I don’t think that pride celebrations are intended to be the side shows they’ve become.  As I said before, I think that has more to do with San Francisco than it has to do with pride celebrations in general.  For instance, take the Bay to Breakers.  Other cities have similar running races, like the Wharf to Wharf in Santa Cruz, and the old Mercury 10K here in San Jose.  Why is it that only the Bay to Breakers was and is a side show?

As far as the other stuff, it was the case that a lot of immigrant populations were pretty unruly when most of the people were male laborers.  Drinking, gambling, houses of prostitution and the like were common vices in these populations.  Once the women started coming over, and people married and had families, things changed.  I understand that gay couples can’t have children, but I think marriage will nonetheless have a settling effect on people.

Make no mistake, gays are discriminated against.  That’s why I have to make the usual disclaimer.  I’m not gay.  I do that because there is a stigma to being gay.  It shouldn’t matter, but it does.

It has to change.

I liked homosexuals a lot more when they were societal rebels who scoffed at things like marriage and military service.  If you’re going to be gay, and yet otherwise a totally conventional, socially conformist person, what’s the point?

Please name the political movement, associated with either Spring Break or the Mardi Gras, that is trying to win the hearts and minds of America.

That you missed my point is an understatement. The pride celebrations, their narcissistic nature aside, are made significant to the discussion by two things: one, they are enthusiastically embraced by the movement; two, they’ve successfully strong-armed numerous elected officials into approving public displays of debauchery. That such behavior is embraced by the movement—with nary an objection from moderates heard, is evidence of an agenda that goes far beyond that publicly stated (the winning of so-called “rights”), to one including a resentment-inspired desire to push even the most offensive components of their lifestyle right into the faces of heterosexual America. That such behavior is tolerated or even applauded by politicians just goes to show what blind ambition looks like in an empty, pathetic vessel.

I found it laughable that you shared your opinion of gay marriage. Again, you don’t get it. It doesn’t matter whether you think it no threat to civilization, because it doesn’t matter what you think, or I think, or the majority of voters of this state think. The definition of marriage has been removed from the public’s reach. Activists, both in and out of office, have teamed up with the media to usurp from the public the right to define its own culture, and that should outrage everyone.

From the start, marriage, along with other expressions of cultural values (the control of alcohol, the age of consent, the punishment for criminal acts, etc.) has been in the hands of state voters; the theory being that, given regional and traditional differences, the people knew best how to make the rules reflect their values. That is exactly why gay activists first targeted the state’s voters (directly and through their representatives) in seeking, first, civil unions (which they got and then used as evidence of unfairness) and, second, gay marriage, which the people voted down.

And that’s when, like spoiled, self-centered children, they abandoned both the law and the people, and resorted to the unsightly, uncouth bath house politics that’s landed them at the Supreme Court.

XY+XX = evolution
XY+XY = dead end of the species

From that over eons humankind has recognized the necessity of the male/female dynamic.  It’s not about love or who you want to swap spit with it’s the core of our species.

Marriage merely became a way of the centuries of recognizing that.

I am all in favor of anyone having “equal rights” but how far do we want to expand those rights?  Father/daughter, brother/sister, etc.

Same gender persons should have full rights as found in any societal/legal/domestic agreement.  Marriage is just one means of achieving that.

Frankly I think homosexuals would be embarrassed to even want the “marriage” label.  They have struggled too long to be accepted as they are.  Why try to mask it with the facade of marriage?  One man wearing a dress at the alter isn’t going to fool anyone. It’s still two guys.  If they really had pride they would drop this nonsense, just say “this is who we are” and go on with their lives.

“Gay” marriage can only open a can of worms that we will all resent. After all polygamy has been a cultural norm for centuries in many societies.  It still has the XY=XX natural element just adds some more XX XX XX to it. Certainly then there is a right to that.

And please pick another tag besides “Gay” woman/woman have their L word – is “Gay” the best there is for man/man?  In older dictionaries it is a derogatory word for homosexual male and it sounds like a new toothpaste or something.  Try something more manly – too Doris Day sounding, almost apologetic.

What about all those Lent related celebrations like Mardi Gras?  What about Spring Break celebrations in places like Florida and Palm Springs?

I don’t go to gay pride parades, but I’m going to guess that the ones in San Francisco are a lot different from the ones in San Jose.  If you’re complaining about San Francisco, then complain about San Francisco.  I don’t think that allowing same sex marriages will result in the end of civilization as we know it in San Jose.  San Jose will still be San Jose, and San Francisco will still be San Francisco.

Witnessing the development of the gay rights movement has been indeed educational, as I now understand that viewing homosexuals through the lens of sexual behavior and gender identity obscures the powerful self-centeredness that not only fuels the movement’s rise and enduring efforts, but explains the tiresome obsessions of those elected from its ranks to office. In short, the manner of their political movement has exposed them as being more different than commonly acknowledged. 

What other group, I ask you:

—would dare demand from society respect as a unique and equal group while at the same time holding massive parades featuring public nudity, simulated (and some not so simulated) sex acts, and grossly ostentatious, immature behavior? In short, “This is us, and objecting to it will soon be a hate crime.”

—would, by way of a sexual appetite far beyond the bounds of sanity, recklessly fornicate themselves into a national health crisis and then blame bigotry and the government for it? Whereas reckless sexual behavior once conjured up visions of sailors on leave, what is now known is that reckless sexuality (unprotected and obsessive sex in bath houses, public restrooms, parks, highway rest stops) is a powerful factor in gay sexual behavior; one that has nothing to so with bigotry or government indifference, but everything to do with taking AIDS to epidemic status.

—would, in seeking a privilege via a redefining the cultural lexicon, dare to drape a campaign in the robes of liberation while at the same time unfairly branding as bigots (and/or terrorizes) those holding the traditional views of their family, church, and nation? In a twist on original sin, as far as gay rights go, we are all the children of bigots.

Unlike those movements hampered by their own intellectual limitations, members of the gay community represent the full spectrum of the cognitive scale, something evident from the legally cunning and publicly duplicitous manner in which it’s waged its campaign. This is a group that, in its quest to gain the benefits of legal status, has never hesitated in bending, perverting, or violating any law standing in its way. Like an undisciplined, impulsive child grabbing at a toy in the hands of another, the gay rights movement’s disrespect for the sanctity of the law has been obvious and annoying. And, just as would be expected of a child after successfully wrestling away a toy, you can count on the movement to insist the much coveted law be strictly respected once obtained.

Don’t we still call those who engage in such behavior brats?