Just correcting Tom C. time line for the end of silly sexual politics.
How old are you disturbist?
The Route 2 rest area near Pittsfield was closed two years ago supposedly because of DOT budget constraints. But it was a well-known gay male pickup spot for years. In fact, the locals nicknamed it Pickle Park.
The area prompted quite a few police complaints, as tourists who had planned to take a brief respite encountered some rather bizarre activities.
However, I have yet to see any published complaints about rest areas being populated by hetrosexuals engaged in similar activities.
It's allowed on the streets. As a matter of fact, towns will allow permits for "gay pride parades" where it's proudly displayed as a celebration of cultural values.
It's allowed in the schools.
It's an "amusing" part of our sitcom and media culture.
Alll this high-falutin talk about "gay rights," but God forbid we actually show what that looks like.
AMG is not the place for posting pics of the underbelly of gay extremes.
"the underbelly of gay extremes."?
Prior to the AIDS epidemic, a 1978 study found that 75 percent of white, gay males claimed to have had more than 100 lifetime male sex partners: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250-499; 15 percent claimed 500- 999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners. Levels of promiscuity subsequently declined, but some observers are concerned that promiscuity is again approaching the levels of the 1970s.
The Health Risks of Gay Sex
It's not the "underbelly" - it's the gay mainstream.
Look, I'm just showing the gay advocates what you signed on for. You don't like looking at it here? Then go protest the next "gay pride parade" so the little kids in your neighborhood don't have to look at it.
Boy, some people sure don't learn easily, do they?
I guess we can put Tom in the same ranks as the bloggers who think it's okay to abuse the forum's hospitality by posting ads in an attempt to fill their own coffers.
I'm sorry to see it, Tom.
I see Tom as someone who is very passionate in the fight for morality.
How am I "posting ads"?
This is a legitimate local news story, and it relates to the gay lifestyle which is an important party of our cultural topics today.
It seems to me that you are taking issue with the subject matter because it doesn't support your notions and because it challenges your stereotypes.
Tom, my comment regarding bloggers and adverts was a reference to an incident several days ago, concerning someone else. That one was just about as obnoxious, except the offender had the sense to promptly apologize, and make amends.
As for this situation, I don't give a rat's hindquarters for your mission, your agenda, or what you see as the "greater good."
You were clearly reprimanded (again) for posting photos that are completely inappropriate for this forum. Instead of apologizing, deleting the photos, and admitting your transgression, you're being what Auntie Mabel would call a "beastly teenie."
You know - like a teenager, who, against family dictates and decorum, wears a dirty tee shirt and ripped jeans to Grandfather's funeral service. And, when called on said actions, defiantly lights up a cigarette and flips open the cell phone.
ps - Robert, Tom is entirely welcome to be as "passionate" about morality as he chooses. Just not on this forum, in that manner.
In fact, that's why Scott helpfully posted the link above, so that Tom can set up his own blog and be "passionate" on another site, and post all the photos he wishes.
I disagree with your characterization.
Tom C -
I think you're reading too much into what I wrote. It's as simple as: I don't want those pictures on my web site. And I'm serious about starting your own blog. Why not? There you have total control over what's posted and what isn't. If people are as interested in seeing those pics as you seem to think they are, your blog will be a hit.
What could possibly go wrong? Let us know when you're up and running.
Look, you didn't like it. I defended what I did, and you didn't accept it. We disagree, and you're the boss.
No need to get personal.
I'm not getting personal. I saw the discussion about the pics was still in progress and, therefore, maybe I hadn't done a good job of explaining myself. That sometimes happens. As for starting your own blog - that was a serious suggestion. Why not? AMG isn't all things to all people. If you're passionate about an issue - that's what blogs are for. And since there are a number of reputable places to have a blog gratis - the opportunity is there. Plus, I was not - am not - suggesting that you start your own blog and then vacate AMG. You could do both!
I'm sorry if there was a crossing of signals.
Do you understand the point that Tom is trying to make? We are told everyday that we have to accept the gay culture, lifestyle, and marriage or we are bigots and homophobes and should have our names and addresses placed on the internet because we signed an Issue 1 peititon. By deleting the pictures that Tom posted, you could easily be labeled as anti gay bigots by the leftist activist groups out there, who consider such activity not only healthy and normal, but superior to the straight lifestyle and especially Christian morality.
Do you understand the point that Scott and I are trying to make? Those who wish are welcome to think the way you describe, above - that's what "free will" is all about. Even better if that person starts their own blog, where they can post crass photos and rant about the "evils" of homosexuality, to their heart's content. Such things are simply not welcome on AMG, and some of us are tired of making the same point, with the same people, seemingly to no avail.
In the hallowed words of my college R.A., "Have a party, fine - Just take the party down the road, folks."
Getting back to the allegations by Tom C that the actions of the police may constitute a hate crime...
According to the newspaper accounting, three different charges were leveled against the people involved. Reviewing the laws reveal no references to what sex the participants are, only the acts performed. In other words it makes no difference if you are straight or gay, the laws apply equally. Read 'em and see for yourself.
Assault Ttile 17-A, 207
Unlawful Sexual Touching Title 17-A, 206
Indecent Conduct Ttile 17-A, 854
As for suggesting a hate crime is at the root of what the police did, which was enforcing laws that are on the books, read this statute and you will see that allegation is without merit.
Civil Rights Title 5, 4684-A
To show that your civil rights have been violated, first of all you have to be engaged in lawful activity. The participants were involved in unlawful activity.
There isn't a shred of evidence pointing to any wrong doing by the police department. Cultural sensitivity? If that were the case, its OK for immigrants whose culture allows the beating of their women to continue that practice as well?
Crackdowns on gay public sex have often brought complaints from the gay community about "harassment":
Boston (and there are other examples elsewhere):
Some are concerned that the patrols may be targeting gay men, who often use the reeds as cover for their trysts . . .
"Our experience in the past is that whenever police go into a gay cruising area, civil rights problems result,'' said Don Gorton, president of the Anti-Violence Project of Massachusetts, a gay-rights advocacy group.
Reaction mixed to police focus on Fens
People who get their idea of gay culture from watching "Will and Grace" would be shocked to find out what real gay culture is about.
It is vital that gay advocates hide this true state of things until they get their agenda passed.
That is why when it is pointed out, there is a sudden visceral reaction from lefties.
Leftiess NEED to hide what they are. That's because they know that if folks had any idea what they were really up to, they'd be run out of town.