NY Times articale on Gay Marriage ban.......... — Page 2

I recently happily spent many handsful of tokens to enjoy selections from a video She-Male Paradise. I now understand the best of both worlds. It was the very threshold of revelation, I must tell you.

---

Guys, here's my point, plain and simple.

1. You have an agenda that depends on the majority for support.
2. You behave publicly in ways that make the majority uncomforable about you and your agenda.
3. You hurt your own standing with the majority whom you hope will support your agenda.
4. You lose support for your agenda by the majority.

It's not that hard to fathom. Nor is my POV offensive. It's practical sense.

Bulldog.

so we have to make str8 people happy in order to be treated like equal citizens??? We have to tip toe around them so that we can be treated equally?? hmm.. nope.. not offensive at all...

amen Mr Matt

AARRGGHHH!!!!

Okay, now that I got that out of my system. You had me almost on your side up until now Bulldog. I really thought, given some of your past posts, that I understood what you were trying to say and that it wasn't quite as offensive as it initially seemed. Boy, was I wrong.

I never really argue with anyone on this board, usually the subject of the argument isn't worth the effort and I feel it's best to walk away and not fuel the fire. This is one issue however where I will say exactly what I feel.

There is no Gay Agenda. That is a ridiculous concept invented by conservative, family values, right wing idiots who want to make gays and lesbians appear to be evil people with a hidden to push their values on the rest of the world. I personally am not walking around witha clipboard checking off the agenda items. I don't know any gay or lesbian person who is. The values and morals that we subscribe to are no different tahn the average person.

Let me tell you my big "agenda item" when it comes to gay marriage. I had a long term partner who was, toward the end of our realtionship, very ill (no it wasn't aids). I used to rush him ocassionally to the ER and would sit all night long in a hallway waiting to hear of his condition. His condition would be reported to me by his parents or brother who were the only people allowed in to see him. I was relegated to the waiting area becuse after ten years of a committed relationship, I was not "Family" in the eyes of the hospital staff or the law. As his leagal partner, I would have been allowed to sit with him, hold his hand, comfort him and help him make decisions about treatment.

So, tehre's the big evil gay agenda, the right to share a life with teh person you love and do in the same way that any heterosexual couple does.

Can you tell me what about that desire will topple the world, cause chaos and bring to ruin the traditional family?

---

amen orion.

thank you ned flanders, you stud of a fundamentalist, you.

---

Snap!

---

Actually no. Some of us are pointing out how what you said is extremely offensive to some members of the board.

To those of you who's goal is to attack anyone who doesn't see the world the way you do, may you find peace and someone to love you in the new year.

There are real villians in the world and they are not your colleagues on BroadwayWorld.com.

Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!

What about lust? Peace and love are fine, but it's the lust that keeps me going.

---

I actually know what Bulldog might be referring to.

Many years ago, when Clinton was President, I took part in the great Gay & Lesbian March on Washington and it was a glorious, empowering experience. For once, it seemed we had all put our differences behind us and were cheering each other on - men, women (or wymyn), black, white, red, yellow, etc. etc. ad infinitum. The high point of the weekend was the President's meeting with several Gay rights representatives. I saw the photo of the group meeting Clinton, and everyone was dressed conservatively (the men in suits, the women in sleek business dresses or slacks)..but one member was in full leather S&M drag. I cringed. Yes, there is a time and place for leather. But meeting YOUR president wasn't the moment. Mr. Leather might have thought he was making a statement of sorts, but he was walking right in the trap of the rabid right-wing homophobes that comb the footage of these events to use in hateful videos that get shown to a surprisingly large audience. This is catnip to the Far Right.

I love the variety of our community, but I don't think it would be a bad thing to be a little sneakier and shreweder in trying to attain our goals (Remember, Bush described himself as a 'Uniter, not a Divider' HA!). I actually think that nothing would discomfort the Right Wing Fascists in this country than footage of a perfectly bland Gay pride rally.

---

You're right that the rabid right wing homophobes comb the footage for something to harp about, but the fact is, I have no idea if the image of a man in leather was something they did use in a negative light. But I do feel safe in assuring you that if they didn't have him to focus on, they would have focussed on the women wearing slacks. SLACKS! Think of what Phyllis Schlaffly would do with that.

First they came for the leather bottoms, but I didn't speak up, because I was a top...

---