MY OTHER BLOGS

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 01/2005

« MARYLAND GOV BOB EHRLICH TO HOMOPHOBES: YOU'RE FIRED! | Main | SUPREME COURT: PRIVACY IS SO YESTERDAY »

Friday, 16 June 2006

Comments

mike

You're an idoit! Whatever happened to personal responsibility or is that a hate crime as well. Don't break the LAW and you don't have to worry about being outed in the media or arrested.

The Angry Fag

Mike, this is not an issue about whether or not public sex is wrong and such. Only an idiot would argue in its favor.

The issue is that the media does not have the right to give out such information. It is of no consequence to the report nor the actions of these individuals. Providing the addresses of individuals cited for indecent exposure opens these individuals up for attacks and harassment and the media knows this. If you don't believe me, check out what happened when Michelle Malkin posted the contact information of anti-war protest organizers and the amounts of hate mail and death threats they got. Michelle got a taste of her own medicine when the same information about her was posted on the Internet.

justanother

I wonder if heterosexuals ever go there for "lunch time gratification"? In order to be cited for indecent exposure, i am assuming that these victims would have to expose themselves to the cops. The news report seemed to say that merely "approaching" the undercover police officer warranted citation. If that be the case, then it isnt the actual exposure, but the words which make indecent exposure. If that indeed is the case, then the cops should charge everyone in Knoxville who says "FUCK YOU" to another person with rape. Everyone who says "I wish he/she would die" with murder. And everyone who says "Lets hop in these bushes for a little comfort" with homosexuality.
Oh, and that reporter is a hot mess.

Eric

Names, ages and addresses? Add a picture and you've a new gay dating site.

Michael

This is long so forgive me but it is an email chain between myself and a newspaper columnist referencing his his letter printed in Maryville, TN which is right outside of Knoxville.The text of the letter is included. Although he said it was sarcastic it was still disgracefull so it is no surprise about the media attention.
The emails begin now:

"Well, my column was intended as sarcasm. Heavy, heavy sarcasm. I'm sorry you
didn't appreciate it. Feel free to make your opinion known in a letter to
the editor:
Letters the editor
c/o The Daily Times
P.O. Box 9740
Maryville, TN 37802
Thanks for reading, and thanks for the message!
Steve

----- Original Message -----
From: hdknoxtn@bellsouth.net
To: Steve Wildsmith steve.wildsmith@thedailytimes.com
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 6:38 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Letter To Two Senators

I believe in civil unions. The current political climate is not receptive
to the idea of "gay" marriage and makes that point by trying to ban it by
constitutional amendment. People need to get over this whole debate because
eventually same sex unions will happen sooner or later.

From: "Steve Wildsmith" steve.wildsmith@thedailytimes.com>
Date: 2006/06/15 Thu PM 06:09:35 EDT
To:hdknoxtn@bellsouth.net
Subject: Re: Letter To Two Senators
It was intended as sarcasm. I can't tell from your letter - do you
support or oppose gay marriage?
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: hdknoxtn@bellsouth.net
To: steve.wildsmith@thedailytimes.com
cc: hrc@hrc.org
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 6:08 PM
Subject: Letter To Two Senators
Mr. Wildsmith,
If your June 9th letter in your column was meant to be funny, it
wasn't.
If it wasn't, you and the editorial/management at the newspaper should
be
ashamed. Either way it was a disgrace.
Michael Richey
Knoxville, TN
"An open letter to two Tennessee senators
2006-06-09
Dear Sen. Bill Frist and Sen. Lamar Alexander:
I wanted to take a minute to thank you for your dedication to the
failed Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. It's nice to
know that despite the other pesky issues facing our nation -- a war,
the economy, hurricanes, the energy crisis, etc., etc. -- that our
esteemed Senators from Tennessee can join with their conservative
colleagues to
devote so much crucial government time to this obviously serious
issue.
Unfortunately, thanks to the liberal Democrats and a few Republican
turncoats, the proposed amendment is dead in the water in the Senate
this year. As an upstanding citizen concerned for the welfare of the
American family, I can't emphasize how much this distresses me. I feel
the sanctity of my marriage is threatened now, because gay people
aren't banned from joining in a similar union.
In fact, I'm almost afraid to go outdoors, for fear that a gay man
might leap from the bushes and attempt to marry me. Without this
proposed Constitutional amendment to protect me, what am I to do? I'm
asking for your advice, Senators, because this is obviously a threat
that extends beyond just me. Perhaps another two weeks of debate and
press conferences and grandstanding on the Senate floor will offer
some solutions.
Perhaps you could attack the gay situation through the newly passed
Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act. Hollywood is obviously a tool of
the devil, with its blatant promotion of the homosexual lifestyle and
its attempt to persuade heterosexual Americans that gay people are just
like the rest of us. Turn on your television any night of the week --
whether it's "The L Word'' or reruns of "Will and Grace'' or "Queer
Eye for the Straight Guy, '' gay has become chic, and that's leading to a
frightening blurring of the lines between gay and straight.
Why, just the other day I saw a man wearing a pink T-shirt that read,
"Tough guys wear pink.'' At the Eagleton Little League ball park, no
less! Obviously, the implication was that he was heterosexual, but
perhaps he wasn't. I was frozen in place, unsure of what to do. Do I
avoid him and ostracize him, like you want us to do for gay people, or
do I assume he's straight and making some sort of statement, in which
case it would seem the thing to do would be to pull him aside and tell
him, "Look man ... someone might think you're gay. Ditch the shirt.''
Not knowing what to do -- confront or discriminate -- I ran and hid in
my car until he walked by.
As my experience demonstrates, the whole "gay chic'' thing is
creating a climate of fear that makes it impossible for decent,
heterosexual
Americans to leave their homes without t having someone else's
personal
lifestyle choices flaunted in our faces. It was bad enough 50 years
ago that this country went through integration, which forced us to
deal
with people of different skin color; if action isn't't taken soon, I'm
afraid
we might have to face up to the idea that gay people deserve equal
treatment. Such an idea is absurd, of course, and I'm glad the both of
you --
educated men, one of whom happens to be a physician -- feel this
isn't
the case. Whether you eventually emerge from the gay debate victorious
or not, I think there are still a few measures left to consider.
Perhaps herding homosexuals -- at least the flamboyant ones -- into
internment
camps, like we did the Japanese back during World War II. Or confining
all broadcasts of gay-oriented television programs to the airwaves
after midnight, when most decent Americans are asleep and dreaming of
God
and guns and apple pie.
I'm sure the Founding Fathers would encourage such thinking. The
whole "all men are created equal'' thing originally included the
parenthetical reservation "(except for homos)'', until one of them --
I believe it was John Hancock, but it could have been Thomas
Jefferson,
both of whom I have heard were of sexually questionable orientation --
insisted that part be taken out.
In fact, I'm sure they would be proud of your work. I know that as a
Tennessean, I'm proud you present our state as a bastion of such
open-mindedness and kind-heartedness. Good luck to you both in your
future anti-homo endeavors.
Sincerely,
Steve
Steve Wildsmith is the Weekend editor for The Daily Times. Contact him
at steve.wildsmith@thedailytimes.com or at 865-981-1144."

Jeff Barea

One can sympathize that in a difficult environment, people will try to sneak off to find gratification wherever they can.

That being said, to call it gay bashing when police enforce neutral laws, is a bit much.

Sure, maybe the police are purposely targeting "gay sex" areas. But, hey, public sex is illegal for both homos and heteros. You take your chances and live with the results. The places where heteros troll en masse for sex are usually busted too, only for prostitution offences. Women are too smart to just give it away, I suppose.

It's quite a bit different from police using infra-red to watch you have sex in your own bathroom.

As far as Steve's column as noted in a comment, FRIGGIN HILARIOUS!!!!!!!

How can anyone view the line "I'm sure the Founding Fathers would encourage such thinking. The whole "all men are created equal'' thing originally included the
parenthetical reservation "(except for homos)"" as anything but clever ridicule of the anti-gay position?

Everyone, have good sex, just leave it where it belongs, in a bad marriage or back seat of a car.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)