Posted on 09/15/2011 5:48:19 AM PDT by Kaslin
How far can a City go in it’s sickness. Nudity as a right.
yay more Wiener jokes!
It’s never the hot chicks that walk around naked. Just old saggy liberal guys and gals. Yick.
It’s never the hot chicks that walk around naked. Just old saggy liberal guys and gals. Yick.
“How far can a City go in it’s sickness”
don’t ask, please don’t ask...
“Now, I’ve seen worse things in this town than a gaggle of sagging nudists.”
from the waist down. ew ew ew
But of course. *shakes head*
The jokes just write themselves. I swear, you can't even make this stuff up.
Castro, named after an unfortunate incident involving a nudist, a lot of liquor and a very sharp knife.
My wife and I were in San Francisco a couple of years ago and we saw three women pull down their pants and take pictures of each other. Buck naked. It was gross. They were, well..very ugly and disgusting looking.
The idea of allowing all the crazies to move to one city is brilliant. Let them sit in restaurants and stink up the chairs. Let them pass on whatever they have growing in them and on them to other like minded stinky butts. The bugs and fly population will thrive on exposed areas. This is a liberal moment for them to celebrate. The nation laughs at that city and the catering to the odd and amoral. Look at who they place in public offfice.
The irony is they consider it "their" city.
An argument that has constantly been used by the left-wing (and libertarians) in regards to ‘gay marriage’ and homosexuality is to demand an answer to the question ‘how is hurting you if two homosexuals get married?”.
Of course there is no direct harm that could be proven and then these left-wing activists would point out that it is just your morality that causes you to not accept homosexuality.
I have always argued that the same exact argument could be used in regards to public nudity. I would ask ‘how is it hurting you if people are having sex out on their front lawn?” or “if they walk around in a public area nude?” The fact is that there is no way to prove direct harm and that it is the same exact question of morality that causes people to object to such ‘nudists’ and ‘naturalists’ or whatever these perverts want to call themselves.
The fact is though…. If we lose our ‘right to representation’ in making law against homosexuality then the fact is that we endanger this right as well in regards to making any laws dealing with public decency, including laws against public nudity and sex acts in public.
“If you do not like then look away” will be the argument. “If you want to teach your children that it is bad then go ahead but don’t tell others what morality that they should have “ will also be the answer.
Either people fight for their ‘right to representation’ on ALL issues of how sexuality is dealt with in the public sphere or else we will be headed to leaving our children a legacy of complete moral corruption that will result in a complete loss of their freedom.
But a city that cannot find a reason to forbid homosexual sex in public other than it might cost tourist dollars or shock the horses will have difficulty making an argument against public nudity in any case.
Political correctness? No, just the old amorality.
.
Aside from a few toned and lovely young female models...this is not a good look for most of us.
I don’t see any difference. Both are equally weirdos
San Francisco the city of it’s all about me.They have passed the point of being mad now they have gone wild,
back to the trees and caves.
Yep, that’s SinFreakSicko.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.