Far too often in our culture we use slurs instead of argument. The idea is that if we can throw contempt and derision at someone then we don’t need to consider what they are saying.

It is an extremely foolish was of thinking and behaving.

So, no, we won’t “continue to call them teabaggers.” Unless, of course, we are unable to counter their ideas and wish to indicate that we have run out of thought and now are reverting to slurs.

If you read the previous commentaries (the green bolded words link to these commentaries), you’ll find the “full context.”

I’ve yet to meet a person complaining about the evil intrusive government who was remotely consistent about it. When you get down to specifics it always becomes obvious that what the person opposes is the government intruding on THEIR lives, when it’s other people’s lives they have no problem with it.

But the point is that they pick & choose which things they consider intrusions.

…and gay people and our concerns never seem to be on that list. (gay marriage, for example?)

Since when have the Tea Partiers advocated that?

Rossi said “if the area is common for public sex (trust me, it is), and if that’s illegal (it is), and residents complain loudly and deserve the right to a used condom-free lawn (they do), then I have a hard time reading this article and feel like you’re doing anything beyond endorsing something that any community has the right to either refuse and prosecute or refuse TO prosecute…Again, would you give two shits if they were straight people being arrested? Doubt it. Let equality rule, even if sometimes it does cut both ways.”.

Rossi, there were no complaints about gay men having public sex. During the previous two years, only two indecent exposure cases involving gay men had been reported (in a city that is half gay), while ten complaints involved men exposing themselves to women. Given that the city is half gay it is not equality to go after the smaller gay problem and leave the larger heterosexual problem alone.

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/01/12/29360#comments

Chief Dominguez, the guy who made the “filthy motherf*ckers” comment, retired–he was about to be forced out. You don’t mention this.

The question I’d ask is were the police doing something illegal? You know Warm Sands, it’s pretty, well, filthy, in the minds of a lot of people (especially the folks who live there and pay taxes to do so).

I don’t endorse entrapment. And if it’s a case where it was shown that the police handled offenders any differently than they would any other sex-in-the-bushes perp, then it ought to be prosecuted, and you ought to scream about it.

But I think the city, if it’s within the law and without abuse of power or brutality, they have an obligation to uphold their ordinances. The ordinances may not always be gay-friendly. So don’t break em.

And if the area is common for public sex (trust me, it is), and if that’s illegal (it is), and residents complain loudly and deserve the right to a used condom-free lawn (they do), then I have a hard time reading this article and feel like you’re doing anything beyond endorsing something that any community has the right to either refuse and prosecute or refuse TO prosecute. If it’s a case where they approached it with a sledgehammer rather than a scalpel (to my understanding there have been multiple attempts at tamping down the public sex), then people have a right to be pissed.

AS it seems to me, though I think it’s horrendously one-sided to present this as some egregious abuse of rights here, at least without a full vetting of the facts. Especially when there were clearly people participating in something that is not only rampant but also illegal (and pretty f*cking disrespectful).

Again, would you give two sh!ts if they were straight people being arrested? Doubt it. Let equality rule, even if sometimes it does cut both ways.

I’m looking forward to their effort to reduce this ridiculous intrusion into people’s lives. (yes, that was written sarcastically)