Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Here's your bigoted overreaction of the day: the Clovis school board in New Mexico is taking control of the yearbook to make sure that they don't repeat the horrible crime of include lesbian couples in a section of the yearbook on couples at the school:
The Clovis board of education will have final say on content in student publications under a new policy adopted about four months after the high school yearbook published pictures of lesbian couples.The board voted 3-2 to pass the new publications code Tuesday. The code also gives school principals authority to review students' work before publication...
Photos of two lesbian couples, along with narratives describing their relationships, were included in a features section titled "Do you want to go out?" Also pictured on the two-page spread were nine heterosexual couples.
Well obviously they can't allow pictures of actual lesbians in the yearbook. That might send the improper message that lesbians are human beings and deserve to be a part of society with equal rights and stuff. That just will not do.
This story has been going on for a while now. The student editor of the yearbook is exactly right:
"We just wanted to show that there is a diversity, there (are) gay and lesbian couples in the school and they have a right to be in the yearbook just as much as anybody else does," student editor-in-chief Maggie Chavez told the News Journal.Chavez and staff member Jessie Hardison told the News Journal that the decision to include two lesbian couples along with nine heterosexual couples in a feature titled "Do you want to go out?" was a conscious one and made after much consideration and discussion.
While school staff check content for obscenity, libel and other matters of legal concern, yearbook supervisor Carol Singletary told the News Journal that featuring gay couples "didn't violate privacy, it wasn't obscene, it wasn't libelous ... it didn't violate any of the district policies."
But the local Christian folk threw a fit when the yearbook was published:
But former Lt. Gov. Walter Bradley, who described himself as a parent and a concerned Christian member of the community, said he was upset about the photos and the accompanying interviews."I think it's highly inappropriate to place that in that venue. That is no place for that type of negligent exploitation of our kids," Bradley told the News Journal. "I do not in any way believe this reflects the attitudes and values of this community."
Funny, a rational person would think that those lesbian couples are a part of that community. I know that bothers bigots like Bradley, but frankly that's just too bad. And you have to laugh at the fact that showing two lesbian couples is "negligent exploitation" while showing 9 heterosexual couples is not. Who, exactly, is being exploited here, Mr. Bradley?
And Bradley is not the only bigot in town:
Will Cockrell, a member of the Christian Citizenship Team that monitors political and social actions "that are counter to Christian doctrine," told the News Journal that Christians throughout the community are mobilizing to attend and speak out at next week's school board meeting."We don't think that it reflects anywhere close to the attitudes and morals of the community," Cockrell told the paper. "I don't have a child in school, but I'm appalled. If I were the parents of those kids, I'd own that school. Those are minors."
We will not have pictures of gay people here! If we have pictures of gay people then others will think that we actually have gay people in this town and that violates the "attitudes and morals" of the community. Let me translate: I hate gay people and I don't want to be reminded that they exist.
Politics
Comments
These people are idiots, bigots and they disgust me. Seriously, every day I read about these Christies and feel like we are becoming more and more like Iran.
Because, you know, in Iran they don't take pictures of gay people either.
Posted by: JStein | October 1, 2008 10:05 AM
They can't take pictures of gay people in Iran, because they don't have any.
Posted by: James Hanley | October 1, 2008 10:11 AM
The what??? I thought Christian men only watched lezbo porn?
Speaking for myself, I think the Swedish Bikini Team was a better idea.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 1, 2008 10:20 AM
I'm sure that the blogs favorite gay basher, Mr. mroberts, will be along to inform us as to the righteousness of the school boards ukase.
Posted by: SLC | October 1, 2008 10:33 AM
As an ex-catholic and a lesbian I'd like to observe with some amusement that fundamentalists who go on about homosexuality being wrong according to the bible only applies (if you stretch it) to gay men. Seems God's ok with the ladies.
Mind you, even that half comdemnation is unacceptable in our society. We can't go making laws based on the rules of iron age desert tribes.
But if they do insist on making the point let's bash the bible thumpers with their own books.
Posted by: Hypatia | October 1, 2008 10:48 AM
Just think how those girls must feel about all this. If I were them, I would invite Bradley to meet me face to face.
Posted by: MZ | October 1, 2008 10:54 AM
I wanted to do a little research on this story. I really should have thought twice before plugging "teen lesbian pictures" into Google from work. :o
...
I notice the article states the school has gay and lesbian couples. Yet only lesbian couples were pictured. Anyone care to bet that fear of what would happen to the young men if their pictures were published is behind that decision?
As disappointed as I am about the school administrator's decision, I'm inspired by the students. It gives me hope for a better future, where bigotry is not held up as a admirable community standard. Good for them.
Posted by: Abby Normal | October 1, 2008 10:56 AM
"I don't have a child in school, but I'm appalled. If I were the parents of those kids, I'd own that school. Those are minors." Yes remove the photos of those evil hetro couples now, 'cause you just know their having nasty, sinful sex!-DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 1, 2008 11:50 AM
I would be curious to see what you all think of the Folsom Street Fair in SF, which happened this weekend. Any condemnation of this from the crowd on this blog? Americans for Truth has photos from last year showing gay men giving blow jobs to each other in public on a city street. Doesn't seem that the event is much different this year. Is this the future in many more American cities if gays get even more legitimacy? Is this kind of conduct considered normal and healthy - or moral for that matter?
http://americansfortruth.com/
Posted by: mroberts | October 1, 2008 11:57 AM
I'm sure that the blogs favorite gay basher, Mr. mroberts, will be along to completely ignore the actual post.
Fixed that for you, SLC.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2008 12:04 PM
Mrroberts - irrelavant!
Why should only hetrosexual coupkes appear in a year book? I notice most of the complainants were not students at the school, or even parents of students in the school, but from Christian groups not even vaguely affiliated with the school. How come these purient Christofascists get to decide who is person and who an unperson?
Posted by: DingoJack | October 1, 2008 12:08 PM
@Hypatia
It could be argued that a ban on "laying with a man as you would with a woman" outlaws heterosexuality in women.
Posted by: Matt Heath | October 1, 2008 12:12 PM
Irrelevant Dingo? I don't think so. Maybe many parents are looking down the line and seeing Folsom Street Fairs happening in their own town. They see this behavior as WRONG, and therefore don't want it encouraged. Apparently you don't see anything shocking or wrong with people conducting themselves little better than animals on public streets. AFT also documented gay men pissing on each other in public on the city street as some bizarre way to get their rocks off. Is this normal? Is this the future if gays get their way in America? What goes on at Folsom ought to be a wake-up call for normal, sane Americans.
Posted by: mroberts | October 1, 2008 12:17 PM
Wow, mroberts, that's a pretty radical change of subject -- from a high-school yearbook to adults doing oral sex in public. Are you desperate to avoid talking about gays and lesbians who are NOT depraved exhibitionists? Or are you just so obsessed with the depraved sex that you have to turn every conversation toward it?
Is this kind of conduct considered normal and healthy - or moral for that matter?
PUBLIC sex acts are immoral, regardless of your sexual tastes or orientation. I fail to see how this non-issue is even relevant to this thread.
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 1, 2008 12:19 PM
Actually Matt it would prevent men doing hetro acts on men, and woman doing lesbian acts on men. Those crazy Jews sure were confused- ;) DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 1, 2008 12:19 PM
Sure dude, admitting that lesbians exist, and picturing such real-life couples in a highschool yearbook instead of demonizing them or hiding them in shame, is going to lead to guys giving each other blowjobs in the street. Are you absolutely sure you're not just a parody whose sole purpose is to get my blood pressure going?
Posted by: paul | October 1, 2008 12:21 PM
"Americans for Truth has photos from last year showing gay men giving blow jobs to each other in public on a city street. SNIP Is this kind of conduct considered normal and healthy - or moral for that matter?"
Hey Mr. r.,
I'm a straight guy, happily married to a woman. But I'll cop to having been on the receiving end of a few happy hummers in semi-public places in my hormone-addled youth. And even to pulling off "the full meal deal" in a washroom at an amusement park once. Were those things wrong? Maybe. I'd expect you'd say, "Certianly!" since I wasn't married to any of the partners in question. But here's the thing: all of those escapades were with memmbers of the opposite sex. If you're going to condemn all homosexuality because some gays have questionable public sex, you also need to condemn all hetrosexuality because some straights do likewise. We'll be waiting for you to do that...
Posted by: Philip T | October 1, 2008 12:22 PM
You know, by promoting heterosexuality, we're just encouraging all those college frat boys to go out and stare at breasts and fuck as many women as possible during marti gras. Wait...we're not? That's not how ALL heterosexuals act? Wow, what an amazing thought.
Posted by: paul | October 1, 2008 12:27 PM
If you're going to condemn all homosexuality because some gays have questionable public sex, you also need to condemn all hetrosexuality because some straights do likewise. We'll be waiting for you to do tha
Philip, did you actually think I wouldn't condemn that? Of course I would. But please show me what street fair straights are throwing so they can walk around naked and have sex in public. What is amazing about this is that gays get a pass on public decency laws. Cops do absolutely nothing to stop this behavior, and when AFT condemned it publicly, they were derided as bigots and homophobes. Seriously, there must be something in the water in SF that has made the population of that city fall into absolute insanity. Some parents even TAKE THEIR KIDS to this. Unbelievable.
Since SF is the most gay-friendly city in America, isn't it safe to conclude that if America becomes absolutely gay friendly anybody could expect this kind of thing in their own home town? Somebody give me a legitimate reason why my fears are unfounded on this.
Posted by: mroberts | October 1, 2008 12:30 PM
The yearbook staff should include photos of gays and lesbians in the first draft. When the school board cuts them, replace the photos with blacked out boxes with the words "Censored by the Clovis School Board". Expose them for the hateful people they apparently are.
Posted by: sam | October 1, 2008 12:35 PM
I still say the hetro couples should be banned from the school yearbook because (using Mrroberts's 'logic') I once heard that straights have been known to go into Vietnamese villages, murder men, women and children, then raze the place to the ground! I mean, some of us think such behaviour is immoral and should not be encouraged -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 1, 2008 12:36 PM
I still say the hetro couples should be banned from the school yearbook because (using Mrroberts's 'logic') I once heard that straights have been known to go into Vietnamese villages, murder men, women and children, then raze the place to the ground! I mean, some of us think such behaviour is immoral and should not be encouraged -DJ
LOL, I don't think I've heard of any "hetro" couples demanding special rights for those who "murder men, women and children, then raze the place to the ground".
Nice try DJ, but I know you can do better than that.
Posted by: mroberts | October 1, 2008 12:39 PM
Since SF is the most gay-friendly city in America, isn't it safe to conclude that if America becomes absolutely gay friendly anybody could expect this kind of thing in their own home town? Somebody give me a legitimate reason why my fears are unfounded on this.
Well, if we all make an effort to vote for city-councilpersons who make sensible indecent-exposure laws, and mayors who appoint police-chiefs who enforce such laws uniformly and fairly, then I'm sure this problem will be contained. In fact, you'll even have support from gays, many -- if not most -- of whom don't like that sort of thing any more than you do.
The very fact that you're using public sex acts to portray homosexuality in general as evil, kinda proves you yourself know that the majority are more hostile to public indecency than we are to gays. Which means we'll probably still be hostile to public sex acts even after we've legalized gay marriage. So I really don't think you have anything to worry about. (Oh, and have you noticed this sort of public sex happens almost exclusively in SF, even though there's out-and-proud gays all over the country?)
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 1, 2008 12:41 PM
Straight men are FAR more likely to rape women that gay men are. Therefore an image of a straight man in a yearbook is EXACTLY THE SAME as promoting rape!!!!!
Posted by: Donalbain | October 1, 2008 12:44 PM
I mean show me the massacre where gays get to murder nursing mothers and suckling infants. Straights just get a free pass, if anyone tries to complain about it, the Industrial Military Complex (IMC) just shrugs and says "boys will be boys" or "that's war." Some people even let their kids watch TVs (I mean they actually might see "The Green Berets" or the news or something) unbelievable!. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 1, 2008 12:46 PM
mroberts, Being disturbed by public sex acts is common among people who support gay rights. Your complaint seems like it should be geared toward the law enforcement that would condone it.
How you can make an argument that allowing students to view their gay classmates as having acceptable relationships is the first step on a slippery slope to anarchy is beyond me.
Posted by: Odie | October 1, 2008 12:48 PM
mroberts said:
"Special rights"? Holy hell, mroberts, I know you can do better than that.
I followed your link, by the way, and saw nothing objectionable. I'm far more offended by Fred Phelps and friends' protests, but as far as I'm concerned they're just as much freedom of expression as a guy (straight or gay) walking naked down the street. Didn't see any blowjobs being given in those photos, either....rather disappointing.
Posted by: Gretchen | October 1, 2008 12:50 PM
LOL, I don't think I've heard of any "hetro" couples demanding special rights for those who "murder men, women and children, then raze the place to the ground".
I think this paragraph proves that mroberts has stroked -- oops, I mean whipped -- himself into a state of total hysteria. And he's explicitly demanded that WE calm him down. Get help, boy, you're a fucking mess. Or vice versa, no pun intended...
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 1, 2008 12:50 PM
To paraphrase mroberts... Look! Over there, it's an obvious distraction.
But what the heck, I'll bite.
Mroberts, I know in your mind BDSM and homosexuality both fall into the category of deviant sexual practices. But BDSM and homsexuality are seperate things and the fair is as much for heteros as anyone. Does recognizing the legitimacy of hetero relationships therefore lead to this as well? Respecting a person's right to seek happieness with the person of their choice has nothing to do with the fair.
As to the fair itself, the area is corded off, with FSF workers at every entrance warn people what is going on. It's not the sort of thing people wander into by accident. So if you don't want to see what a bunch of leather fetishist do, don't go to the fair.
And because I know there's an inevitable, "but what about the children" coming up, children are not permitted entrance unless escorted by a parent or guardian. I know of just one case of this happening. I disagree with the parent's choice to expose their children to an explicitly sexual environment. But how parents choose to raise their children is a touchy subject. Without any proof that exposing this harms the child, I'm not in a position to call for outlawing it.
Let me ask you this, given that participating in, or even viewing, this type of fair is an entierly volentary act, what's your problem with it? For someone who doesn't want others telling you how to live, you seem awful quick to try and do it to them.
Posted by: Abby Normal | October 1, 2008 12:53 PM
Well, if we all make an effort to vote for city-councilpersons who make sensible indecent-exposure laws, and mayors who appoint police-chiefs who enforce such laws uniformly and fairly, then I'm sure this problem will be contained. In fact, you'll even have support from gays, many -- if not most -- of whom don't like that sort of thing any more than you do.
Bee, I wish I could buy this, but I don't. Where are the gay organizations condemning this? The politicians of the city are prominent gay community supporters (Gavin Newsom, the mayor, was the one that defied state law to do gay marriages a few years ago in SF County) and they either encourage this or look the other way. Newsom released a public statement supporting the fair, even though he certainly knows what goes on at it. Secondly, prominent gay organizations HAVE BOOTHS at the fair. PFLAG has a booth that can be seen in some of the pictures that AFT has on the website. Sorry, but even PFLAG appears to be a supporter of this kind of thing.
Which means we'll probably still be hostile to public sex acts even after we've legalized gay marriage.
Really?? Where is the condemnation for this stuff, especially in light of the fact that gay marriage is now legal in CA? There has NEVER been condemnation from gay circles for this stuff. When conservatives bring it up, they are condemned as bigots and homophobes. Sorry, but I just don't buy what you are saying.
Posted by: mroberts | October 1, 2008 12:53 PM
He can do that, Odie, because he actually thinks that those gay couples are evil and sinners, but he doesn't actually want to come out and say it. He uses the most dramatic example he can to make a point about tolerance of homosexuality, but tries not to make himself sound like the moster he is for attacking teenage kids.
Posted by: paul | October 1, 2008 12:54 PM
I followed your link, by the way, and saw nothing objectionable.
Well Gretchen, I certainly think that says a lot about you. Make sure to remind anybody who asks that you are the WRONG person to watch their kids for them.
Posted by: mroberts | October 1, 2008 12:58 PM
Posted by: WScott | October 1, 2008 12:59 PM
mrbob: So you're saying it is asking for special right for lesbians to have their picture in their own HS yearbook? Wow. Just wow.
For the record, there are lots of "gay-friendly" cities and towns across this nation, including Asheville NC, where I live. To the best of my knowledge, none of them sponsor anything like the Folsom Street Fair.
It is a logical fallacy to identify a large class of people based upon the most extreme members of that class. [Heh heh, he said members heh heh]. I have been compared to Phred Phelps before because I am a Christian, and compared to Lenin because I am a Democrat. Right. Look up modus ponens some time and learn to do it right.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 1, 2008 1:00 PM
Seriously folks, if I was a citizen of San Francisco, would I be wrong to be outraged that this kind of thing was going on in my city?
Posted by: mroberts | October 1, 2008 1:02 PM
Sorry, that just doesn't follow. Heck, it's not even on the same street. Did you ever consider that repression breeds this sort of flamboyant behavior? Maybe if gays were treated like actual human beings, they wouldn't need to hold parades to "flaunt" their gayness.
Nor is anyone demanding "special rights" for public sex displays, gay or straight. You seem unable (or unwilling) to grasp the distinction between a small minority of people misbehaving in public, and the huge majority of gays who, apart from their orientation, are just like everyone else. And if they (or you) limited yourselves to attacking public displays of indecency, you wouldn't get called those names. But of course, you don't stop there. When you say that all gays are sexual deviants, then yes we're going to call you a bigot and a homophobe because - guess what? - that's what you are.Posted by: WScott | October 1, 2008 1:08 PM
Ok Mrroberts = I'll put you out of your misery.
Your argument is a weak one because:
Photographs of lesbian couples in a school yearbook in Clovis, NM has no bearing on the behaviour of SOME gay men in San Francisco, CA. Equally photos of straight couples have no bearing on the Mai Lai massacre. Having photos of lesbian girls does not lead to them (or anyone else) giving each other blow-jobs in public streets, any more than having photos of straight couples lead to the actions of SOME soldiers (straight or gay) in Vietnam. Both are fallacious arguments (mine deliberate).
You might expect netter of me .... -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 1, 2008 1:13 PM
But that's all besides the point. You're equating a lesbian couple having their picture in a high school yearbook in Clovis, NM, with gays giving each other BJ's on the streets of San Fran. Look up slippery slope while you're at it.
Posted by: WScott | October 1, 2008 1:14 PM
mroberts said:
I wouldn't take a child to a gay pride parade any more than I would take one to a Fred Phelps protest. That doesn't mean I think either one should be against law, though I think the Phelps protest would be vastly more likely to cause psychological damage to the child.
Posted by: Gretchen | October 1, 2008 1:32 PM
I think the problem here is that mroberts can't even think about gay people without visualizing gay sex, over and over again. Explains a lot.
Posted by: tacitus | October 1, 2008 1:33 PM
@ mroberts
I looked at the site indicated by mroberts. Indeed, the sign does say that nudity is forbidden.
The clearly marked sign also states that adult entertainment is taking place in the area. In other words, if you do not wish to see or hear entertainment of an adult nature, DO NOT ENTER.
I find mroberts type of prudery irksome. At a renaissance faire that I like to attend, we had a clearly marked adult entertainment area. Bawdy songs (30 verses of the Moose Song), adult oriented humor and a "wet chemise" contest were featured.
This was done at the end of the day when most families with children had gone home.
The area was in an isolated part of the faire grounds which is on private property. Security would pass through the crowd and ask anyone who looked less than 18 to leave the area.
Nonetheless, the show was raided based upon a complaint by a mother who had taken her son past the signs and up an adjoining trail. They saw some women nude who were changing into chemises behind the stage for the wet chemise contest.
Oh my gosh! Public nudity. What will happen to the children? The usual line of bluenose BS.
To avoid any further controversy, the faire management eliminated the act and the adult area. Now the ren faire is safe for three year olds and mroberts.
Posted by: NJ Osprey | October 1, 2008 1:34 PM
So, mroberts, you are completely incapable of defending this idiotic homophobic censorship, so you feel the need to babble about random public sex IN A DIFFERENT STATE as a distraction (while conveniently ignoring the fact that attendance at the event in question was entirely voluntary).
Since, by your own absurd "logic", the most extreme actions of a single person define the entire group, then by the example of Ted Haggard, all christians, yourself included, are drug-addicted gay whoremongers. By the example of Pat Robertson, all christians, yourself included, are psychopaths who blame anyone who disagrees with them for acts of terroism, and call for the murder of foreign heads of state. By the example of Martin Luther, all christians, yourself included, are willfully irrational anti-semites.
If you have a problem with any of that, you could try cutting out the bullshit and actually make a stab at addressing the issue at hand. But we all know you won't, because you can't.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | October 1, 2008 1:37 PM
"So there's a lot of gay and lesbian people around, and that's groovy, and they have - what they've done is they separated sex and sexuality from what you do for a living. So you work in a bookshop? Okay, you're good at selling books, you get on well with the customers? That's what's important, not who you sleep with or not. 'Cause in the old days, they used to say, "Oh, you're gay... You sell books? You probably shag the books! " -- Eddie Izzard
Posted by: Gretchen | October 1, 2008 1:37 PM
mroberts -
There are plenty of glts who are just as upset as you, about the Folsom fest. But that has absolutely no fucking bearing on the topic at hand, which did not take place in SF and did not involve public indecency or even pictures depicting indecency. I know that it's shoved way, way up there, but if you could pull your head out of your rectum, you would probably think a little more clearly.
Posted by: DuWayne | October 1, 2008 1:41 PM
Mroberts, a lot of debauchery occurs among heterosexuals in New Orleans during Mardi Gras. Women commonly bare their breasts to men out in the open. Not to mention that during spring break, young coeds are seen to be having sex on popular beach spots. Clearly, heterosexuality must be contained for the greater good.
Posted by: Adrienne | October 1, 2008 1:58 PM
...To avoid any further controversy, the faire management eliminated the act and the adult area. Now the ren faire is safe for three year olds and mroberts.
Quite frankly, I think the kids tend to handle that sort of thing better than the adults. Have any of these raids or other censorship drives ever been sparked by a child freaking out at the sight of naked people? AFAIK, it's the "grownups" doing all the freaking out, while the kids just shake their heads and wonder what's so horrible and dangerous about naked people.
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 1, 2008 1:59 PM
As a lifetime resident of New Mexico, I have to say this doesn't surprise me much.
Albuquerque is a fantastic town. Santa Fe is a little kooky and very expensive, but still a fun place. But the rest of the state (barring a few popular sightseeing towns like Chama and Madrid) is hicktown.
It makes me sick that alleged adults would engage in behavior like this. High school is difficult enough if you're a little different and not part of the "Alpha" crowd. I can only imagine how much worse it must be to be a gay or lesbian high school student in a redneck shithole like Clovis. But to have the school administration -- and a fucking former LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR -- back up this bigotry is just unforgivable.
Posted by: Russell Stewart | October 1, 2008 2:01 PM
Bee -
Quite frankly, I think the kids tend to handle that sort of thing better than the adults.
About a month ago now, our six year old got up in the middle of the night and caught us having Teh Sex. We were nearing the end when he wandered in and didn't notice him (we have carpet - he was barefoot) right away. We still don't know exactly how long he was standing there, but believe me - we freaked out, he didn't. It did require a lot of discussion though.
One of my partner's closest friends was raised, vacationing at the a nudist camp - from infancy until she was on her own. She still occasionally goes to the camp, though it is getting rather geriatric these days. About the only real difference that I've noticed, that would lend itself to being caused by all this exposure to naked people, is that she is not the least bit uncomfortable about her body. Even though she has gained a little extra, going into her thirties.
We are casually nude in our home - we don't sit around in the buff, but we don't feel compelled to cover up either. If he hadn't been acting so badly when the trip came up, we were going to take him to a local nude beach (a couple we are very close to were having their civil union celebration there). I flat out refuse to raise kids who have issues about their bodies or their sexuality. Just happens that it's a little early to worry much about the sexuality thing.
Posted by: DuWayne | October 1, 2008 2:18 PM
Philip, did you actually think I wouldn't condemn that? Of course I would. But please show me what street fair straights are throwing so they can walk around naked and have sex in public.
Um, there is such a street fair - it's called the Folsom Street Fair. If you actually read the link that you posted, it said that there was plenty of heterosexual debauchery on display and that the fair "attracts many straights".
Does the existence of straight people having public sadomasochistic sex at the Folsom Street Fair mean that this high school yearbook shouldn't have pictures of straight couples?
Posted by: Alex | October 1, 2008 2:18 PM
Also, no "gay" songs at high school pep rallies:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=662_1222834646
Posted by: Deepsix | October 1, 2008 2:22 PM
Re mroberts
Since Mr. mroberts likes to change the subject, I wonder if he has written to MSMBC demanding that Rachel Maddow be taken off the air. Doesn't the presence of an out of the closet lesbian send the wrong message to our children? Has Mr. mroberts written to the powers that be at Microsoft, Apple, Dell, and Intel demanding that they cease giving benefits to gay couples as of this instant as this sends a bad message to our children? Has Mr. mroberts checked with the manufacturer of the computer he is using to see if they or any manufacturer of the parts that they use give benefits to gay couples as this sends a bad message to our children? Has Mr. mroberts checked with his ISP to determine of they give benefits to gay couples as that sends a bad message to our children?
Posted by: SLC | October 1, 2008 2:29 PM
Adrienne,
I had a bit of an email exchange with the *ahem* gentleman at AFTAH concerning a certain lapse of condemnation for the heterosexual naughtiness that takes place during Mardi Gras, or during Carnivale in Rio, or any number of regular festivals that take place throughout the civilized world. The discussion couldn't go very far, of course, because the outraged prude refused to believe that heterosexuals behaved in as lewd a fashion as gays; presumably gays are singularly depraved.
At any rate, indeed, analogies to the Folsom Street Fair are irrelevent to this particular thread. BUT, in response to mrroberts' outrage--consider this: Folsom is tolerated in San Francisco (as Mardi Gras is in New Orleans), for two reasons. First is cravenly economic; such festivals bring millions of dollars into the local economy. Second is just as outrageous to religious conservatives: those communities just don't view recreational sex as offensive or wrong. Those San Franciscans who aren't into gay leather/fetish sex don't go to Folsom. Mrroberts (and the nuts like AFTAH's LaBarbera) seem to think that public sexplay in clearly demarcated spaces is forcing it on the general public. No. No one has to expose themselves to any festival sinfulness if they don't want to. (For all their outrage, the religious conservatives DO fixate on the pictures, don't they?)
The brouhaha over innocuous same-sex photos in a school yearbook comes from the conservative religionist conviction that exposure to or even acknowledgment of homosexuality around children will lead them to BECOME homosexuals. Despite all facts to the contrary (and since when did religionists allow themselves to be swayed by facts?), they insist on believing that gay is a choice, and that our particular "sin" is overpoweringly irresistable. (I wish!--I can think of a few unrepentent straight dudes I wish I had a shot at.)
Posted by: gary l. day | October 1, 2008 2:44 PM
You know, as a resident of SF, I feel the need to defend the FSF. It's not like people can wander on to Folsom Street accidentally. It is incredibly well marked. As I am not into leather, I've never been to the fair, but I'm told it's rather Carnivale-esque. The point is that it allows a group of people to express their sexuality, big deal. For a couple of days, one part of the city gets a little raunchy, but unless you go out of your way, you never see or hear anything about it.
As for lesbian couples having their picture in the yearbook, or not, obviously they should be allowed to, if the hetero couples can. But why is their a section in the yearbook devoted to couples, anyway? How awful for the geeky kids....They're the real victims here.
Posted by: valor | October 1, 2008 3:05 PM
Mardi Gras is an excellent comparison to such events. I've been to Mardi Gras and I've seen heterosexual couples having sex in the streets. I've also seen heterosexual S&M conventions all over the country that feature all sorts of deviancy. The difference is that no one would think that those people represent all heterosexuals. But anything any group of gay people does is automatically presumed to be what all gay people do. Thus mroberts' silly fear that if we make it so gays can't get fired from their jobs, the next thing you know they'll be teabagging each other in front of your children.
I know lots and lots of gay people who not only do not take part in the kinds of things that go on at Fulsom, they're embarrassed by them. But it's also true that if you oppress a group of people and tell them they're worthless for long enough, a sizable number of them will inevitably start to flaunt who they are and want to shove it in your face. It's an act of defiance and an important one at that. But the fact still remains that the vast majority of gay people do not act like that, nor do they approve of it. They just want equality, not "special rights" as mroberts and every other bigot idiotically claims. The right to live your life without being thrown in jail or fired from your job is not a "special" right.
mroberts can afford to take for granted that he isn't going to be denied the most basic dignities like being able to visit the person he loves in the hospital, or make their funeral arrangements should they die. He doesn't have to jump through all sorts of legal hoops to get even the most minimal protections that are granted automatically to his most intimate relationships (and then still see those minimal protections ignored half the time). He doesn't have to live in fear of being beaten up or killed by bigots who hate him just because of who he is (and if you don't think this threat is real, I'd be happy to send you the constant stream of death threats sent by the Army of God to my friend Todd because he's gay. This is not an idle threat, the police actually arrested a skinhead trying to get into his house a few months ago; he said he was there to "deliver a message"). He doesn't have to have the slightest worry about being fired from his job because he's a Christian, or disowned from his own family by those who claim to love him. These things are real, not imaginary. I've seen them happen. This is the fruit of bigotry and hatred. So are some acts of defiance by those who've been the victims of that bigotry and hatred for so long.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | October 1, 2008 3:07 PM
Um, that would be
1) Folsom Street Fair (50% straight kinky people having lots of public sex)
2) Burning Man
3) The Love Parade
4) Madri Gras
5) Tampa, Miami, & Ft. Lauderdale during Spring Break
That's just off the top of my head. What this has to do with high school yearbooks, I'm not sure, but you did ask for some strange reason.
Posted by: usagi | October 1, 2008 3:36 PM
so wait, the kids are more mature than the adults?
the student editor knows that diversity exists, but the school board denies it?
say it ain't so!
where can i write the school board........
Posted by: shen | October 1, 2008 3:57 PM
oh look, rhondas@clovis-schools.org
please be respectful of her rights, she is not the school board, but the superintendent. she might be able to pass the news along.
Posted by: shen | October 1, 2008 4:02 PM
Well, one thing's for certain, mroberts has once again successfully derailed a thread on this board. Methinks he's outlived his usefulness around here.
Posted by: tacitus | October 1, 2008 4:02 PM
mrroberts, you want a defense of Folsom, here goes. As I am likely the only commenter on this board who has been to Folsom, and to the Dore Alley Festival (a July event that is smaller but similar), as well as Mid-Atlantic Leather in DC and International Mr. Leather in Chicago, I would like to dispel some myths.
For all of these events, and other Leather/BDSM events that go on around the country, admission is restricted to those who want to attend and, in some cases, pay. Both Folsom and Dore Alley are street fairs - they take place on public streets that have been specifically closed off to ensure that "innocents" cannot inadvertantly wander in. In addition, members of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence (aside: as someone raised Roman Catholic, I LOVE the Sisters - street theater at its best) patrol the entrance gates and hit everyone up for "voluntary" donations to enter the festival (you don't have to give, but a lot of those Sisters are big and mean in real life, plus you get a dollar discount on all the food/drink you buy if you donate $5 and get a little sticker).
There is no way that anyone who would be offended by the antics at Folsom and Dore, which include things like spanking and paddling, flogging and other public behavior that is distasteful to a lot of people, but not "sex" per se, could fail to realize they were not in Kansas anymore, as it were. In addition, the only children there seem to be the children of straight couples who insist on bringing them. In fact, I stopped attending Folsom a few years ago because so much of the crowd was gawking breeders who wanted to look at the freaks.
I personally do not engage in open sex during these street fairs; very few, in fact do. Certainly at Folsom a number of straights are included in that very few; another reason I stopped attending (who wants to see that?). I also do not expect the entire country to understand/accept my personal sexual lifestyle choices. But I also want to stress that, unlike an event like Sturgis(I have heard reports that women are pressured into sex at events like Sturgis), all activity is strictly consensual. There is no one being forced to participate. I will also point out that most of the activities enjoyed by the Leather/BDSM crowd (which includes far more straights than gays, overall) are incredibly safe, STD-wise, when compared to regular vanilla sex.
Now, Peter LaBarbara, the man behind AFTAH, is well-known among gay circles. He has worked in the anti-gay hate movement for years, "sacrificing" by dressing up in full leather (I've seen him myself at IML) to "document the deviance" at these basically private events. He also reportedly has a HUGE collection of gay porn, for "research" purposes (source: Wayne Besen's Anything But Straight). Let's just say girlfriend has issues.
Had Peter spent any time really talking to the folks who attend these events, he would know that the Leather/BDSM community is one of the nicest, friendliest, warmest crowds out there. Members of the community are as diverse as any other crowd at a hobby conference. Hotel staff love us (partly because we tip big) and hotels fight each other for the right to host events. This, of course, pisses the anti-gay right off, because it further serves to de-demonize the larger LGBT community.
I resent both mrroberts attempts to demonize me and my leather brothers and sisters out of nothing but ignorance, but quite frankly also resent the use of terms like "deviancy" to describe people like me. You may not like the same sexual fun I do, but that does not make me an inferior human or someone less deserving of equality. Part of the LGBT civil rights movement should be an understanding that sexual desire in humans is far more diverse than the missionary-position-only crowd would lead us to believe.
Meanwhile, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with high school students in New Mexico - we can return to the original topic.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | October 1, 2008 4:14 PM
I wonder if they have a GSA club that could *unofficially* publish a yearbook supplement?
Watch out for the participant parking lot, though, lots of clothing changes going on (at least her in decadent SoCal, bwa ha ha!)
Posted by: twincats | October 1, 2008 4:17 PM
I wonder if they have a GSA club that could *unofficially* publish a yearbook supplement?
Watch out for the participant parking lot, though, lots of clothing changes going on (at least here in decadent SoCal, bwa ha ha!)
Posted by: twincats | October 1, 2008 4:19 PM
mroberts drooled, "photos from last year showing gay men giving blow jobs to each other in public on a city street."
So man/woman oral sex in public on a city street is okay with you?
Posted by: nunyer | October 1, 2008 4:23 PM
CPT Doom -
I also resent the deviant title. I'm not into the leather at all, but my partner has rather brought me into the world of BDSM (in a very mild fashion) and I already had my own fetishes. I am really big on munching carpet free muff and really dig anal (this isn't a result of the popularization of both either - been this way for a verah long time). I am also rather keen on having my feet worshiped - been a good long time since I've played with a foot fetishist. And not that it's particularly sexual, though it can be, I am extremely fond of wearing those long, light "hippie" skirts - sans unders. And momma thinks I look better than her in her adjustable teddy.....
I think the big problem that mroberts and his ilk have, is not so much that we like our "deviant" sex, it's that we refuse to be ashamed of it.
The thing is, I suspect that most people, if not all, have some sort of "deviant" fetish - many either never understand it or just try to repress it. Human sexuality is a fascinating and remarkably diverse - fetishes are an incredible way to express that diversity. People who rant about us damned deviants, really need to get the spike out of their asses (or possibly put one in)......
Posted by: DuWayne | October 1, 2008 4:42 PM
if everyone was busy gettin' busy in the streets, we'd all have much less time to run about fighting wars and whatnot. gimme immorality! ... and a video camera :o
Posted by: arin | October 1, 2008 4:43 PM
I really didn't need to know all of that about my little brother....
Posted by: Ed Brayton | October 1, 2008 4:58 PM
Gods Ed, I didn't even mention the kinkier ones.....
Posted by: DuWayne | October 1, 2008 5:01 PM
That was a joke BTW.
Posted by: DuWayne | October 1, 2008 5:14 PM
"There is many a true Word spoken in jest."
-James Kelly
Posted by: Abby Normal | October 1, 2008 5:22 PM
Yeah, right!
Posted by: Gretchen | October 1, 2008 5:23 PM
My guess is that ex Lt Governor Bradley is now only dimly aware that at least one of his children will be out and proud within a few years. That is how it always goes.
Posted by: Dr X | October 1, 2008 5:50 PM
I attended this Sunday's Folsom Street Fair. It was my first one. It was San Francisco's twenty-fifth. If the opposition cannot come up with enough votes in twenty-five years to stop the fair, there can't be that much opposition.
No one is forced to go to the fair. No one could enter the fair area without being aware of what they were about to see. I saw one protestor at the entranced I used. He was screaming through a bull-horn. Every time he mentioned debauchery or lewdness the crowd cheered madly. He looked like a fool. I believe the state obscenity laws state that the nudity and lewd acts have to be offensive and objectionable. No one at the fair seemed offended or objected.
There were several people walking around nude. No one was fainting at the sight of penises or breasts. I saw nothing at the fair that I have not seen before.
The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence have been around longer than the fair has. They actually do a lot of charity work. They did a benefit for my church in Los Angeles and were present at our pastor's installation.
In twenty-five years nothing like the Folsom Street Fair has spread to cities across the nation.
All we are asking of the sex nazis (sorry for the reference) is: Please fuck off and leave us alone.
Posted by: wrpd | October 1, 2008 8:03 PM
Losers. Sad, petty, immature bunch of losers.
Posted by: Jacob | October 1, 2008 9:51 PM
I direct you attention to the website here. Just pointing out a contact point, your response is yours. Helpfully -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 1, 2008 11:59 PM
I wish I had been there when the school official dude said what this yearbook needs are fewer photos of teenage lesbians. back and forth I would have smacked his face until he regained his senses.
Posted by: steve s | October 2, 2008 12:29 AM
Sounds like a job for:
American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico
PO BOX 566
Albuquerque, NM 87103
Tel: (505) 266-5915
Fax: (505) 266-5916
Posted by: Jason Hears | October 2, 2008 12:45 AM
-More powerful than a locomotive,
-faster than a speeding bullet,
-able leap tall buildings in a single bound!
Look up in the sky! Is it a bird, is it a plane?
No it's the ACLU! - :D DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 2, 2008 12:54 AM
Yes, you would. It does no harm to you or anyone else. "Outrage" is a completely absurd reaction. Personally, it's not my scene, but I'm kinda glad it's there.
Posted by: Nemo | October 2, 2008 2:39 AM
As someone who grew up in New Orleans (17 years) and has lived in San Francisco for more than a decade, I'd have to say I'd rather raise a kid in SF. At least they *warn* you around here. And I'd be willing to bet that there's less drunken vomiting at the Folsom Fair. I wonder if it's deviant of me that I'd rather accidentally see a naked guy than have someone puke on my shoes?
Posted by: mandrake | October 2, 2008 3:44 AM
I predict that in 100 years, gay sex will be the only way to enjoy another person, physically. As the population overruns the resources, procreation will be banned, and hetero sex will be discouraged, in case of accident. Since childbirth without strict government approval would result in an immediate abortion and imprisonment of the couple, gays will be the happiest people on Earth.
Posted by: trog69 | October 2, 2008 7:08 AM
trog69,
One word: sterilization.
Posted by: Gretchen | October 2, 2008 8:08 AM
Why is anyone surprised by this? Wasn't the Clovis culture of the stone age?
Posted by: Ian | October 2, 2008 8:11 AM
I have sex with myself, and since nobody else in the world seems to want to have sex with me, I guess that makes me a deviant!
Posted by: Donalbain | October 2, 2008 9:22 AM
Ed:
Isn't there some, like, automatic computer wizardry thingie that could just respond to mroberts' posts? Y'know, somethin, like "S.O.S., dork, fuck off!".
Posted by: democommie | October 2, 2008 10:28 AM
the worst hate speech that I've seen on the internet comes from gays doing their angry whining about Christians.
If you want to see what true hate-mongering and unreasoning bigotry is like, take a look in the mirror. But sure... sure... that's not you, you are all just pure victims... sure.
Posted by: Rahim | October 2, 2008 12:58 PM
Yes, the country is simply overrun with gays trampling the rights of Christians!
Posted by: Gretchen | October 2, 2008 1:03 PM
Rahim:
I don't suppose you have the slightest speck of evidence to support this idiotic claim, do you? No, of course not, evidence makes baby jebus cry.
The truth is the mortal enemy of religious nuts. Because the truth is, you want to treat others as second-class citizens based entirely on your narrow interpretation of a mistranslated book of mythology. You want to restrict the rights of your fellow human beings because you can't stand the fact that they engage in consentual sex acts that harm no one. Some of you would be happy to have them all murdered, and some have actually committed murder, killed actual living human beings, again based on pure mythology and delusion. And of course you can't get enough of your sick fantasy of your imaginary friend torturing them for all eternity.
Are you capable of seeing anything wrong with this? Do you have any compassion at all, any empathy for your fellow human beings? Of course not, that whole "love thy neighbor" thing is just too damn inconvenient for the psycopathic homophobe branch of christianity.
You obsession with the sex lives of total strangers may indicate dissatisfaction with you own. To remedy this, I recommend you go fuck yourself.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | October 2, 2008 1:19 PM
case immediately proved by the first twisted responder. You people are sick in the head, and are the worst hate-mongering bigots around.
I pity you. You live such distorted lives.
phantomreader is obviously twisted, and shows a pronounced lack of intelligence... spewing the ramblings of an inferior mind. Hehe
Oh well, I won't argue with such an idiot. Back to your twisted little low-IQ life, dummy.
Posted by: Rahim | October 2, 2008 1:42 PM
case immediately proved by the first twisted responder. You people are sick in the head, and are the worst hate-mongering bigots around.
I pity you. You live such distorted lives.
phantomreader is obviously twisted, and shows a pronounced lack of intelligence... spewing the ramblings of an inferior mind. Hehe
Oh well, I won't argue with such an idiot. Back to your twisted little low-IQ life, dummy.
Posted by: Rahim | October 2, 2008 1:44 PM
RAhim: the worst hate speech that I've seen on the internet comes from gays doing their angry whining about Christians.
Okay, let's see if I understand this: Christians calling gays an abomination is not hate speech.
Gays saying that Christians are awful for calling them an abomination is hate speech.
Gee, thanks, Rahim. I'll try to remember this.
Posted by: Chiroptera | October 2, 2008 1:51 PM
Thank you, Rahim, for your admission that you don't have the slightest speck of evidence to support your idiotic claims. Thank you also for providing such a perfect demonstration of projection.
If you had the slightest speck of evidence to support anything you said, you would have offered it. It you even THOUGHT you had evidence, you would have at least tried. You didn't even try to support your bald assertions and slanders with any evidence at all. This means that you know you don't have any evidence, you're deliberately spreading falsehoods, maing you the textbook definition of a liar.
You have lied well, Rahim. Wouldn't Jesus be proud? It's not like your imaginary god has any sort of problem with bearing false witness, is it Rahim? It's not really lying as long as you're Lying For Jesus™, is it Rahim?
Posted by: phantomreader42 | October 2, 2008 1:54 PM
How to be a good troll, in four easy steps:
Step 1: Make a ridiculously moronic and patently absurd claim.
Step 2: When asked for a shred of evidence to support your assertion, insult the person asking.
Step 3: Insult everybody else as well, just for good measure. Be sure not to offer any actual arguments.
Step 4: Make up some excuse for not sticking around, like that everybody is just too dumb/immoral to grasp your point, and skip out.
Posted by: Gretchen | October 2, 2008 2:53 PM
I was maybe 6 or 7 when I first discovered I was different from the other children. The other boys were into kickball and playing army. Meanwhile, I was fascinated by the beauty the world. They played tag. I watched the clouds. They shot hoops. I wondered what it all meant.
The other boys reacted as most young boys do when confronted by anything different. I was the target of frequent daily attacks, both verbal and physical. Meanwhile the teachers turned a blind eye to my suffering. This went on all through grade school. By the time I reached junior high I had almost completely withdrawn into myself.
But then I met a man who would change my life forever. He taught me I was special, that I was not alone, and he said he loved me. He promised to take me away from all my pain and suffering. He would give me a new life, better life, a perfect life. And for that I loved him. I gave myself to him body, mind, and soul.
Fearing what new torments might be inflicted upon me if my love was discovered I kept the relationship secret. Though I wanted nothing more than to shout from the rooftops, "I loved him and he loves me!" After a while I couldn't take it any more. I had to tell someone. So I told one of the kids in my class.
The next day everyone knew. I came to school and everyone was pointing at me. Some laughed, others looked discussed. Three of the boys attacked me at recess. They pulled me into an alcove. Two of them held me down while the ringleader punched and kicked me. He pulled down his pants and urinated on my hair. Then they left me there, fetal and battered. Sometimes I can still hear their laughter as they walked off.
When I got up I walked home and cleaned myself up. I needed comfort. I needed my mom to hug me, my father to tell me it was all going to be alright. So that night, when my parents got home from work, I told them what happen. I told them everything, how different I felt, how alone I had been, how I had struggled, and about the man who was going to save me.
My mother burst into tears, "Where did I go wrong?" But my father absolutely exploded. He backhanded me across the face. "I didn't raise a fucking Jesus freak," he screamed. I tried to explain. I tried to tell him how wonderful Jesus is, how he'd promised a better life for me and anyone who would follow him. But my father wouldn't listen. He told me I was dead to him and kicked me out that very night. I haven't spoken to him since.
You are so right, Rahim. We Christians certainly have it tough.
Posted by: Abby Normal | October 2, 2008 3:18 PM
Oh, and bonus points for entering while masquerading as a follower of Christ; then drag His name thru the mud for those of us actually attempting to follow His teachings.
Posted by: SharonB | October 2, 2008 3:20 PM
I love you Abby.....Seriously, you really rock.
Posted by: DuWayne | October 2, 2008 3:37 PM
Rahim:
What're ya gonna do when you get to heaven and you find out that GOD is teh Gay. Won't that be a bummer.
Posted by: democommie | October 2, 2008 7:53 PM
God's not only gay he's a snarky queen like Brian's cousin Jasper on Family Guy.
Posted by: steve s | October 2, 2008 8:49 PM