I wonder will gay rights activists speak out against this terrible behavior?
Probably not, especially since the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force announced a new alliance in May 2004 with the Woodhall Freedom Foundation. The WFF works to "affirm sexual freedom as a fundamental human right by protecting and advancing freedom of speech and sexual expression."
Translated: We want men to have sex in the park in front of children if that makes them happy.
According to an NGLTF press release dated May 28, 2004, the NGLTF/WFF coalition will focus first on studying America’s “archaic” sex laws and will then file lawsuits to have these laws overturned. The NGLTF says this will include laws against “public lewdness, but which are routinely misused to persecute and prosecute people who participate in non-traditional forms of sexual expression.”
The WFF also "advocate[s] for decriminalization and social acceptance of consensual sexual expression."
Translated: We want men to have sex in public parks in front of children if that makes them happy.
And this is gay rights??
10 comments:
radical,
do you support homosexual men having sex in public parks? Yes or no. Long answer will be deleted. Let's get this on the record.
Public sex is disgusting and illegal whether it is gay or straight, period.
My question is how many of these public cruisers are men on the downlow who go out to public parks to escape the wife and kids?
You can go into any internet chat room and find tons of Married "straight" men who cruise online for sex while the wife's at work.
I'm sure they're pastors, parents, mayors of cities in Washington state, congressmen from Virginia, etc.
Gee, the ole "theyre not gay" line.
Predictable.
Men who have sexual relations in any form with other men are still gay/homosexual.
Seems like you want to disown them now.
Hopefully you will alert the activist organizations you support and tell them to condemn this behavior and work with the police to stop it.
DL,
Men with a wife and kids don't identify themselves as gay generally. They just like to go to public parks and pick up other men for sex.
If you ask them if they are gay, they will deny it.
Why do you discount their testimony? If they say they're not gay, I believe them.
Are they only gay when they're having sex in the park? When they take the family to Chuck E. Cheese's are they straight?
When they're having relations with their wife are they straight?
How much time has to pass between same-sex encounters until one is considered straight?
Pop quiz....Michael Johnston, gay or straight?
Yet another ridiculous argument. What sensible person would suppor the kind of behaviour that you describe in your post? No one, that's who.
Your so-called “translation" of WFF’s mission to "affirm sexual freedom as a fundamental human right by protecting and advancing freedom of speech and sexual expression." into as you put it, “We want men to have sex in the park in front of children if that makes them happy” is baseless and completely without foundation.
to anonymous blog critic:
I think the translation is a perfect one. Too bad you choose to ignore clear eveidence of the gay community's complicit hand in helping this destable conduct to continue by members of its own community.
You asked who would "suppor"[sic] this kind of behavior?
DUH!
Try WFF and NGLTF to begin with.
Men with a wife and kids don't identify themselves as gay generally. They just like to go to public parks and pick up other men for sex.
Such an easy, easy out. Just deny they are gay. Generally. Ok. I know you only want to own the ones with the BMW good job and adopted a Korean kid.
Well, I’m glad to see that you picked up my dropped “t” (support). Funny that in doing so you misspelled “eveidence” and “destable” — far more egregious mistakes in my opinion.
But never mind the nit-picking. You may well think that your translation is “a perfect one” (no bias there!) but you haven’t made your case in any way, shape or form to support the idea of the gay community’s “complicit hand” that you allude to. However, given there is, as you say, “clear evidence” of it supposedly facilitating the detestable behaviour to which you refer, it should be absolutely no problem whatsoever for you to provide it.
Sorry, I removed your post because this isnt a "Michael Johnston" discussion. I thought you might have caught that by the title.
KEvron,
if your comments werent so filthy and perverted I would leave it as an example of the type of homosexuals who despise truth. Too bad you wont get any soapbox time here. Into the delete box you go.
Post a Comment