Carol Channing Headlines Gay Days, Which Also Draw Glee Star to Disneyland

I'd rather be a tattooed PBR drinker (which I am both 100% proud to be) than a racist bigot. Just saying.

But go ahead, keep being afraid of everyone and anyone who might be different than you; all you're doing is making yourself look bad. It's no skin off my sack because I know that people like you are a dying breed. Someday the youth of today, possibly even your own offspring, will look at you with embarrassment. They'll make excuses for you to their friends and say things like, "Oh, that's just my racist grandpa," or, "My uncle says shit like that all the time because he's a bigot."

And then someday you'll be gone. And life will go on.

And for your information I was 100% sober when I replied. Okay, 80% sober.

Here's a few more 'incidents'

This one's classic -- three shot after 'West Indian Day' parade, like, two days ago. http://tinyurl.com/3kbf8ms

Or how's about "Beat Whitey Night" at the Iowa state fair earlier this summer

http://tinyurl.com/2dn42z8

Or how about the shooting of three cops at Miami's "Urban Beach Weekend"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Are all African-Americans violent, no, the majority aren't. But when a lot of 'urban yoof' are around, the law of averages kicks in. Prudent to stay away from 'black themed events-- yeah, I think so

I love it when you weekly-ites check the board after pounding a few PBR's -- just the right combination of semi-logic and swpl enthusiasm. 

Why don't you just finish up that twelver and get some more ink done. We can talk about, say, progressive blogger Matt Yglesias getting 'happy slapped' or an Onion subeditor getting put in the hospital by you know who when we are both more coherent. 

Yet you linked to an article about ONE EVENT in WISCONSIN! Like THAT is an example of minorities behavior that would be portraying African Americans in a fair light, right?

Man, Mitch, you're a bigot AND a racist if I've ever known one! And believe me, I've known some horrible ones and you're right up there! Again, high-five! Keep showing the world what a putz you are because I'm LOVING it!

"If the park were to host an African American day and someone chose not to go because of "all those black people being there," that would be the reaction of a racist, correct? "

It might be 'racist', but it might also be prudent. http://tinyurl.com/44a2ov2

"And come on... that website I linked to is CLEARLY run by a small-minded bigot, right? "

Yeah, and if I linked to the Folsom Street Fair as an example of gay behavior that would be portraying homosexuals in a fair light, right?

No, that's not correct. I'm not implying that those who don't go on that day strictly because there will be gay people in the park are small-minded bigots; I'm stating it as fact.

If the park were to host an African American day and someone chose not to go because of "all those black people being there," that would be the reaction of a racist, correct? Why is it any different when it's gay people?

And come on... that website I linked to is CLEARLY run by a small-minded bigot, right? You can't possibly read the nonsense on that site and think otherwise. I do love, however, his link at the bottom to a post titled "God Loves People!" HAHAHA! Oh, the irony.

Good comeback! High-five!

I will suck you off so quick! keep stepping if you want mitch's lips wrapped around your tip biotch!

Wow! Racist AND homophobic!

Who would have seen that coming?

(just about everybody...)

And 99.9999% of monozygotic mulatto (or biracial or whatever the 'proper' word is today)  twins will have a mixed race other twin.

For your info, the President and Eric Holder and indeed most other obviously mixted race people identify as 'black' -- no doubt for the advantages that holds in today's society.

And the fact is that my America exists -- it exists in Prop 8 voters, it exists in every white family that moves out to Temecula or elsewhere to escaped barrio-ification, every white flight family that left Detroit, every young hipster couple that sends there spawn to a 'charter' school rather than the 95% 'minority' local school. etc etc.

Hey Mitch:  well, I give you this much. You do keep trying, but you do keep retreating.

You purport "I've clearly shown why homosexuality is not the same as race." You have done no such thing. In fact, you have debased your own argument. How? As you (finally) conceded that homosexuality is not a matter of 'choice', you now argue for a unitary definition of 'race'. 

You write, "99.99999% of black twins are both black..." utterly ignoring the rising fact of bi-racial and multi-racial citizens among us. From the President to Tiger Woods, we have hundreds of thousands of examples of people whose racial 'identity' is as confused as your thinking. The very term "black" as a definition of race is collapsing in the face of inter-racial marriage and demographics. Even the bigot Sen Strom Thurmond admitted to fathering a 'black' child. What race is she?

Here's your real concern. It is merely ideological. According to you, "For example,  a bed and breakfast owner cannot, in some places, choose rent out his rooms only to married heterosexual couples." The same bias is revealed when you substitute the term "Mexican" or "Hindu" or "Puerto Rican" couples for "heterosexual" couples. It is all the same rancid prejudice.

You are wrong about America, too. We have long acted on our core beliefs about equality. We have placed them in the Declaration of Independence, the 14th Amendment, and hundreds of statutes since.

Yes, we have made it illegal to discriminate, over and over again. 'Your' America fell apart in 1865. Sorry about that.

The 'ideology' is that of homosexual activists. I've clearly shown why homosexuality is not the same as race. Tip, 99.99999% of black twins are both black, whereas only 30-50% of 'gay' twins are both homosexuals. 

Given that, is there some reason why we should discourage homosexuality, or at least keep it under wraps? I think the figures from the CDC are eloquent on that point, at least for male homosexuality. Fact is the 'gay liberation' movement in the 1970s was followed immediately by the HIV/AIDs 

Fact is that gays (and frankly, 'minorities' before them) want special rights. They want to force people that choose not to associate with them to serve them. For example,  a bed and breakfast owner cannot, in some places, choose rent out his rooms only to married heterosexual couples.

That is a profoundly American principle, being able to live your life -- and that means conducting business -- in accordance with your own beliefs. 

Hi Mitch:  you have outed yourself. You wrote, initially, "* You can check at the CDC's website for any number of statistics on this point -- not only in relation to HIV/AIDS." In this regard, you posed as someone concerned about norms of good health and hygiene.

Now, by acknowledging the complex and many subtleties of human sexual identity (you forgot to mention male sexual behavior in prisons, on ships, etc etc) it's clear the either/or argument collapses. Good on you. These matters are never as dull-edged as the fanatics would have you believe. Your inability to tell us how you 'chose' to be heterosexual gave you away.

You now admit that your real concern is not biological. It is ideological.

You don't respect the demands of gays (like other minorities before them) for full and working equality. These equalities (in the workplace, in the military, in marriage and adoption) offend you. They distend and distort your notion of good order.

Your real concern is ideology. 

Alas, Mitch, the same sad arguments were made against blacks, against inter-racial marriage, against integration of our armed forces and schools, and against The Other generally. As you put it, those minorities were busy "demanding affirmation from major corporations and even fundamental changes in our most important societal institutions." Yes, they were. 

And they won. Today, gay people are doing the same. I for one don't blame them at all. And they are winning, too.

If you were in their position, you would demand no less. Theirs is a profoundly pro-American principle. You know... equality. Perhaps you've heard of it.

"You attempt to portray identity as immutable when it comes to heteronormative standards, but a matter of 'choice' when it comes to homosexual behaviors."

Uh, no, I gave examples of both 'straight' guys who engage in homosexual activity ('gay for pay' porn) and 'gay' guys who obviously at some time in their lives got their junk working with a women.

A recent meta-analysis of sexual identity noted there were actually more bisexuals than homosexuals, a data point showing that Kinsey may have been on the right track. The latest twin studies show that given one homosexual (identical) twin, the other twin has 30-50 percent probability of identifying as homosexual. That of course is much much higher than the norm (2-3%), but also shows that something else beyond genetics, or even in utero events, influences 'gayness'. 

Look, I don't care what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. Make all the 'Rick Santorums' you want. But the gay movement has gone far beyond that, demanding affirmation from major corporations and even fundamental changes in our most important societal institutions.

Hi Mitch:  as I suspected! Brown eyes.

You attempt to portray identity as immutable when it comes to heteronormative standards, but a matter of 'choice' when it comes to homosexual behaviors.

Either you are making a more subtle argument than you intend, or do not comprehend what you have said.

60 years ago, Kinsey posited a sliding scale of choice and identity. More recent science is tending toward hormonal and hard-wired identity, in utero.

If you intend to make an argument based on science, do so in a serious way; otherwise, you risk appeal to the prejudices of a debased minority. Today, we consider such low efforts beneath dignity. One might hope it is beneath yours.

I'm not a "scientist" or a "doctor" but I can read and understand actual scientific reports and also understand the difference between scientific evidence and anecdote.