions and Governors taking "second looks" at documents, you have to say this is being taken suspiciously seriously

July 28, 2009 5:08 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Salon reports:

Monday night Bill O'Reilly called the birthers' claims "bogus."

Ann Coulter called birthers "cranks."

Mike Huckabee discredited birthers.

Joe Scarborough calls birthers "conspiracy theorists."

Michelle Malkin said last year: "I believe Trig was born to Sarah Palin. I believe Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on U.S. soil. I believe fire can melt steel and that bin Laden’s jihadi crew -- not Bush and Cheney -- perpetrated mass murder on 9/11. What kind of kooky conspiracist does that make me?"

Since July 20, Rush Limbaugh has stopped encouraging birthers.

Even The National Review Editors published "Born in the USA" today and said:

...Much foolishness has become attached to the question of President Obama’s place of birth, and a few misguided souls among the Right have indulged it. The myth that Barack Obama is ineligible to be president represents the hunt for a magic bullet that will make all the unpleasant complications of his election and presidency disappear...

...this fantasy is not particularly widespread within the conservative movement, but it has attracted enough interest that it needs to be addressed.

The fundamental fiction is that Obama has refused to release his “real” birth certificate. This is untrue. The document that Obama has made available is the document that Hawaiian authorities issue when they are asked for a birth certificate. There is no secondary document cloaked in darkness, only the state records that are used to generate birth certificates when they are requested.

...In other words, what President Obama has produced is the “real” birth certificate of myth and lore. The director of Hawaii’s health department and the registrar of records each has personally verified that the information on Obama’s birth certificate is identical to that in the state’s records, the so-called vault copy. Given that fact, we are loath even to engage the fanciful notion that President Obama was born elsewhere, contrary to the information on his birth certificate, but we note for the record that his mother was a native of Kansas, whose residents have been citizens of the United States for a very long time, and whose children are citizens of the United States as well.

...Like Bruce Springsteen, he has a lot of bad political ideas; but he was born in the U.S.A.


They all realize continuing to question Obama's citizenship when it has been clearly docuomented, makes the GOP look like nuts.

July 28, 2009 5:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Perhaps, "Anonymous/Liberal Jerk" you should add the requirement that Obama clip his toe nails exactly as you do in order to qualify his Presidency? You live in a very strange world of denial...one that merits a look-see by a certified mental health practitioner.
As with most of these so-called "birthers", you should just stop trying to cover up your true feelings about President Obama. He is an African-American and you cannot stand that. Your racism is just too obvious and your attempts to cover it up with laughable lies that are increasingly scary to support your weird "conspiracy" theories make you look pretty ignorant and ridiculous.
Citizen

July 28, 2009 8:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lou Dobbs of CNN has said there are some questions to be answered.

He's been attacked.

The birth question is still open.

btw, why did his mother never consider marrying any Americans?

July 28, 2009 11:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous" - how do you know that Obama's mother did not consider marrying any American? Did you ever have an occasion to ask this of her?
Setting up "straw men" seems to be your stock in trade. If your source of news is Lou Dobbs, that might account for this proclivity on your part. As well, this blog site is not Fox News, so your attempts to create false issues here fall on deaf ears.
Diogenes

July 29, 2009 9:38 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

The 'birthers' and our dearest anonymoid have stopped hating on queer people for a while to hate on Obama. So many people to hate, so little time.

I personally think the kiss-in is a fabulous idea. The action by the Mormon church and SLC police to charge a gay couple with crimes for kissing in public underscores the animosity that some folks have for lgbt people. It fits in with all the 'bathroom bill' stuff we heard in MoCo last year. WWJD?

July 29, 2009 9:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"how do you know that Obama's mother did not consider marrying any American?"

it's either that or she considered it and decided not to

what effect did this have on a young kid?

would he be less attached to his country if his father and stepfather weren't Americans and his mother didn't seem interested in Americans?

"WWJD?"

Judas kissed him.

Do you remember what happened next?

July 29, 2009 9:46 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Apparently Anonymous doesn't approve of trans-national relationships. My friend, this comes very close to bigotry against inter-racial relationships. Are you still fuming about Loving v. Virginia?

The question about Mrs. Obama and her not marrying an American reminds me forcibly of my grandfather's rage that my mother married a Catholic man: to quote him "Couldn't she find a Baptist boy to marry?" You true colors are showing, sweetikums.

Churchill's mother was an American ; was he less of a patriot for England, less loyal to his country? Perhaps it made him disposed to that friendly relationship with the US which saved the world back in the 40's. As an aside, he was one of the very few people given honorary US citizenship by our congress.

You are terribly easy dear: I figured you'd go straight for the Judas reference. It's like baiting a hook, or bringing catnip into a cathouse. The gospels don't record it, but I suspect Jesus kissed Judas back. Forgiveness is central to the basic, forgotten message of Christianity; indeed, it may be all of the message.

rrjr

July 29, 2009 10:25 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Back to the original topic of kissing:

It seems the Washington Mystics (our women's professional basketball team) won't show women kissing at their games: Mystics say No Show to Lesbian kisses

Read the article, it's interesting. I suspect Wise is right in pinpointing the Exxon sponsorship as the source of the Mystics' recalcitrance. If you've been to a Mystics game, you know what their fanbase is. I personally think HRC has thrown us under the bus on this one too. Everyone loves the gay money.

WWJD?

July 29, 2009 10:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Apparently Anonymous doesn't approve of trans-national relationships."

I'm fine with it, Robert. It does raise the question, however, of whether an individual whose parents weren't committed to America have passed along that characteristic.

But, by saying it's a legitimate question, I'm not saying we need to start with a preconceived conclusion. O may be a completely loyal patriot. But wasn't the idea of the Constitutional requirement to make sure that an individual was from an family dedicated to America?

If not, what do you think the founding fathers intended?

"My friend, this comes very close to bigotry against inter-racial relationships."

Nowhere near that. Patriotism is not genetic. Race is.

"The question about Mrs. Obama and her not marrying an American reminds me forcibly of my grandfather's rage that my mother married a Catholic man: to quote him "Couldn't she find a Baptist boy to marry?""

Well, that's different too and the fact that you're reminded of that shows how messed up your mind is.

Your grandfather had a valid point. Religious beliefs affects one's life and behavior. Marriage is a partnership. If one's takes one's religious beliefs seriously, one should consider how feasible a life partnership with someone of differing values and beliefs can be. Of course, it could be your mother wasn't that committed to Protestantism and/or your father wasn't all that dedicated to Catholicism.

Still, it's a legitimate factor to consider. Thinking about things like that beforehand can reduce the divorce rate.

"Churchill's mother was an American ; was he less of a patriot for England, less loyal to his country?"

That's a question for the British but I, for one, don't find the British style of governance very impressive.

"You are terribly easy dear: I figured you'd go straight for the Judas reference."

Gee, you got me again.

"The gospels don't record it, but I suspect Jesus kissed Judas back."

From what he said, I doubt it.

In any case, there are cultures where it is not unusual for males to kiss males but not as an expression of homosexuality.

Here, when gay guys are doing that, they have to be restrained:

"There shouldn’t be any blatant French kissing, or licking, or anything that appears crass or sloppy, nor should there be any removal of clothing, grinding, or groping."

"Forgiveness is central to the basic, forgotten message of Christianity;"

No one's forgotten that, Robert.

There is a thin line, however, between care and capitulation.

One need not endorse and approve to forgive.e

"It seems the Washington Mystics (our women's professional basketball team) won't show women kissing at their games: Mystics say No Show to Lesbian kisses"

They are trying to combat the perception that lesbianism is rampant in professional women's basketball.

Why not throw gays under the bus?

July 29, 2009 11:26 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Oh sweetheart I was hinting at xenophobia just to tease you, but you embrace it and wear it on your sleeve as though it were a badge of honor. Do you have any idea how you come across? Apparently not. You appear to set the limit at overt racial prejudice (because that's genetic? As if that made a difference?), but lay claim to all sorts of other sorts of prejudice.

When I think about it, I come to the conclusion that you are so over the top that you have to be a parody of yourself.

Now as to the 'thin line between care and capitulation:' I disagree; care is painted with a broad stroke, and forgiveness drawn a canvas the size of the world. Your religious beliefs seem to be centered around how some people are less sinful or more orthodox than others; it seems a thin, weak religiosity to me. Does it give you comfort?

WWJD? You seem to suggest that he is driving the bus. Somehow I doubt that, but each to his own.

On another note, I tried counting, but got distracted. Have you made more than half the posts on this thread?

July 29, 2009 11:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Now as to the 'thin line between care and capitulation:' I disagree; care is painted with a broad stroke, and forgiveness drawn a canvas the size of the world."

I can see we need to be more specific with a fellow like you.

I can forgive the cat burgular who steals my Rembrandt.

Doesn't mean I will condone thievery and try to ban bias against such behavior.

If you recall, one of Anon-B's problem with the C Street fellowship is that they didn't judge adulterers but sought forgiveness for them.

"Your religious beliefs seem to be centered around how some people are less sinful or more orthodox than others"

Well, that's a contradiction of my religious beliefs so you might want to share with us how you developed that misconception.

"Have you made more than half the posts on this thread?"

No, but you've made more than half of the really stupid comments.

July 29, 2009 11:56 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Clearly a central tenet of your belief system includes name-calling. Do you not really see that you spend a huge amount of time aggrandizing yourself by belittling other people? If you are an example of a good Christian and an American exceptionalist.... Well, honey, try to do better, we're counting on you.

You're correct, I counted, you have unusually written fewer than half the posts on this particular thread.

July 29, 2009 2:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

it's will always be that way, Robert, because most of my comments are responses

in short, I don't speak unless I'm spoken to

Anon: "you've made more than half of the really stupid comments"

Robert: "You're correct, I counted"

July 29, 2009 2:25 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

That I think is the problem: you're here to debate, because that's the sort of sandbox you want to play in. Most people are here to discuss and learn. You've found a blog director in Jim who is unusually tolerant of empty debate, and so you continue to try to debate. Very few people here are at all interested in engaging in the sort of verbal fencing that seems to entertain you. We just get annoyed with you and can't help saying something. Somehow you managed to engage me today, probably because I spent most of the day at home doing chores.
I really am much more interested in Jim's posts and the responses it gets from people like Bea, Cynthia, Dana, Emproph, Diogenes, etc., than the pseudo-responses you make.

You're entertaining, but there's too much of you. Pull back a little and let some things slide.

WWJD?

July 29, 2009 2:46 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

... Jim who is unusually tolerant of empty debate ...

Ouch.

JimK

July 29, 2009 3:09 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "most of my comments are responses

in short, I don't speak unless I'm spoken to".

LOL! You BSer you! Most of the time you're the first one to comment on a thread and usually by posting some off-topic right wing rant you've plagerized from the loony right. Thanks for demonstrating you're a lying fool once again.

July 29, 2009 3:31 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Sorry Jim. I didn't mean to indict you. I'm just more annoyed with anonymous today than usual.

July 29, 2009 3:33 PM  
Anonymous fat bastard said...

why don't you and Jim have a beer in Lafayette Park and talk out this teachable moment?

July 29, 2009 3:36 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

LOL, I just noticed who made the first post on this thread, and went into an off-topic rant about Obama's birth certificate. Yes, bad anonymous, you "only speak when spoken to", LOL! What a loser.

July 29, 2009 3:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know Jim's posts are intended for the cyberworld but I feel they really speak to me so I respond

you coming down for the kiss-off on the beltway, Priya?

if so, remember:

"There shouldn’t be any blatant French kissing, or licking, or anything that appears crass or sloppy, nor should there be any removal of clothing, grinding, or groping."

those organizers sure know their audience, don't they?

July 29, 2009 3:51 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous, when you post one off-topic rant after another you're not responding to anyone, you're just butting in where you're not welcome.

And no, I'm not coming to the States, its a scary place. People get arrested there all the time on false charges and run through the kangaroo court system. Maher Arar was abducted in the U.S. while on his way back to Canada, shipped off to Syria and tortured for a year before the Americans finally admitted he was innocent of their trumped up terrorism charges and released him. An innocent gay patron in a Texas bar was assaulted by the local police and suffered brain damage. As many as half of the people on death row in some states have been exonerated by DNA evidence, one state governer refused to allow a wrongfully convicted death row inmate to be exonerated by DNA evidence, prefering to put an innocent man to death rather than admitting his justice system had made a mistake. No, I'd never voluntarily set foot in that grossly unjust country. Too many arrogant Republicans putting themselves ahead of right and wrong.

July 29, 2009 4:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Brilliant anonymous, when you post one off-topic rant after another you're not responding to anyone,"

When that happens, Priya, it's usually an ongoing conversation from another thread that I just moved up for everyone's convenience.

You may not realize it because you're not part of the conversation.

A good rule of thumb for you would be:

if you don't know what you're talking about, shut up.

"And no, I'm not coming to the States,"

darn

"People get arrested there all the time on false charges"

well, we give them trials

you can't be sure if they're guilty until you have a trial

do they have that in Canada or do you just assume everyone areested is guilty?

"and run through the kangaroo court system"

hey, we err on the side of justice

ever hear of OJ Simpson or Bill Clinton?

they both got off scot free

"No, I'd never voluntarily set foot in that grossly unjust country."

That's OK.

We've got more customers than we can handle already.

Is it like that in Canada too?

no?

I wonder why.

"Too many arrogant Republicans putting themselves ahead of right and wrong."

I know what you mean.

I run into arrogant Republicans putting themselves ahead of right and wrong all the time.

Funny though,

I don't see any TTFers beating a path to join you in your paradise, eh?

July 29, 2009 5:11 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Hey Anon! Check out the venerable Gallup.com. You're in for a surprise!

Nine in 10 Americans view the United States' neighbor to the north favorably, while only 6% view it unfavorably.

WTG Anon! You are the mouthpiece of the 6% canuckophobic wingnuts!

July 30, 2009 8:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've only been to Quebec and I don't think they consider themselves part of Canada but I have no bad feelings about Canada

I'm just pointing out to a renegade Canadian who was attacking the U.S. that most people prefer the U.S. to Canada

I don't know if any polls have been conducted but I'd imagine most Canadians would prefer people like Priya find somewhere else to "live"

they don't tolerate nuts up there as well we do

July 30, 2009 9:33 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Wanna have a beer, Jim?

July 30, 2009 10:37 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

It definitely sounds good to me, Robert.

JimK

July 30, 2009 10:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

just like Michael Jackson, Jim says:

I'll be there

July 30, 2009 12:11 PM  
Anonymous Maryanne Arnow said...

How about: Sexual orientation is simply not, nor has it ever been, a "choice" ?

With little or no social incentives other than various forms of continued insult, abuse, humiliation, unwarranted attack, social and professional discrimination, loss of family, loss of social standing, and many other negatives far too numerous to list here, simply, WHY ?

Why would anyone possibly wish choose to endure such hardships for no more than what many people still characterize as a "deviant sexualized choice of Lifestyle" ?

Just the beginning of more food for thought and fodder for the fire of debate...

August 14, 2009 1:48 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home