April 24, 2006

“Gayby Boom” Raises Lifestyle Issues In SF

And here we have been told that there is nothing untoward about the explicit “out” culture of much of the gay community, and that it certainly was not harmful for children. However, it looks like the more “flaming” aspects of that culture in San Francisco are bringing objections from gay parents, who find it inappropriate for their children.

America's most famous homosexual community is grappling with a new dilemma - how to become family-friendly yet retain its legendary spirit of sexual freedom.

The Castro district of San Francisco has been a magnet for homosexuals since the 1967 "Summer of Love", drawing people from across the world with its gay pride parades and celebration of overt sexuality.

But the complexion of the community is changing thanks, in part, to the so-called "gayby boom", the increasing number of same-sex couples becoming parents.
In California nearly 60,000 children are being raised by same-sex couples. In addition, heterosexual families with children are choosing to live in the area.

The shift has resulted in tension between parents who want the more explicit window displays and posters toned down and those determined to guard free sexual expression from any censorship.

Clashes between parents and shopkeepers include complaints from a lesbian mother-of-two about a shop with a sado-masochistic window display. Others have also complained about explicit shop displays and posters that feature naked, sexually aroused men.

"I am happy that people can enjoy a lifestyle that is denied to them back home in Kansas but there are appropriate standards of behaviour, regardless of your sexual orientation," Jeremy Paul, a father of two boys, told the Los Angeles Times.

Gee – when straight Christians object to explicit displays of the gay lifestyle at places like Disney World, we are called homophobes. What can you say when it is homosexuals themselves object to such displays as inappropriate for children and corrosive of family values?

Posted by: Greg at 09:49 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 329 words, total size 2 kb.

1 There's a difference. Gay parents (and many, perhaps most, gay non-parents) prefer not to have explicit sexual material of either a gay or straight nature on display. There's nothing homophobic about that, in fact orientation really doesn't even enter the picture. What "Christians" (I'm using the term loosely here to describe you and your ilk) object to is gay people in general. "Christians" ignore certain behaviors when straight people take part in them (holding hands, hugging, having a picture of a significant other on the desk at work, etc.) but when gay people do the exact same thing they declare that such things are "explicit displays of the gay lifestyle"

Posted by: dolphin at Tue Apr 25 08:21:53 2006 (3uG8B)

2 Actually, dolphin, holding hands and kissing were not the only things objected to in the Disney World case. And I know very few who object to photos of significant others -- I don't. Oh, and the teacher in the next classroom finds your accusations of homophobia against me rather amusing -- but then again, as a gay man who actually knows me, where does he have a right to pass such a judgement on your insights on my personality?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Apr 25 11:13:28 2006 (x1c8T)

3 I don't have a problem with objections to explicit sexual acts, most people gay or straight do object to such things. But as you (perhaps accidentally) acknowleged in you response, you DO object to things such as holding hands which I presume you don't object to straight couples doing. More importantly, when you see a straight couple holding hands you don't run down to city hall and demand that they're human rights be taken away. I know you only through your posts which drip with hatred. It would not surprise me in the least if you were two-faced enough to act differently in your offline encounters. By the way your attempt at that line that is almost universally used by homophobes, "but I have a gay friend" is duly noted and laughed at. It's also noted that unlike your brethren you can even bring yourself to call a man you find to be less than human a "friend."

Posted by: dolphin at Wed Apr 26 03:15:49 2006 (3uG8B)

4 Actually, dolphin, I'm noting that those who offered objections to the Gay Days at Disney World objected to things much more explicit than hand-holding and kissing. I did NOT state my own position at all -- but nice try (actually, pathetic try) at tarring me with the homophobia brush. And as for "dripping with hatred", I insist that you actually point to a single hateful comment -- and disagreeing with you does not count. Nor do statements of disapproval -- disapproval does not equal hate. And by the way -- my colleague is one of the few from my school who I have actually disclosed my identity to and asked to read my blog. My earlier comment stands.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Apr 26 12:18:22 2006 (wUumh)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
9kb generated in CPU 0.0051, elapsed 0.0158 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0121 seconds, 33 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]