Originally Posted By barboy What does gay friendly really mean? Is it tolerating or is it encouraging homosexuality? Or neither or both? If it's about toleration then basically all vacationing spots in the world would work anyway. How many out there want to spend their two weeks in Tehran or Saudi Arabia? Europe, the Caribbean, Rio, Canada, East Asia and all the well traveled spots in the US don't care if one likes his same gender or not. Those spots just want tourist dollars, nothing more and nothing less. So what's the story with Travelocity targeting gay people but not Blacks, Asian or Latino people?
Originally Posted By mele <<So what's the story with Travelocity targeting gay people but not Blacks, Asian or Latino people?>> It's called MONEY. I guess you'd have to be gay to understand how unfriendly places can seem sometimes. Mostly, it's just a marketing ploy but it IS appreciated. It's nice to spend $ somewhere where they intentionally state that they are gay friendly. Certain resorts may have gay mixers and events. I don't know...I've never gone on a gay vacation. LOL
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Europe, the Caribbean, Rio, Canada, East Asia and all the well traveled spots in the US don't care if one likes his same gender or not.> That's PRETTY much true today, but wasn't always. Time was when showing up at a hotel where you got just one bed and both of you were men (or women) could get you some VERY unfriendly 'tude in a lot of places right here in America. That is receding to be sure, and the term "gay friendly" will probably recede as well, but there was a time when it was very important to know if the hotel you were planning to stay at would be "gay friendly" or if you'd have some sort of problem. As for the Caribbean, it wasn't that long ago that one of those countries (I forget which) wouldn't even let a cruise ship land because it was full of gay people. They wouldn't even let them into the country. <<So what's the story with Travelocity targeting gay people but not Blacks, Asian or Latino people?>> It's largely a holdover from the days when you had to be more careful about where you were staying. And it proved profitable for the companies, so they kept it up. I must admit, when I was a kid I never thought I'd see the day when Wink Martindale (the Winkster!) would be on TV smiling that big Winkster smile and saying "Orbitz makes it easy to find the right gay-friendly hotel." Remember, it wasn't THAT long ago that the far-right groups had a tizzy and boycotted IKEA for daring to put on an ad that merely had a gay couple IN it. Now you've got the Winkster hawking gay travel.
Originally Posted By Elderp I can see why the travel community would want to sponsor gay travel. In general, gay/lebians don't have more money (because of combined incomes) to do more add ons, no children (that are usually whinny), have a laidback attitude, and usually tip well. That is at least what I saw when I worked for my dad (he owns a travel company).
Originally Posted By DAR <<But the vacation spots you listed sound more like vacation destinations for gay men, not lesbians. ;-)>> Lesbians come to Milwaukee all the beer and softball they want
Originally Posted By dshyates "Do gay people stay in different hotels and resorts? No." Ummm, peruse these links; <a href="http://www.theflamingoresort.com/" target="_blank">http://www.theflamingoresort.com/</a> <a href="http://www.thehacienda.com/index2.html" target="_blank">http://www.thehacienda.com/index2.html</a> <a href="http://www.thecabanasguesthouse.com/" target="_blank">http://www.thecabanasguesthouse.com/</a> <a href="http://www.grandresort.net/index.asp?np" target="_blank">http://www.grandresort.net/index.asp?np</a> Oddly enough these hotels don't turn up on your average Hiotels.com search.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh It's like saying "read Tom Cruise on Scientology. It's SO clear, once you do." Then those people read it and say "it still doesn't make sense." You come back and say "Tom dealt with all of that! You're so blind!"> No, it's not like that at all. <First of all, I DO have the facts on my side. You have one discredited study.> See, I don't think you've even read the articles. <Can you show stats on what you WERE claiming then? I'm guessing not, as usual. I showed stats on the divorce rate - got any MA stats of your own? Put up or shut up time, Doug.> Why don't you go back and read what I wrote and respond to it instead of posting this garbage?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<It's like saying "read Tom Cruise on Scientology. It's SO clear, once you do." Then those people read it and say "it still doesn't make sense." You come back and say "Tom dealt with all of that! You're so blind!">> <No, it's not like that at all.> Yes, it is. It's quite a lot like that. <<First of all, I DO have the facts on my side. You have one discredited study.>> <See, I don't think you've even read the articles.> Of course I did. Many of us did, and responded to specific points. Because we don't agree with them or can easily point out their logical flaws doesn't mean we didn't read them. <<Can you show stats on what you WERE claiming then? I'm guessing not, as usual. I showed stats on the divorce rate - got any MA stats of your own? Put up or shut up time, Doug.>> <Why don't you go back and read what I wrote and respond to it instead of posting this garbage?> In other words, you can't. Let's review: you said I "couldn't" show any stats about MA showing a lack of negative effect on MA due to gay marriage. I showed that the divorce rate has declined somewhat in MA since gay marriage was instituted, and in fact a greater decline than in states that instituted a gay marriage ban. That's a hard fact. You, on the other hand, cannot show any stats from MA that show any negative effects.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF I knew it was only a matter of time... <a href="http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid56469.asp" target="_blank">http://www.advocate.com/news_d...6469.asp</a> >>The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is asking California members to join the effort to amend that state's constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. A letter sent to Mormon bishops and signed by church president Thomas S. Monson and his two top counselors calls on Mormons to donate ''means and time'' to the ballot measure. A note on the letter dated June 20 says it should be read during church services on June 29, but the letter was published Saturday on several Web sites. Church spokesman Scott Trotter said Monday that the letter was authentic. He declined further comment, saying the letter explains the church's reasons for getting involved. The LDS church will work with a coalition of churches and other conservative groups that put the California Marriage Protection Act on the Nov. 4 ballot to assure its passage, the letter states.<<
Originally Posted By utahjosh I understand that same-sex marriage can be an emotional and divisive issue. My church teaches that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is the basic unit of society. That children have the right to be born to a mother and a father. And the Church has every right to promote religious morality in our country, in fact it is the Church's duty. It is not a matter of discrimination, it is a matter of principle that compels the Church to make a stand. Just as those who support same sex marriage have the right to promote it, so do churches that believe the practice is wrong.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan It's now or never time for gay marriage opponents, and they know it. Public opinion, especially people under the age of 45, is not in their favor on the issue, according to a recent Field poll. And as time goes by, more and more people are over the whole topic, not buying into the hysteria oponents try to whip up. It's Last Chance Saloon time, and I expect a lot of dollars will be spent by various churches to support a gay marriage ban in CA. Dollars that could, of course, be spent by churches to actually help the needy, do truly Christian good. But instead, it'll be wasted on this nonsense. In a couple of years, the public opinion numbers won't be close on the subject of gay marriage in the Golden State: They'll be decidely not in opponents' favor. For now, if more young people turn out than is typical, this measures crumbles. Obama's nomination bodes well, but young people aren't the most reliable voters, to their shame. Even if it passes, it's questionable that it would hold up in court. And there is always the reality that as public opinion shifts, a proposal essentially wiping out a gay marriage ban could materialize for the next election cycle.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>It is not a matter of discrimination<< Of course it is. But really, people have always had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, out of a discriminatory stance in the past. This is just the latest example.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Simply put, churches such as yours have absolutely no right to try and impose their beliefs on the rest of society. We do not need your church to save us from ourselves. If members of your church want to follow their directives, fine for them. But in no way are they welcome in anyone else's life, much less telling them how to live it. Ever.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By utahjosh Yep, I'm an ignorant sheep following a power-hungry corporation making empty promised of eternal glory, right?
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
