San Francisco Gays Whoop It Up Over Court Ruling as reported by Concerned Women for American

Concerned Women for America ^ | July 2, 2003 | Allyson Smith

[rick warrior]

Nudity, Crassness, Perversion on Display as San Francisco Celebrates Legal Sodomy 7/2/2003 By Allyson Smith

Anti-Catholic 'Sisters' group takes shot at Vice President Cheney

SAN FRANCISCO—Homosexuals were jubilant—and some naked—Sunday, June 29, as they celebrated last week’s Supreme Court ruling overturning Texas’ sodomy law during this city’s 33rd annual “gay pride” parade.

This writer witnessed no attempt by city police to arrest those who were publicly nude, and no attempts to urge revelers to cover their private parts.

The San Francisco "gay" celebration occurred just two days after President George W. Bush visited the city on a campaign stop to raise an estimated $5 million for his 2004 reelection campaign. Bush’s spokesman, Ari Fleisher, side-stepped any serious comment on the high court's Lawrence v. Texas ruling by dismissing it as a state issue during a news conference following the decision.

[DAnconia55]

BTW ignore the OBVIOUS troll on this thread.

This started it. I merely responded.
You're not going to stomp out freedom of discussion here.

If you want a place where everyone has to think alike go to 700club.com

Besides, all Fundies are phony preachers.

And I'm not wrong either - Most Americans are sick and tired of Fundies. Seriously.
Perhaps even more than we're sick of hearing about gays cavorting about in parades.

[puroresu]

That wasn't a "fundie" who said that. It was "liberal" pro-abortion Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart, who said "I know it when I see it" when discussing pornography.

[DAnconia55]

Ah. He must have been the original then.

I've heard southern fundies politicians say it.

Thanks.

[puroresu]

Saying that taxation is a greater threat to families than gay sex is, is like saying fire is a greater threat to your house than arsonists are.

In both cases, the latter leads to more of the former.

[DAnconia55]

Unless you're aware of proposals to subsidize the actual act of gay sex, your analogy makes no sense.

[puroresu]

It makes a lot of sense when you see the AIDS and STD budgets.

[DAnconia55]

Well, I'm not for AIDS and STD budgets.

But they are TINY compared to welfare, pork, etc.

My statement is still accurate.
Two income families were caused by taxation.

And the STD budget isn't going to take up 50% of our incomes, like the total tax budget does.

It's fine if you want to hate gays. But the idea that two gay men having sex is the worst thing that the country has ever seen is ridiculous.

Get rid of : Dept of education, IRS, BATF, Gun Laws, Welfare, SS, Medicare, Medicaid, OSHA, EPA... and then we can maybe sit down for a chat about gay sex.

[puroresu]

It doesn't work that way. Look at Europe and Canada. They're more "tolerant" of gays than we are in places like Sweden, Holland, and Britain. And they have MORE gun control, MORE federal control of education, MORE socialized medicine, MORE regulations, and MORE taxation than we do.

Uncloseted homosexuals are among the biggest supporters of big government. They demand subsidies to treat the diseases they catch. They demand that government propoagate their lifestyle in the schools. They demand that government force private business owners to hire them and landlords to rent to them. They demand that private groups be forced to accept homosexuality.

As in Brave New World, socialists promote sexual libertinism as a diversion. People stop thinking of property rights, gun rights, and freedom of speech, religion, and association as their most important rights, as government instead promotes "sensation" and "quick gratification" as the most cherished "rights" in society. As things such as "gay rights" and "abortion rights" expand, traditional rights such as property rights, gun rights, and freedom of speech contract.

[Camber-G]

I don't know about that in particular, what post are you citing ?

[Hyacinth Bucket]

It's a free country. You can definitely say whatever you want. Nowhere in my postings did I stomp on your freedom to disagree with any of us here who believe that this issue is important. In fact, you are doing the very thing you just wrongly accused me of doing by declaring that you and most Americans are really sick of hearing about this.

Your basic argument as far as I can tell is that you don't really care what the main focus of this argument is all about. But as far as you're concerned, the "Fundies" are the problem in this country.

There are at least two kinds of "Fundies".
1. Those who TRULY believe in the Bible and follow its teachings and are vocal about it
2. Those that SAY they believe in the Bible but do not follow its teachings and are vocal about it.

It is definitely obvious to me that you have a problem with both. Everyone should have a problem with #2. As for #1, you are going to have to take this up with God Himself.

[L.N. Smithee]

Do you actually have a point in posting that article?

This has absolutely no relevence to the CWA article this thread is based on. If you want to create a thread based on this sordid story, you are free to, but don't plop it in the middle of this thread and expect to be taken seriously.

[L.N. Smithee]

That wasn't a "fundie" who said that. It was "liberal" pro-abortion Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart, who said "I know it when I see it" when discussing pornography.

Thanks for setting him straight. You would think one of these smarmy libertarians that worship human thought would have actually done some of it before posting that as the statement of a "fundie."

[f.Christian]

The republic (( anarchy )) ... vs ... legislative police (( diversity )) state !

Both are wrong !

The libertarian dichotomy // short cut (( false trail )) !

[yoe]

“Gay pride” and all its arrogance rings hollow when you look at the numbers of those infected with the AIDs virus and other contributing debilities caused by the debauchery of some people. San Francisco’s problem leads the country – something to be really proud about.

[dogbyte12]

Define "fundamentalist."

I will take a crack at it.... Somebody who believes that all of the bible is true, but some parts are truer than others. While others believe that much of the bible is allegory, they believe that many of Jesus commandments aren't as important as Leviticus 20:13.

They believe that James 2:14 doesn't apply to them, yet get all excited about the part of Leviticus they agree with, but reject the rest. Then they use Paul as further justification for their beliefs while ignoring the fact that James, Peter, John, Mark, Matthew, Luke, and ya know Jesus did not share their emphasis. Not their concern mind you, but their emphasis. They twist the bible into pretzels.

They justify not following the sermon on the mount, and build shiny gold topped domes to justify Jesus, while they walk over his sheep the other 6 days of the week. They don't want to wait for God, so they try to ferment unrest in the mideast so God will hurry up, once the temple is rebuilt in Jerusulem.

If Jesus came back attired as he walked in life, they would shut the door on him if he knocked. They do not with love tell the prostitute, the tax collector, the sick, to follow them into the Lord, but call them vile sinners, to justify their self-righteousness. They are the pharisees, who sell video tapes in the temple, and convince others that they need to send $700 to Pat Robertson in order to find salvation. They do not get the point of the Good Samaritan, because they use the argument of the pharisees and lawyers instead of ministering to the unwashed. Condemning is much more satisfying then getting dirty. They do not act as if Jesus is watching them when they lie on their tax forms, ignore the less fortunate, rebuke others when there is still quite a mightly log in their own eye. They love Paul greater than Christ. They follow Paul's teachings must closer.

But... this is just my opinion.

[Ganymede]

Hey, how about this "orginial" thought . . . live your own life and let others live theirs. What's so difficult to grasp about that rather simple concept?

[Wallace T.]

There are, in effect, two Americas: the "red" nation that voted for Bush and the "blue" one that voted for Gore. The "reddest" of the "red" counties tend to be those with a high percentage of conservative evangelical Christians (except for the Mormon areas in Utah and adjacent states). The bluest of the "blue" counties tend to be areas where the proportion of the unchurched and advocates of alternate lifestyles are far larger than the national average (except for counties where blacks, Hispanics, or Indians are the majority). Muskogee, Oklahoma vs. Berkeley, California, if you will. Or Collin County, Texas (suburban Dallas) vs. Marin County, California (suburban San Francisco).

Consider that standards of public decency and decorum are far higher in the most conservative areas than in the more liberal areas. (In Hank Williams, Jr.'s words, we say please and we say ma'am. A far better attitude than "Whaddayawnt, Jack?") Taxes are lower, as are the fees charged for automobile registration and other items. The public school systems attempt to teach the students and not brainwash children in the latest PC and diversity fad. Generally speaking, local and state bureaucaracies are less intrusive. In Dallas, the city government recently banned panhandling on off-ramps and service roads of the local freeways. In San Francisco, the homeless regularly defecate and urinate in public and have turned public fountains into outdoor toilets.

Give me the "fundies" over the "godless Commies" any day!