Since sodomy is illegal in Michigan (that's mentioned in the article), pass the law stating that special protection cannot be extended to people who define themselves by violating the sodomy statute.

Traverse City used to be a nice, sleepy little town. Then the down-staters discovered it as a great place to build giant, expensive summer cottages. Today T.C. is a nightmarish sprawl of Starbucks, cheese shops, giant shopping malls rife with liberal pinkos. Once again, bad money has driven out good.

If sodomy is illegal, why aren't homosexuals being arrested?

The best way to get rid of a bad law is to enforce it.

(of course, the downside is you'd be having "Sodomy-Ins," peaceful protests outside city hall where gays started engaging in illegal behavior, then went limp as the police arrested them. And I would feel sorry for the officers who had to cart them off.)

The best way to get rid of a bad law is to enforce it.

Actually, such laws are only enforced in cases where the sex is performed in a public place, such as the men's room of a public park.

They are good laws and decent societies have the right to pass such laws.

I'm sure they could fine-tune the law to only apply to people having sex in public places. Why should gay people having sex in public be any worse than straight people having sex in public?

Survey Points to Contradicting Gay Claims

In stark contrast to the image portrayed by homosexual activists-that of gays suffering discrimination and the deprivation of the fundamental rights, privileges, and opportunities accorded to other Americans-a new online survey finds that the income of homosexual households is 65 percent higher than the U.S. median income.

Nearly 6,000 U.S. respondents completed the "2001 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census," conducted by OpusComm group. The survey was designed to poll homosexuals and lesbians about their education, jobs, spending practices, and politics. More than a fifth of the respondents reported a combined household income of $100,000 or more, with nearly 60 percent of gay male households and 46 percent of lesbian households reporting a combined income greater than $60,000.

Homosexual advocacy groups were quick to downplay the survey results, realizing that the image of prosperous and successful homosexuals contradicts the carefully-cultivated image of an oppressed minority requiring special rights and protections. Betsy Gressler of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force was quick to respond: "I think it is wrong to project these finding[s] on the entire gay and lesbian community."

On the other hand, companies attempting to attract business, capital, and advertisers to the "gay market" have no compunction about touting the homosexual community as an affluent "niche market." Jennifer Gilbert, writing in Advertising Age on the advertising spending boom for gay- oriented Web sites, notes: "Gays are twice as likely as the general population to have a household income between $60,000 and $250,000, according to Simmons Research." Lowell Selvin, CEO of Online Partners.com, the network parent of Gay.com, enthusiastically adds: "The future of advertisement to the gay and lesbian community is enormous... The possibilities are practically endless. . ."

Not quite. One "possibility" that is becoming increasingly untenable in the rush to capitalize on the wealth in homosexual households is the attempt by gay activists to "have it both ways." It is specious to claim both that the homosexual community suffers economic and other "discrimination," and that gays constitute a powerful economic force that corporate America neglects at its peril.

Why should gay people having sex in public be any worse than straight people having sex in public?

'Cause it's perverted, you silly goose.

"They're trying to legislate their disapproval, dislike, distaste for gay people. It's just mean."

THE POO-POO HEADS! 8')

Last week a bunch of activists for gay rights shut down our hell house becuz they thought our homsexual condemning scene was brain washing people into anti-gay semitism but..heres why we did it

I Corinthians : nor the drunken,homosexuals,adulters,murderors and thieves shall inherit the kingdom of god.

Their true intention with this proposal is to legitimize discrimination against gay people, to say it's OK to deny someone housing or jobs," she said.

So you have a right to work for a specific person or company and a right to live on property you dont own? I must have been sick when they were teaching about these rights in school. So, to answer her question, "Yes it is legitimate for PRIVATE PERSONS to discriminate against anyone. Discrimination is the basis of personal freedom. The freedom to trade includes the freedom to not trade, for whatever reason. The right to associate naturally inlcudes the right not to associate, for exercise of this right MUST be mutual between both parties.

"They're trying to legislate their disapproval, dislike, distaste for gay people. It's just mean."

Momma said, "Sometimes it be's that way". Life sucks, honey, get used to it(then again, I guess she doesn't care for sucking).

Proposed namechange: Traverse City to Perverse City. Or maybe Transvestite City.

Since sodomy is illegal in Michigan

And that's a good thing?

It certainly does provide a front line defense against "same-sex marriage," doesn't it!

Actually, such laws are only enforced in cases where the sex is performed in a public place, such as the men's room of a public park.

If you want a law agains sex in public restrooms, make a law against sex in public restrooms.

There already are, but the butt pirates just keep coming back for more. Anyway, decent people should be able to declare sodomy illegal if they do it via legal means.

Can a married couple have sex in public and claim it was legal?

Probably not.