CA man who lost gay pride lawsuit commits suicide after verdict

In California, nudity in public is allowed under two distinct circumstances.

1; As part of a protest
2; As part of a nudist lifestyle.

This man was neither protesting, nor was he a nudist in his everyday life. That is why the judge ruled against him. Being nude is not a requirement of being gay. So, arresting him for public indecency can not be considered discrimination, unless the police at the same time were overlooking the same crime when committed by straight people.

 

The he should not have been arrested

From photos I've seen of several homosexual lifestyle parades there is ample nudity including men in an aroused state. That would lead me to believe that public nudity among men living that lifestyle is normal within that segment.

The protest angle would also be supported as the homosexual themed events seem to be a protest agaisnt the 97% who do not live that lifestyle

 

I see how the constitution protects them from discrimination.

I realize I have set ad hom shoes on the floor and appreciate you stepping into them. Its a good fit. There was a similar argument made by someone on your side many years ago about throwing the first stone. I don't expect you to agree, but I know you understand my point. It simply brings the conversation to the basic point of WHY.

So WHY should we outlaw gay marriage? Because Christian hypocrites say its wrong? Not good enough.

Religion is declining and acceptance of LGBT is increasing. I agree with the decision to make gay marriage legal. I don't think gay marriage will be outlawed. Feel free to bookmark this page and make me wrong if it happens. We will have to wait and see.

You should clear your browser history!

 

The Constitution protects Christian beliefs. Your sexual habits don't nullify that.

 

Gay pride parades should be banned because they almost always result in public disorder and disturbance of the peace. They disregard the law with impunity and engage in public indecency by going naked. The person who committed suicide is proof that Gay pride parades have no consideration for the sentiments of the public and society. It is not a parade to celebrate themselves; it is a parade to invoke hostility and is full of malice to the general public.

 

I'm not the topic. Try again.

 

Okay. Anyone's sexual habits don't matter one bit concerning Constitutional rights.

 

Perfect!

 

That is how the queers usually operate. They want attention and want to force-fed their homosexual lifestyle to everyone around them. If you are not queer, then they are not happy.

Here just as an example, read the S.C.U.M. Manifesto to get a clue into the homosexuals mind.

http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/shivers/rants/scum.html

 

No need for that, since there is no such thing and never will be. If you mean to ask why government entities should not presume to countenance such a farcical idea, that's because insanity is inimical to justice, the establishment of which is one of the stated objectives of the Preamble; and in particular, seeing marriage patently implies at least minimal parental competence, children will be reared under the auspices of "gay marriages" and inevitably be shortchanged in their upbringing.

 

IMO, if a municipality wishes to condone simulated and actual sex acts in public as well as ubiquitous nudity then that is their prerogative. If voters do not vote out the municipal leaders then it means that the voters like the nudity and sex acts at the homosexual lifestyle events.

I happen to live in an area where that is not allowed but if cities like Toronto and SF like naked men with wood to be in parades then so be it.

 

I disagree because public nudity is a crime according to the criminal code. Municipal governments cannot and should not legislate in the sphere of criminal law. The jurisdiction of municipal governments should be restricted to by-laws and regulations.

 

criminal codes can be changed.

I am all for more local control of schools and less by the federal govt.

If one municipality supports accountability and does not allow unions, then those schools will no doubt be superior and attract residents/taxpayers.

If a city such as San Fran wishes to permit public acts of male/male fellatio then they can do that and those tourists who don't want to see that, won't go there. Those who don't like it will move or will vote for decent public officials.

If San Fran residents want the public nudity then they should be able to choose that for their city.

 

Generally I agree with your points; but I believe municipal government should have no say whatsoever in legislating with regard to criminal offenses. Cities are too small to be dealing with such large issues. The nature of cities is such that residents are constantly moving and generally don't participate in municipal politics; unlike on the state and federal levels. A small community in "rainbow village" which is vocal would get their law passed, but the majority of residents wouldn't like it. Such large issues should be resolved at a higher level.

 

Nice try. Gay marriage does exist and gay parents are raising happy, self confident children. If you want to have a "Straight parents are better than gay parents" discussion, start a thread and I will meet you there.

 

Sure it does, just like the flatness of the Earth exists for Flat Earthers, the benevolence of Stalin existed for Russians in the 30s, and the congenital moral depravity of Jews existed for the Nazis.

Who the hell do you think you're kidding?

 

I wouldn't throw stones with that position. Only fools argue facts. The Earth is a sphere and gay marriage is the same legally recognized business transaction as a traditional marriage. We can have our opinions, but that doesn't change fact.

You would be a fool to argue that children of same-sex parents are at a disadvantage. There is plenty of research available, but if you would like to discuss child psychology, I just have to know that you have raised children to the point of being independent. Otherwise, you have nothing of value to contribute to the discussion.

 

Who gives a damn?

No doubt that's easy enough to believe to people who are blissfully oblivious to what marriage is.

Precisely.

Then cite some in which the researchers conducted face to face interviews with the children and included verbatim transcripts in the paper.

 

No need to be hostile. Since you have no experience raising children and have done no research, your claim has nothing behind it and you are not qualified to discuss the matter.

Maybe you have something of value to contribute on the issue of marriage; Are you married?

 

I'll be the judge of that.

Doesn't matter whether I have or not, since you've made it plain that you're incompetent to render an intelligent assessment of any of it.

I am of course aware that for a great many people, logic founded on self-evident truth counts for nothing.

 

People tend to be hostile when they have lost the argument.

 

I didn't think you are able to back up your claim. We know you have many choices on where to parade your ignorance and we thank you for doing it here on this forum.

 

More accurately, you unconsciously dread even the possibility of realizing the research you'd cite is credible only to the disgracefully gullible - to say nothing of the realization that you've bought into a lie more outrageous than what O'Brien presented to Winston Smith, though you've never come within lightyears of Room 101.

 

You have a very creative way of being wrong. Post what you claim I lied about and back it up.

 

The record makes it plain that I haven't broached the subject of your intent, or lack thereof, to deceive. The lie you've bought into and, like Jud Crandall in Pet Sematary, are passing on to others, is of course that two people of the same sex can get married.