Posted by steve on July 12, 2008 at 5:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeeeee Ha! Here we go! A situation where all parties have a sound reasoning in their decisions and statements.

It is my belief that all the land east of I-95 should be it's own state. We bring in a large part of tourism dollars that offend Greenville. Off shore gambling, anyone? Strip-clubs? Gay tourists?

I'd add to Thomas1776 query:

- I think voters have a right to know which House Members and State Senators are adulterers.

- I think voters have a right to know which House Members and State Senators are divorced.

- I think voters have a right to know which House Members and State Senators are employed and by who.

- I think voters have a right to know which House Members and State Senators are behind child support.

- I think voters have a right to know which House Members and State Senators have broken the laws of our State and Country in any way.

Have at it y'all.

Posted by 10216340 on July 12, 2008 at 7:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I have revised my opinion. Senator Ford is more of an idiot than I once thought.

Posted by beth1070 on July 12, 2008 at 7:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

We should not target any particular group to come and spend money in our our state...just bring your money, spend it, and go home!

Posted by abitskeptical on July 12, 2008 at 7:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Warren Redman-Gress of the Charleston-based Alliance For Full Acceptance said the campaign was misguided in part because the state is not as gay-friendly as others."

"State Sen. Robert Ford, D-Charleston...said his only problem with the ad expenditure was that it was going to a London marketing firm, not a local one."

Did someone say something was misguided?

Posted by majorjohnson on July 12, 2008 at 8:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't see what the problem is. If the state wants to stick to not chasing any particular party, be it gays, christians, sports enthusiasts, bird watchers, fine. If they want to spend money going after any go after all. The money gays spend is the same color as the money Christians spend, and it all puts food on the table.

Posted by Brant on July 12, 2008 at 8:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

what people are forgetting is that the LBGT population votes and pays taxes just like other people. They have a disposable income that is somewhere in the billions of dollars. The money we spend is the same color, came from the same mint as that spent by bikers, pseudo-christians, denisons of NASCAR and others.
The only reason the the LGBT community is thought of as being just south of lepers is thru ignorance and intolerance. If you're a merchant and someone is paying you for, say, a souvenir, are you going to stand there and play twenty questions and ask them about their lifestyle? Not unless you're an ignorant redneck or an ingorant jesusian. Money is money and it talks.

Posted by RTC on July 12, 2008 at 9:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ignorance? Intolerance?
I don't think so. If they want to draw more of these people into this state then continue to let private industry do the advertising.

Posted by a_set_love on July 12, 2008 at 9:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Johnq2 - that guy was really, a closet Liberal Democrat.

Posted by Lois_Lane on July 12, 2008 at 9:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jeez...let the GAYmes begin...
who the hell wants more gay PEOPLE to COME visit SC? go away.

Posted by a_set_love on July 12, 2008 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think that "South Carolina is so gay" is totally misleading and false. They may be right about the City of Charleston or even Columbia, not most of the state.

Wouldn't want the great minds of the EU to come here..... and sue for false advertising, would you.

Posted by RTC on July 12, 2008 at 10:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

tripsa, my children inherited old story books with the words "gay" and "queer" used to describe most all of the characters.
Those treasured books are now antiquated, because the use of those words has been twisted to mean something entirely different.
Sorry, but it sickens me.

Posted by steve on July 12, 2008 at 10:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

RTC & tripsa: I too lament the twisting of our vocabulary. Who changed the definitions?

Go to any school and you'll hear the phrase "that's gay".

Put the Label Makers back in your crafts box where they belong. Humans are humans. Sorry, but some of them sicken me.

Posted by ysillyme on July 12, 2008 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sounds like another example of straight South Carolinians getting hosed. Any thought to the diseases that those folks leave behind w/ their dollars? What about having to explain to your grandchildren why two girls are holding hands and kissing down at Colonial Lake? (Last week) When I asked them to consider the families in the area I was called a homophobe and they promptly engaged in a french kiss. I know Riley would disagree, but tourist dollars from gay and transgendered tourists aren't worth degrading our beautiful state.

Posted by FiscalConservative on July 12, 2008 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It should have read "South Carolinians Love it in the Butt" due to how our legislature screws us all.

Posted by drp7773 on July 12, 2008 at 10:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow i can see Ford dressed like the cop in the village people no wonder he is so irritable that 70's outfit is too tight.

Posted by STREETLAW on July 12, 2008 at 10:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Now there's some news. Robert Ford thinks?

I know him as a man of action but he can actually think? Perhaps he can explain how there is anything here that would attract gays anymore than heterosexuals, transvestites, or eunuchs? No he can't explain that. It was a stupid remark.

The liberals have coined the term "homophobia" as a shield against gay criticism of any kind. I have another term they might find fitting in this case.

Gay obsession.

Posted by Smart_Enough_2_Know_Better on July 12, 2008 at 10:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I must say I'd rather have gay Londoners visiting here than the French- gay or otherwise.

But since we've decided to be so oddly specific in targeting our advertising, why not also add the Special Olympics to our advertising slate, with a slight tweak to the ad- South Carolina is so retarded.

Posted by jncturner on July 12, 2008 at 11:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Brant

I am NOT an "ignorant Jesusian" - whatever that is. I AM a believer in Christ and God's Word that tells us that woman was made from and for man. I don't "play twenty questions" with anybody over their sexual preferences or aberrations or abominations, but when the homosexual crowd wears them like a medal or pushes them in my face, I have a right to react. On the West Coast - where I live - the homosexual society is allowed to flaunt their lifestyle, even to the point of, not only PDA's, but public nudity, without much more than a scolding or slap on the wrist. If income was all that the argument was about, then there would be no argument.

Posted by KidYendor on July 12, 2008 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As contributors here have noted before, take out the gay word and insert homosexual. Thus, "South Carolina is so homosexual." "Gay" er "homosexual pride weeks"? Can we have "normal pride weeks"? Ford has introduced a bill so no one's civil rights are impinged based on sexual practices. Oh, so I guess us normals have to like and happily associate with the homosexuals, necrophiliacs, and bestialityacs after the bill is passed, or else. Ford you need to mind your own business in these matters and just worry about income redistribution like Democrats love to do.

Posted by steve on July 12, 2008 at 11:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Oh, so I guess us normals have to like and happily associate with the homosexuals, necrophiliacs, and bestialityacs after the bill is passed, or else."

Oh, really? What would Jesus think of that statement? Not much according to my conversations with him.

Posted by abitskeptical on July 12, 2008 at 12:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Before I start, I'll put forth a classic "disclaimer":

Over the years there have been several people who have crossed my life-friends, acquaintances, one relative(of which I am aware) that are homosexual.

Almost never did the topic of sexual preferences come up...we had other things of interest to discuss. They did not ask for my opinion or approval, nor did they feel the need to "flaunt" private preferences all over the place. For the record. I do not care to have heterosexual folks flaunting their private preferences all over the place either.

One time, a school bus-stop acquaintance announced that she had a female partner, that she didn't know me enough to know what I thought about that. Her motive was to be open w/ people she & her child saw regularly in hope that her child did not get hurt. We'd had friendly conversation for about a week prior to that & although the topic never came up, I'd already sort of guessed what her situation was.

My response to her was that since she seemed to want to know where I stood, I would tell her, even though I felt a bit awkward about doing that & that I hoped she understood my position as much as she hoped to be understood.

I told her that I believe that any sexual relationship outside of a marriage between a man & a women is sinful (we'd previously had discussion on the churches we each attended), but that being said, I also did not believe homosexuals were the only poster children for sin & I certainly never held innocent children accountable for actions of their parents.

She appreciated my honesty & although we are not close friends, we continue to be friendly to this day--she feels comfortable enough to ask if she can bring her child to watch the fireworks from our dock.

I respect the fact that she does not "require" of me to express or feel approval of her lifestyle. I respect the fact that she understands that I can respect & love her as a human being & child of God without being forced into acting like I agree with her choices.

Posted by halfsheli on July 12, 2008 at 12:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"I think voters have a right to know which House Members and State Senators are homosexuals."

really thomas?

because sexuality is directly indictative of legislative ability? I personally would rather know their qualifications, knowledge and skills in the areas of law making, negotiation, budgeting, and, of course, ensuring equal basic human rights for ALL humans.

Posted by halfsheli on July 12, 2008 at 1 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If this state is going to advertise generically for tourists regardless of sexuality, gender, age, religion, race, blood type, shoe size, etc. then fine. But if it's okay to gear an ad towards bikers or men or retirement-aged tourists or spring-breakers, then why not the homosexual population?

It baffles me that bigotry aimed at homosexuals is still okay. But heaven forbid any other group (blacks, whites, christians, catholic priests, liberals, conservatives, wiccans, etc) be treated the same.

I personally don't see how homosexuals "disgust" people merely based on their private lifestyles (by the way, heterosexual PDA -- equally inappropriate). Yet, if I were to announce my personal disgust of say... people who support the using a state or federal constitution to limit the basic human rights of a segment of society, then how many of you would begin to bash me?

Posted by bkeelin on July 12, 2008 at 4:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Steve, "Oh, really? What would Jesus think of that statement? Not much according to my conversations with him."

Jesus would have associated with them and told them that what they were doing was wrong. The woman caught in the act of adultery was not condemned by Jesus but she was told to "go and SIN NO MORE", my emphasis. Make no mistake Jesus went to those who were SICK to bring healing, not to those who weren't. He told all to repent. Don't try and twist Jesus into this loving mushy guy who never called sin what it was, because He certainly told people to repent from their sin. He did this because He loved them, not to be hateful but because HE Loved them. We tell people the truth because we care, they may not like it, they may not believe it but in the end they will find out we told them the truth, not our truth but God's truth. If you don't like God's truth take it up with HIM.

Posted by halfsheli on July 12, 2008 at 4:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I know many homosexuals that do not flaunt their sexuality. I also know many heterosexuals that do (my own husband included -- to a mild degree!).

Also, I work in the public school system and I absolutely refute your claims of a "gay agenda" in that arena. If anything, I have only witnessed a mostly negative perception of homosexuals in schools. What gay agenda do you speak of anyway? Are the gays trying to make all the striaght people gay? Are they killing god or Jesus? Are they advocating for a nuclear holocaust? Maybe they're just hoping for acceptance. Maybe they are hoping that the same basic human rights that apply to you and me could also apply to them.

RW -- I don't get what you mean by non(e)believers. I do have beliefs. They just don't include squashing the rights and liberties of ANYONE.

I get that religions will pick and choose who they believe to be sinners and who they believe to be righteous. That is their perogative. Afterall, religion is a choice. You get to choose which one you believe in. Some choose Christianity; some choose Atheism, some choose Hinduism or Islam...

That does not, however, excuse the publicly elected government for passing laws that limit gay rights. What is the basis? The Bible says homosexuality is a sin? So what. What does the bible have to do with government-sanctioned marriage (or any government sanctioned activity)?

I wonder about another agenda. One that seeks to keep a segment of society down? Does that feel good?

Even if the Bible condemns homosexuals, doesn't it also peach acceptance? Kind of contradictory, eh? Seems to me that Bible readers take what they want and leave the rest.

Posted by steve on July 12, 2008 at 5:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@bkeelin & rw: abitskeptical hit the nail on the head. She's true Christian Lady in my eyes.

@halfshei: Amen.

BTW: The ad really sucks - pun & review intended. Robert Brown has a point about spending funds on an out of state company to design ads for our PRT. We got to start keeping our money in state - like Produce and Shrimp have excellently done in their advertising over the past year.

South Carolina, as a state, has got a bad "poor branding". Charleston and other coastal locations have a "polished branding". Therefore more people wish to visit our beloved city, marshes, beaches, golf courses, restaurants, galleries and so forth.

Posted by auger on July 12, 2008 at 5:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Man! I have such a great joke that would do so well in this instance, but I don't want to get banned. What a bummer!

Posted by abitskeptical on July 12, 2008 at 5:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

halfsheli:"I know many homosexuals that do not flaunt their sexuality"

So do I, but large numbers of them do flaunt it & seem to be saying "I dare you to say something so I can call you a homophobe".

"Maybe they're just hoping for acceptance."

It seems to me that basic equal civil rights often is not the only goal, but rather there is a goal of forcing people to change their beliefs about the morality of the practice of homosexuality. Often people want to be accepted in a way that they dictate. Not all people do this (see my other post about my bus stop acquaintance), but many do. Its sort of like saying "I wont feel accepted until you no longer believe that my sexual practices are wrong".

I have no problem with any 2 consenting adults forming whatever legal civil relationship they choose, but from the beginning of recorded history, a marriage was the union of a man & a woman. There are many other compelling logical reasons for this aside from the religiously influenced reasons.

The Bible doesn't "preach" anything.

Furthermore there is a big difference between "condemning" a behavior & condemning a person, just as accepting a person does not mean one has to accept their sin. There is no contradiction there unless you want to see one.

The Bible has a whole lot to do with modern day government & laws..try reading it & you will see how & why.

The government sure sticks its nose into religious marriages. The priest at my mainstream church cannot perform the religious sacrament of marriage for a couple without evidence of a government issued marriage license. I do not see the separation of church & state crowd or the ACLU screaming about that. I wonder why.

Posted by jimisle on July 12, 2008 at 6:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ysillyme said: "When I asked them to consider the families in the area I was called a homophobe and they promptly engaged in a french kiss."

I guess they told you!

Posted by halfsheli on July 12, 2008 at 6:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you mean that people seek to limit offensive speech when you say stifle free speech, then that speech should be limited. Why would you want to spew hateful and demenaing language at anyone? Just keep your mouth shut. How does homosexuality REALLY affect you anyway? Were you sexually assualted by a homosexual? Were your children? Did someone make you do the secret gay handshake?

Here's the point. People look for reasons to discriminate and disapporve of others. Throughout history people have sought to put certain others down: Africans, Jews, Christians, women, physically disabled people, overweight people, homosexuals, etc.

Justify your bigotry however you like. The Bible says it's a sin. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Africans have lesser brain capability. Jews are stingy and money-hungry. Fat people take up too much space on the bus. Kids in wheelchairs always get the best seats in the cinema. Name your reason. Hide your predjudice behind whatever reason you like. The Bible is probably the most effective, so you might want to stick with that one.

One more note on free speech. I doubt that criticism of any lifestyle (I personally despise people who eat potato chips while talking on the phone) is not allowed. What is "censored" is hate speech. I'm sorry that you want the rights to hurt others with your words. I want to be rid of our douchebag of a President. We'll both just have to put up with not having what we want on that one.

I'm sorry that your children will never be given open-minded information on the homosexual community. That type of "censorship" will simply perpetuate yet another cycle of baseless hate.

Posted by RTC on July 12, 2008 at 7:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

After working many years in fashion retail, I was subjected to some really open and deliberate displays of affection by homosexuals. They could do this, but I had to watch every single thing that I said, because it might offend someone.
One of my teenage, "gay" coworkers was in some of my son's classes. He was always trying to touch my son, no matter how many times he told him to keep his hands to himself.
I had a talk with this young man, and asked him why he did this, knowing that my son was straight. He said that he didn't like him "in that way", but he just liked to pick on him. My son is a big guy, and the only reason that he didn't deck this kid was because he would have been arrested at school. This was blatant sexual harrassment, and had it been a guy touching a girl, then all hell would have broken loose.
These people are being shoved down our throats, and no one cares about heterosexual rights. "Gays" don't won't equal rights, they want special treatment.
I don't hate anyone, but I do hate the things that they do. It is a very big difference.

Posted by abitskeptical on July 12, 2008 at 7:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow halfsheli-you sure do take liberties with extrapolating & expanding what constitutes bigotry.

OK, we all get it. You do not have a problem with the practice of homosexuality.

You seem to have a big problem, however with those who do, or at least with the honest expression of a belief or opinion which indicates that one believes homosexual behavior to be wrong. You have done what I was referring to in previous posts.

It seems that you have sought to put down those who have expressed what you consider to be negative opinions regarding homosexuality by making sweeping statements which imply that disapproving of a person's choice to engage in homosexual behavior is on the same level as disapproving of a characteristic about which a person has no choice, such as race, gender, place of birth, disability, etc.

Implying that those who state an historical fact-that marriage has traditionally been between a man & a woman are bigots is, well, not reasonable & whatever message of individual rights & freedoms you are trying to encourage gets lost.

I understand that there are many who will always be 'holier than thou' in their thinking about everyone else's sin. However, when you label everyone who does not agree with your position into the same group-bigots-then you have done exactly what you are railing against.

Posted by halfsheli on July 12, 2008 at 7:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Okay. I like that logic. Hate a group based on the actions of an individual.

When I was in middle school, a black girl physically assaulted me. So now...

I hate ALL black people. I hate all girls. I hate all 12-year-olds.

When I was in college, my employer sexually harassed me. So now...

I hate all French people. I hate all white people. I hate all men.

Oh no, wait. I don't hate the people. Just their behavior. Afterall, I can judge the actions of each of the groups by the actions of these individuals.

Boy, at this rate, I'll soon be hating everyone but... me. Going to be lonely soon if I don't realize that I don't need to make blanket generalizations. If I don't realize that I can hate the behaviors of certain peoples and know that every person, every girl, every 12-year-old will not physically assault anyone.

Once again. Justify your bigotry with whatever reason you like.Let isolated experiences rule your prejudices. You will be alone with your self-righteousness one day.

Posted by halfsheli on July 12, 2008 at 8:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am sorry that your son was bullied. It was wrong whether the agressor was gay or straight. Please don't assume that all homosexuals behave in a certain manner because of this child.

My only aim here is to explain that it is not anyone's place to accept or judge. So, you are okay with the gay lady at the bus stop. Congratulations. I'm sure she sleeps better at night. SO, a gay kid bullied yours. Doesn't mean that all gays are inappropriate. So, you saw media (sensationalist) coverage of the gay pride parade. All gays are not perverts or sexually explicit. Can we please accept that an individual's actions are only indicative of that one individual.

I admit. I get riled up about this topic. And, I've managed to get way off topic. I will end my discourse this evening with my hopes that one day everyone (yes, even me) can be more open minded. In the meantime, I will continue to advocate for true equal rights for everyone regardless of anyone's lifestyle.If society continues to go by the logic that homosexuality is wrong, so they can't have the same rights, then I hope that child molesters will no longer have the rights to bear children and that wife beaters will no longer have the rights to marry (anyone) and that lying politicians no longer have the rights to serve in the government! Because those things are wrong. Anyway, it's a moot point. S.C. is not SO gay. It is so anti gay. Good night to all.

Posted by farfallaspeaks on July 12, 2008 at 8:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

south carolina is soooooooo gay.

Posted by abitskeptical on July 12, 2008 at 9:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, halfsheli, there you go again: Using sarcasm & attributing thoughts, beliefs, ridiculous "logic" & reasoning to others that they did not express...in an attempt to...what? belittle & demean those who, though they disagree with you, are trying to have meaningful communication???

Your comments in regard to things I related in my post as well as others' posts indicate that you truly have not "heard" much of anything we have said & related.

It seems that you WANT to believe that those who do not agree with your stance on homosexuality-those who happen to believe that homosexual behavior is wrong, regardless of how we say it or what else we say, are self-righteous bigots.

Watch out halfsheli, your tunnel vision self righteous close mindedness is showing.

Posted by disco on July 12, 2008 at 11:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ysillyme - "Any thought to the diseases that those folks leave behind w/ their dollars?"
yeah, like straight people don't carry diseases... I just love how the christians around here love to judge others and the way they live their lives. Leave gay people alone; they're not hurting you.

Posted by a_set_love on July 13, 2008 at 1:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You must admit, there are a lot of people suffering from the mental disease of Homosexuality drawn to the City of Charleston.

Posted by a_set_love on July 13, 2008 at 1:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

That is to say, no need to waste good money on advertising the City of Charleston as a desired destination for those engaged in Homosexuality........word of mouth.... has already taken care of that.

Posted by STREETLAW on July 13, 2008 at 1:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Let me sum this all up. There seems to be some disagreement about the morality of alternative sexuality. Perhaps we need to take a more objective look at same sex liaisons.

Darwin suggested certain possibilities about the origin of the species. It would be safe to say where people are concerned, homosexuals were not near the top of the list. Yet they would like to leave something akin to children to carry on their beliefs. There is, of course, no natural way for this to happen.

It would in fact seem that homosexuality might offend Mother Nature as unnatural and unseemly. But people who engage in such behavior cannot imagine they are not normal. It is a lot like people with diminished mental ability. As a rule, they think they are normal. They cannot assume that they are any different than other people. Even if you tell them they are, they still may not get it. Normal, you see, is in the eye of the beholder.

I'm also sure a lot of animals might think they are human, in their own way. At least they might believe, assuming they can believe anything, that they are more like us than not. In fact I know someone with a little dog who swears it thinks it is a person. And this small dog does not seem to know it is small since it will menace larger dogs it passes. Abstracts like size and species and even gender are lost on animals and some people as well.

It boils down to this. Despite the fact homosexual behavior represents something less than what the whole concept of what human behavior is supposed to encompass, gays think they are people. And that's when all the problems begin.

Gays, as a subculture, are among the most frustrated, mean spirited, antisocial, self-serving and sometimes most vicious creatures on the face of the earth.

As far as Darwin might have been concerned, they have nothing to live for. Nothing at all. Except, of course, for each other. Their value where the survival of the species is concerned, is zero.

That hardly makes them untrustworthy or evil. But they are radically different and a long way from mainstream. People tend to fear what they do not understand and the majority might find them a little hard to fathom. Sometimes, I bet, they don't even understand themselves.

This could lead to gay males raping women just to see what it might have been like to be straight; or gay women getting pregnant and then having an abortion just to see what it might have been like to be a mother. Or adopting children in an effort to emulated a family persona.

Truth is, despite their coming out, there is much we don't know about homosexuals. I have to believe a lot is still being kept in the closet. There must be some reason for that.

Posted by steve on July 13, 2008 at 6:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I pray for y'all.

Posted by abitskeptical on July 13, 2008 at 8:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I would like to make one clarification:

I understand there is, or at least used to be, great debate over whether or not a person is "born" homosexual.
I readily admit, I do not pretend to know the answer to that question. If it is so, then of course a person does not have a "choice" in sexual orientation & feelings. They do have a choice, however, in whether or not they are going to act on these feelings.

I "imagine" that there are some people "born" with very strong libidos & an innate need to spread their seed far & wide(most males.)Even marriage to a beloved woman does not totally erase these stirrings. I understand that this is pretty much wired into their biology. They "can't help it(the feelings)". However, they do have a choice in whether they are going to act on these feelings &, surprise surprise, many do control their behavior related to these feelings.

Free will comes into play in the choices we make in how we behave, not whatever physical characteristics or dispositions we might be born into this world carrying. That, of course, presents a challenge to most of us-whoever we are.

Posted by FiscalConservative on July 13, 2008 at 11:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Don't worry gays. The ACLU is now here to defend you. And your "alternative lifestyle" buddies over at NAMBLA.

Posted by drp7773 on July 13, 2008 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So true Fiscal, I mean it's all about screwing us in the end.......ooops

Posted by farfallaspeaks on July 13, 2008 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

STREETLAW,
You state this,,
"gays think they are people. And that's when all the problems begin.
Gays, as a subculture, are among the most frustrated, mean spirited, antisocial, self-serving and sometimes most vicious creatures on the face of the earth."

I'm just curious, how many gay friends do you have? That has to be the most ignorant comment I have ever read.
Just because gay people don't like you, doesn't mean they are all mean spirited antisocial and unhuman. I have lots of gay friends, and I love them so much. They are so great, smart, and productive members of society. They don't bother anybody, and they arn't breaking any laws.

Besides, this story isn't about gay people. It's about an advertisement, tourism, and targeting a particular group of people. NObody wants to hear your ignorant ideas.

Oh, and for all of you who think homosexuality does not occure in nature, YOU HAVE TO WATCH THIS!!!!!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=eUxtWg3hgrU&a...

Posted by farfallaspeaks on July 13, 2008 at 12:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Gay bucks being horny
he he, get it? horny...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=3dOvGC8t5mw&a...

Posted by farfallaspeaks on July 13, 2008 at 12:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

gay moose being horny too
http://youtube.com/watch?v=TzjN-dPUGRs&a...

Posted by farfallaspeaks on July 13, 2008 at 12:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

gay lions doing it with each other
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glWQSM7DI...

gay bears having sex in front of children
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRNeBnvgF...

Posted by abitskeptical on July 13, 2008 at 1 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't recall anyone saying homosexual sex does not occur in "nature"(whatever that means).

Most people who've been to a zoo have seen that.

So, what's your point??..That some humans act like other "animals" ?? That homosexuality in "nature" justifies it? That because it occurs in nature it is "natural"?

Posted by a_set_love on July 13, 2008 at 3:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Gee farfallaspeaks, the difference between animals and humans is animals don't complete the act, humans do.

Are you saying you equate yourself to the animals in the jungle, as I said, looks like a definite mental thing.

farfallaspeaks, you seem to enjoy the animal video's a lot, get help before its too late. Come back to the world of normal humans, we worry about you.

Posted by redman1959 on July 13, 2008 at 4:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

abitskeptical

Unbelieveable!! Thanks for your well thought out arguments and reasoning. Without thinking that this is perhaps a misnomer, are you a Christian Lawyer? (kidding) Well done!!

Posted by geekguy2008 on July 13, 2008 at 7:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Gay people are not "special". They should not need their own special little invitation to vacation in a certain place.

To the gays and lez people: Why do you feel that you need to broadcast your sexuality? Who gives a flying rats petunia what your "orientation" is? Your sexuality is no one's business. If you would keep your mouth shut and keep your own private business to yourself, you wouldn't need to worry about being "discriminated against". No one really cares what you like. You are NOT special.

Posted by FiscalConservative on July 13, 2008 at 8:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So if animals do it, it's alright. Awesome now I am off to kill everyone I see. Animals do it. And take a dump where ever I want.

Posted by lookingatyoufromabove_canada on July 13, 2008 at 9:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Vocabulary twisted? The shift in the meaning of words is a natural process. For example, "silly" in its earlier form meant "spiritual", compare Ger. Seele - "soul". And believers once used to end their letters with "in the bowel of Christ" (later "spirit").

Posted by farfallaspeaks on July 13, 2008 at 11:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm just saying that being gay is found in nature.
We ARE all animals. I thought the videos would be funny.
People use the animal reference a lot when trying to argue that being gay is "unnatural." Why do you even care?

Most of you have a lot of hatred in your heart. You cannot say that Gay people are this and Gay people are that. They are all different.

My gay friends never shoved their sexuality down people's throats. Some people choose too, and they usually suck as people, but not because they're gay. They just have no shame.
I've met gay people that I liked and disliked, for different reasons.

I hope that you all can open your hearts a little more, and have more compassion towards people. Stop hating!!!