Thursday, December 11, 2008

Gay Day Flops

AP reports: "Day Without a Gay" Participation Spotty. And that was dateline San Francisco.

From the story:

David Lang, 44, a San Francisco gymnastics coach who said he conceived of a similar idea right after the election, said he thinks a coordinated job action would have been more successful if organizers had enlisted support from sympathetic employers, labor groups and industries.

"If we are going to make a huge impact and not be laughed at, then we have to take the time and make the time to communicate with all the parties. We could have shut down a lot of the hotels," Lang said.

They were laughed at instead.

Mostly because in most places, gay employees (even in don't ask, don't tell environments) are valued, hard-working and accepted. (Or they wouldn't be working there, duh!)

The event was a flop because of guys like Paul Ellis and his employer Cliff's Variety hardware store.

"My employers have always been there in every possible way," Ellis told the AP. "I didn't feel comfortable discomfiting them when they have gone out of their way to be there for me."

Back to the drawing board for gay activists.

45 Comments:

Anonymous Bob said...

Cant we talk about somethinmg else? Post something about Joe the plumbers trashing of McCain. Or the new Bush talking points.

December 11, 2008 at 9:06 AM 
Anonymous r said...

I am disappointed that gay day flopped, and to think that I called out in support! This is a conreoversey started by the NEO-CONS.

December 11, 2008 at 9:39 AM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Why dont you post today's Times column by Gene Lyons "No Regrets for President Bush." That was much more interesting than Gay Day Flops. But, it is your post. You want to talk gay, we'll talk gay. OK. Here's a new question for the "Gay is a choice" proponents. Lets direct this to C. Scott. Or anyone else for that matter who believes Gay is a choice. Have you folks ever actually asked gay people if they were ever attracted to members of the opposite sex, or if they ever remember making a conscious decission to be gay? Wouldn't they be the authorities on this? And if their answers didn't fit in with your beliefs, would you consider them to be liars?
Here's a challenge for you Gil. You do it. Research and write a column about the results. Now that would be a column that would grab some attention.

December 11, 2008 at 10:01 AM 
Anonymous r said...

Gay sympathizers don't like news stories that reflect poorly on their gay buds so they try to supress the stories.

December 11, 2008 at 10:28 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob-
The new Bush talking points are the old Bush talking points that Spencer regurgitates every day.
Joe the Plumber's 15 minutes of fame ended a long time ago.

December 11, 2008 at 10:49 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob-
Gil actual research an article? The bartender needs to cut you off. Go home and sleep it off.

December 11, 2008 at 10:51 AM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Looks like the sociology class is up and at 'em.

December 11, 2008 at 10:58 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

I though sociology majors wake up around 11:30 am and attend class by 1 to fulfill their 9-credit semesters? No bong last night, gentlemen?

December 11, 2008 at 11:44 AM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Bob:

"Can't we talk about something else?"

Does this subject make you feel icky? Gil posts all sort of issues that can be talked about. This Gay Day thing is just more indoctrination. Homosexuals will do anything to make their plight seem similar to that of real minorities, like blacks.

Homosexuality is a choice, and any person has the power to leave homosexuality. One of the best ways to leave the homosexual lifestyle is to accept Christ as your Savior and to repent from the sin of homosexuality. Many people have done just that and they will be fine. The ones that don't, do so at their own peril.

Remember this about the propogation of man. If homosexuals by definition don't reproduce (since we know that no matter how hard same sex couples try, the only way to make a baby is the joining of a sperm with an egg), then how do they procreate and spread their genes? They don't, and the homosexuals that do reproduce go outside of homosexuality and either impregnate a woman, or become pregnant by a man (adoption does not count).

Homosexuality is a very bad thing, and I know many people who engage in homosexual practices and they are very nice people (accept for the ones who trash churches for support prop 8), who need our compassion to help lead them from their lifestyle choice.

Sort of like hate the sin love the sinner. Bob, being openly sympathetic to homosexuality may make you feel good inside, but it is very foolish when you think about it. Feelings should never replace rational thought.

C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.courtroomguru.com

December 11, 2008 at 11:53 AM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Come tho think of it Bob, how about we advocate a day for drug addicts, alcoholics, pedophiles, adulterers, thiefs, murderers, etc... Doesn't everyone need a day of recognition?

C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.cscottshields.com

December 11, 2008 at 12:10 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Scott,

What if someone doesn't believe in Christ as their savior? What if someone is attracted to the same sex and doesn't want to fight that urge.

Why do you care so much?

Activists gays have their agenda. Activist Christians have theirs.

Citing the bible or the church as the authority on such matters doesn't work with people who don't accept either as having authority over their lives.

In politics and society, you have to make an argument. There are, in fact, plenty of happy and nice gay people living in our society. Whether society should create a right for them to "marry" is a social and political question.

If the best argument you can come up with is "The Bible tells me so," that's pretty weak.

On the other hand, angry gay activists are the movement's worst enemies. Their specific targeting of Mormons for supporting Prop 8 in California, smacks of the ugliest kind of bigotry.

People should be repelled by such tactics and they are.

But this argument about whether homosexuality is a choice is stupid. The urge (the attraction) is not a choice. Whether to control that urge is a choice.

To the extent that we celebrate gay and straight sexual liberation in general we will get more of it, for good and for ill.

More sexually transmitted diseases, more unwanted pregancies, more immediate gratification, fewer long-term and lasting relationships.

In any case, that horse has left the barn. You are standing astride history and yelling stop! Somebody has to. But at least bring a couple of good arguments to the table in between yodels.

December 11, 2008 at 12:26 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Scott - How can you compare religion and rational thought? The two dont mix. You really believe Jonah lived in the belly of a whale? Or that Noah had that big boat with the animals on it? Changing water to wine? Is this rational? Homosexuality is "bad thing" only because people like you say it is. The truth is, it is something that occurs in nature in many different species. Yes, most people are straight, just like most people are right handed. Does that make being left handed bad? Why do you avoid answering the questions? When did you make a conscious decission to be straight? Have you asked gays if they had ever had an attraction to members of the opposite sex? Have you ever asked them if they ever remember making a decission to be gay? Can you give me a reason why anyone, given a choice, would prefer to be gay? Answer those questions Scott.

December 11, 2008 at 12:36 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

An unusually coherent posting from Spencerblog. Kudos.

A few questions for Scott:

1) When did you "choose" to be straight? Or did "little Scott" make the choice for you, like it does for everyone else.

2) Isn't religion a lot more choice than sexual orientation? Maybe we can cure you of your gun-toting Christ fixation.

3) Isn't Christ the guy with the 12 male Apostles and no girlfriend?

"If homosexuals by definition don't reproduce.."
Very false "if". The "definition" is that they have a preference, not that they can't reproduce or don't wish to reproduce. Reality shows that homosexuals have hidden behind the "heterosexual lifestyle" for years, while engaging in active homosexual relationships under the radar.

What's with this false "lifestyle" meme? Is it an attempt to portray gays as having some stereotypical behavior like wanting all their cars to be painted pink?

December 11, 2008 at 12:53 PM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

I think even the gay community felt this was a waste of time.


Gil, I agree with you RE: your response to c. scott.

December 11, 2008 at 12:53 PM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

wait, anonymous is now trying to tell us Jesus was gay? OOh, that's two 'off the deep end' comments in one blog post - one by c. scott and one by the anonymous-iano sociology majors, bigotry from both sides!!!

December 11, 2008 at 1:07 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

We thinks we accidentally deleted a small batch of OK comments. Anyone who wants to repost, feel free.

December 11, 2008 at 4:21 PM 
Anonymous Aaron Proctor said...

I have one or two gay friends. One says that they just decided when they were in their late teens that they liked man sex over vaginal sex.

The other says he felt he was always gay, since he was a kid.

So gays are even split in their own camp.

C. Scott is one of those dudes ruining it for us cool Conservatives.

December 11, 2008 at 4:31 PM 
Anonymous r said...

You're to quick with that trigger, G. If you can't handle the power turn it over to someone else.

December 11, 2008 at 5:44 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Aaron - So what is it? You have one gay friend or two gay friends? Going by Scotts theory, one of those gay friends must be lying to you. Or maybe you said you have one or two gay friends because you have doubts about one really being gay. In that case, turn him (or her) over to Father Shields. If you join his church, you get the choice of a free toaster or a semi automatic hand gun. But trust me on this Aaron. You can't just ask two people with opposing opinions, and then proclaim that gays are split 50-50 on the issue. It doesn't work that way. Did you read Gils take on this? He said "But this argument about whether homosexuality is a choice is stupid. The urge (the attraction) is not a choice. Whether to control that urge is a choice."
I couldn't have said it better myself.

December 11, 2008 at 7:04 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Funny. I was listening to NPR this morning and they were interviewing an editor from a newspaper in Pakistan. His life has been threatened by religious extremists because of his liberal views. His comment "Because of religious influence, our country is not ready for rational debate" Anyone on our blog come to mind?

December 12, 2008 at 9:10 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

r wrote: "You're to [too] quick with that trigger, G. If you can't handle the power turn it over to someone else."

Yea, "G", you must be trippin' and going all power mad. Sounds like "R" wants to be the steady hand wielding such ultimate power. But first, he has to pull the sword from the stone.

December 12, 2008 at 11:35 AM 
Anonymous r said...

I wouldn’t abuse the censor switch, DDD, like you and every other Lib would/ does.
I am against censorship. I believe in even letting Lib idiots have their say for all to see. The more the better, I say, which would be good for you! But…
No, if I were holding that power here very little would be censored out, other than spam, abuse and flaming and blatant dishonesty -which wouldn’t be good for many of your posts seeing the light of computer screen. Lol…

December 12, 2008 at 2:50 PM 
Anonymous Aaron Proctor said...

Should have clarified...I know a few gay people. One or two are what I'd consider "friends". Acquaintances, maybe about 3 more. I say "maybe" because the jury is still out on one. So... 5?

Does that help, Bob?

Would you also like to know how many left-handed friends I have? Episcopalians? Fans of 60's Western "Branded"?

December 12, 2008 at 8:29 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

since you don't know the difference between truth and lie, you'd have a difficult time filtering out the "blatant dishonesty".

Here's a helpful tip: anything you agree with is almost certainly false.

December 13, 2008 at 1:23 AM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Yea. Let Randal take over the blog. It would be like letting Bush run the country. A total lack of good intelligence.

December 13, 2008 at 7:07 AM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Aaron - so grasshopper. Question the remaining three, and you will be closer to the truth.

December 13, 2008 at 11:14 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

bob, everybody knows that "r" is really spence-"r" and he's just a character spencer does to boost the counts. i though everybody knew that.

December 13, 2008 at 11:20 AM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Anon - Nope. I've researched this. As unfortunate as it may sound, there really is a Randal.

December 13, 2008 at 3:46 PM 
Anonymous Anony-claus said...

Yes, Anonymous, there is a Randal. He exists as certainly as hate and greed and bigotry exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its great ugliness and sorrow. Alas! how happy would be the world if there were no Randal. It would be as happy as if there were more Anonymous. There would be no childlike arguments then, no bigotry, no racism to make intolerable this existence. We should have enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be reignited.

No Randal! God d*mn it! he lives, and he lives forever. A thousand years from now, Anonymous, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, he will continue to make sad the heart of childhood.

December 13, 2008 at 10:49 PM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Gil - I care about people and about helping them. I gave a biblical explanation for how you can leave that lifestyle, and i gave a brief science/genetic explanation as to why people aren't born that way.

It is a destructive lifestyle and it should not be pushed by government as normal. I am not calling hor any homosexaul to be harmed, but i do think it is very destructive to a society to force people to accept it as natural.

AP - what is a cool conservative? Hope you don't agree with Colin Powell on this one. As for abortion, how is it that philadelphia can violate the law and precedent in passing local gun laws (because there were 400 murders last year), yet there is silence about the 12,000 plus abortions that were performed within its city limits. What should the priorities be?

Bob - what is natural about homosexuality? Can or will homosexuals ever be able to reproduce? How about a list of approved topics? Would not want to ever offend anyone!

C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.cscottshields.com

December 15, 2008 at 8:02 AM 
Anonymous r said...

The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be reignited.

Childhood = Libism. But most thinking people outgrow it and learn to not rely on their emotions to form their every view like children do.


I've researched this. ...there really is a Randal.

I think Bob has a crush on me. It's good to know that I mean sooo much to him.
I mean it's pathetic.

December 15, 2008 at 11:10 AM 
Anonymous Bob said...

I know R if for real because I overheard a couple of guys laughing about him at the Locust Crest one night.

Scott - Your religious views prevent you from having a rational discussion on this subject. Thats why I feel its a waste of time. And once again you avoid the important questions on this issue.
And yes a homosexual can reproduce. Many do. Just because they have an attraction to members of the same sex, does not mean they can't perform with members of the opposite sex, and have children. My X has 2 soms. My uncle was gay. He had five children. And Scott, all of the prayer in the world will not change a gay persons attraction to the same sex. Im not a believer, but since you are, have you ever considered the possibility that your god intended for these people to be gay? Do you really believe that there are gays who have been converted to being straight by Christ? You have several daughters. Would you be comfortable having one of your daughters marrying someone who was a converted gay?

December 15, 2008 at 9:24 PM 
Anonymous r said...

I know R if for real because I overheard a couple of guys laughing about him at the Locust Crest one night.

Your implication of people laughing about me there is a lie. But then, as I stated above, much of what you post is dishonest and generated by your hurt feelings, so...

December 16, 2008 at 12:40 AM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Wow. I didn't know Randal was such a sensitive guy. Didn't mean to hurt his feelings. Sounds as though he's getting in touch with his feminine side. It is true that I'm fascinated by Randal. The same way that I'm fascinated by the primates at the zoo.

December 16, 2008 at 8:39 AM 
Anonymous r said...

It’s not so much about me as I don’t let Libs like you and DDD get away with even your petty lying unchallenged, is all. And you seem to do it all the time anymore, in the posts I read anyway.
It is clear that due to my repeated hurting of your fragile feminine feelings that you hate me and will stoop to anything in order to bash me and avenge those hurt feelings. Lol… Pretty much just exactly like what you do to Bush and for the very same reasons. Pathetic is a good word for this. Childish is another. Liberal is even better. Suck it up and get a life, Boring Bob.

Anyway, just to correct the record, truth be known, I have many fans none of whom would laugh “about” me in a ridiculing way, as you dishonestly attempted to implicate here.

December 16, 2008 at 11:14 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob wrote: "The same way that I'm fascinated by the primates at the zoo."
At least when Randal throws his feces, it just a posting.

Randal wrote:"Anyway, just to correct the record, truth be known, I have many fans none of whom would laugh “about” me in a ridiculing way, as you dishonestly attempted to implicate here."

Randal, Bob wasn't referring to your stuffed animal friends you cry yourself to sleep with every night.

Scott wrote: "i gave a brief science/genetic explanation as to why people aren't born that way."

Your argument is non-science (and nonsense). Not only is it a poor extrapolation of a misunderstanding of ninth grade biology, but it is completely contradicted by of all the latest REAL scientific findings.

December 16, 2008 at 11:38 AM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Bob:

Obviously in your family it is a choice. More importantly however, since you are a non-believer there is nothing that I say that will ever be viewed as rational by you. Additionally, there are many people who have left the homosexual lifestyle. I understand it is a choice but no one is born gay as the law of natural selection would require that a true "gay" gene would die off. Perhaps the better explanation is that homosexuals are deviant perverts, but nonetheless nice people. Smithson does not come to mind. Lastly, if one of my kids married or got involved with a former homosexual I would ask questions, and I would be very curious why they changed and if it was a conscious "choice".

C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.cscottshields.com

December 16, 2008 at 6:14 PM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Bob:

One last thing, if you are a believer and you believe in the Good News of the Bible, then yes, God did not intend to make homosexuals as the Bible is crystal clear that homosexuality is an abomination. Hope that clears it up for you.

One last thing, I hope that you don't believe that I am in favor of discriminating against homosexuals because I am not. I just don't think that they should get special status. Got that?

C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.cscottshields.com

December 16, 2008 at 6:19 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Scott - Well, I'm glad that you are not in favor of discrimination of gays. We agree on one thing here. I don't think they deserve special status either. Fair enough. But as for your theory, you believe that for someone to be gay, that person would have to make a conscious decission to ba attracted to members of the same sex. That would mean that we all, at some point in our lives, would have to make a conscious decission as to what gender we are attracted to. So again, my questions to you. Assuming that you are attracted to women, do you remember ever making that conscious decission? Are gay people who say they had no choice in their attraction to the same gender, liars?

December 16, 2008 at 8:02 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Scott - A word of advice. In the event that one of your daughters ever does have to deal with this situation, tell her to run the other way.

December 16, 2008 at 10:17 PM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Bob:

I do believe that homosexuals make a conscious decision to engage in same sex acts. I also think that people make conscious decisions to steal, bribe, commit perjury, assault, murder, drive drunk, do drugs, have sex with animals, commit adultery, etc...

C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.cscottshields.com

December 17, 2008 at 9:39 AM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Scott - Maybe we're getting somewhere here. Of course gay people make a conscious decission to engage in homosexual acts. We all make a conscious decission to engage in sexual acts. Unless of course we are unconscious at the time. But would you agree that people dont make a conscious decission as to who they are attracted to?

December 17, 2008 at 10:51 AM 
Anonymous r said...

I hope that you don't believe that I am in favor of discriminating against homosexuals because I am not. I just don't think that they should get special status.

Agreed. I feel the same way about blacks and other eternal Lib "victim" groups.


But would you agree that people dont make a conscious decission as to who they are attracted to?

The is great difference between having urges and acting on them ...and forcing others to accept them as normal.
Do you believe that some people are born criminal? Shoud we just accept that?


A word of advice. In the event that one of your daughters ever does have to deal with this situation, tell her to run the other way.

Good advice from a guy who knows a thing or two about that! Lol...

December 17, 2008 at 11:11 AM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Bob - people do make a conscious decision to who and what they are attracted to. For instance, auto thiefs and carjackers are attracted to nice vehicles, rapists are attracted to weak women (in some instances), embezzlers are attracted to their employer's money, thieves are attracted to other people's stuff, pedophiles are attracted to underage children, child pornographers are attracted to child pornography, and Smithson was attracted to Jason Shepard, etc....

See where this is going, Bob? The attraction needs to be resisted, except that with homosexuals the anti-sodomy laws have been ruled unconstitutional in the states, but not in th Uniform Code of Military Justice, where sodomy is a crime just like adultery.

Hope that helps.

C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.cscottshields.com

December 17, 2008 at 3:35 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Scott - I think those analogies are pretty weak, although I do believe that certain criminal behavior, as well as many other personality traits can be genetic. But thats another issue. For some reason, you always avoid my one question. When did you make a conscious decission to be attracted to women? Why is that so hard for you to answer?

December 17, 2008 at 5:51 PM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home