My impression is that gays and lesbians who are more mainstream in their public behavior criticize flamboyant gay sexual behavior about as often as straights criticize public sex and flamboyant behavior by heterosexuals at college street parties, Mardi Gras, Spring Break destinations, nightclub restrooms, in parked cars, and so on.

If you are under the impression that public lewdness is mainly a gay phenomenon, perhaps Google “public sex spring break” to get up to speed on heterosexual public hijinks.

Alternatively, a PG rated but amusing list of the best places to have public sex at Notre Dame (just to honor the Catholic flavor of the blog)…

http://www.collegeotr.com/university_of_notre_dame/top_10_public_places_to_hook-up_at_notre_dame_16259

Best regards.

Public sex, orgies etc. is pure animal behavior for the gay community or heterosexual community. In my opinion, only an extremely twisted mind would have a desire for such acts. But if an adult desires such sickness, make certain that there is no chance under the sun or moon that any child could witness such pervert behavior.

hi , acc to me they must allow the gaysex it helps the gays to live their life acc to their own and its helps the society also they are not going to rape and disturb others ,,,.

Sherry, what’s your point? That you find the behavior and attitudes of the extremists in Great Britain to be profoundly disturbing? By implication, you suggest that all gay people are represented by the extremists. This is the same logic that leads people to believe that all Moslems are represented by Bin Laden, all blacks are represented by Al Sharpton, all Baptists are represented by Fred Phelps, and so on.

Is that really what you’re trying to say?

I think that the benefit of Townsend’s story is that the church’s selective sensitivity on some issues is conterproductive.

The gay marriage rejection was approved, and the spending of $180,550 was proved unnecessary, as is your response of dragging public sex into the forefront as an issue of homosexuality.

As shakespeare would have us say, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

Let me rephrase my question — and it is a question, not a point.

Those in the homosexual community who want a right to marry find themselves needing to appeal to the general community.

Put aside for the moment appeals to fairness and claims to equality and put aside counterclaims that marriage, which is not a right in any case, is for one woman and one man only and must be open to children generated through the physical union of the married couple. These are the usual talking points, but I want to get onto today’s topic which isn’t so much publicly discussed.

The general public is put off by public sex, gay or heterosexual. To get to Steve Kirk’s points, in my day Fort Lauderdale was the Florida destination of choice and it’s taken decades and a strong mayor to get Fort Lauderdale off the minds and trip plans of wild, heterosexual college students. Mardi Gras? St. Louisans have sold their homes to get away from the annual debauchery of Mardi Gras in their neighborhoods. Notre Dame is undoubtedly unhappy with the link you supplied below, etc., etc., etc. One last point for Steve. “PG” does not equate with wholesome, as many a parent has found, usually too late.

But to the point: the marriage-minded homosexual community, unlike the heterosexual community, needs approval of the general public in order to get what they want, so it’s vital they not sabotage themselves in the process. Tolerance, support and demands for public sex are not going to impress the folks.

Indeed marriage requires maturity. Public sex is — at the very least — immature.

You know my stand. I’m not for gay marriage. But if I were, the first thing I’d do is convince the exhibitionists they are hurting the cause. My question is this: aren’t there any serious homosexuals out there who understand this?

hs and another -
I can’t speak for Mrs. Tyree, but I think I understand why she brought the public sex phenomenon into the discussion.
Homosexuality is a very personal issue that touches families, I realize this and don’t want to step on any toes.
But what I believe generates opposition to homosexual “rights” is the strong, “in your face” element that the organized, gay-rights crowd couples with their activism.
I had a neighbor (now deceased) who was very outwardly gay, and I had no problem with him. I even took him to the grocery store a few times when he had a broken leg and couldn’t drive. But I - and many, many others - object to is the gay community’s drive to seemingly grab me by my shirt collar and fairly scream “See this? You HAVE TO accept this!!!”
That is why revelers perform sex acts on one another on gay pride parade floats AND it is the entire reason some gays demand the right to “marry.”
Marriage is not a private act, by definition. It is done in the public forum and at its essence, it a public affirmation of the couple’s decision to be together. Affirmation and justification is what gays seek in pushing form marriage, and they have no right to demand such. Gay persons are free to live where and with whomever they want, to love and be loved by whomever they want, and to support and be supported by whomever they want. “Marriage” does not bestow on them any “rights” they don’t already have. Any arguments about insurance access, power of attorney, inheritance and all the other red herrings that are tossed around are pure bunk. All of those rights can be obtained with a legal piece of paper that DOES NOT convey validation that the public has over and over confirm its does not wish to convey. . .Sorry if you take this as mean spirited.

. . .Many typos in the previous comments. Ooopps..

So, let me chime in and give a local informed GLBT view of this.

For years, the issue of gay marriage has been framed as a “local” issue and not a federal one. So now that states are passing their own initiatives, some for, some against, other groups in other states are trying to change those laws.

For Proposition 8 in California, the Mormon Church was found to have been a major contributor. And now for Maine’s initiative, St. Louis’ archdiocese helped pay for their campaign.

Not very local, is it?

If the archdiocese used it for Missouri, Illinois, even Iowa or Kansas, it might be seen as “advocating against political initiatives” but 12 states away, it’s definitely political activity.

Now, about public sex.

The next time you go to a baseball game, a bar, a company picnic, or any public gathering, watch the number of people kissing, holding hands, groping, flashing, whatever. Straight public sex is JUST as common as gay public sex. The difference is that two gay men holding hands, kissing, etc. are viewed as being scandalous, while if it was a straight couple, no one would comment.

The problem this raises is that having sex in the backseat of a car is fine if you are straight. No one cares. But if you are gay, it makes the paper. Straight public sex happens just as much but it generally isn’t noticed and even ignored.

Now, Folsom Street Fair is not about public sex, but public displays. Yes, some are nude. Yes, some are clothed. Some are in costume, some overdo it. But it is meant for everyone to be open about themselves, sexuality wise or otherwise. It isn’t meant for families, unless the families are open about topics like sex AND SOME ARE. Don’t assume that the standards in Missouri are anything like the standards in New York, San Fran or Paris.

It’s hard to relate to another city the difference in attitudes between sex and nudity, especially in a state with two laws against gay people getting married. But, not everyone has the same mental anguish on letting people BE themselves.

And especially in european countries where most of the royal lines involved family members marrying, or creating whole new religions when divorcing. Our infatuation on sex here is seen as a joke by the rest of the world. (When the Clinton Sex Scandal was on display, most everyone else in the world shrugged.)

But it’s a perfect example of why there are “local” standards and why areas like San Francisco have more of a gay population than say St. Louis. And each area defines public sex as they want. Our definition isn’t the same and it shouldn’t be.

The next time you are at a public concert, even at church, notice the number of couples making out. And then think about how many gay couples can’t do the same without causing an outrage, and then come back and tell me that we want “special” rights like marriage. We just want the same rights as all our parents had. In public, or private.

Gay sex is wrong in precisely the same situations where straight sex is wrong. Yes, it’s also counterproductive when your goals so largely depend on convincing folks that you’re normal… but the problem is, we *are* normal. The only consistent differences between gay and straight people are 1) interest in the same instead of the opposite sex, and 2) reactions to being treated differently because of 1. Because of 1, you have all the same variations you see in straight people (see previous comparison to Mardi Gras, for example.) Adding point 2 to that, you get a lot of gays who were raised to believe they were a lot more different than they are, and throw in a history that encourages the separation of sexual gratification from real relationships (random sex is momentary, but long-term relationships are hard to hide)…

It’s also a factor of how few of us there are to begin with. 5% (more or less, depending on who you ask) is a small enough group to get anything done, and again, it’s held together *solely* by orientation. Telling the Folsom Street folks to keep their pants on, for example, wouldn’t get them to do so; it would just fraction us more. And there’s a strong disinclination towards telling *them* how to live while pushing for the public at large to stop doing the same to us. But on that, of course, I can speak only for myself.