HomeOdd NewsQuote Of The Day Quote Of The Day Kevin January 23, 2005 Odd News 48 Comments “It would help youth struggling with their sexuality to realize they don’t have to go away to a big city to be gay. You can be gay right here in Spokane.” On efforts to create a gay district in tragically unhip Spokane Washington. Johnny Carson, Dead At 79 I Wouldn't Trust Him With Your Money Related Posts A sign of the apocalypse Part II You Didn't Win the Powerball Last Night Life in Florida XII About The Author Kevin Kevin founded Wizbang in 2003. He still contributes occasionally and handles all the technical and design work for the site. 48 Comments -S- January 23, 2005 As someone who is familiar with Spokane, I think I can fairly well represent most of Eastern Washington right here and now and write “no f***ing way.” Yeehaw. -S- January 23, 2005 I also think I am not alone in perceiving that these pronunciations about what is “hip” or not and what and where and how what sort of districts “should be” and “ought to be” and such created, that it is ALWAYS something from San Francisco comes. What IS the problem, exactly? I don’t think it’s Spokane and a whole lotta happy folks in Eastern Washington, I am betting here, agree with me. -S- January 23, 2005 Sorry, not to monopolize here (the mention of Spokane has set me off, however), I was just ruminating as to how this proposed district is going to deal with snow tires. julie January 23, 2005 It’s odd how they felt the need to make a formal announcement. Usually, gay enclaves start out with a few people willing to invest in property, fix it up, start up small businesses, etc. I’m all for small business. An aside: I heard someone on the radio the other day warning not to rent to “homosexuals” because you’ll end up with hardwood floors and flowers in every room. (It was a joke.) I’ll admit I’m not into bars/clubs moving into any neighborhood I live in, but who doesn’t love little shops? IT January 23, 2005 Why is it that folks who continue to champion the gripe that they are not treated just like everyone else continue to do all they can to showcase their differences in an effort to be noticed and featured? Just curious…because I am considering starting a town for tall people. No low tree branches, leg room on the buses, big ass Texas sized chairs…and off the rack big and tall stores only. Everyone knows we have been discriminated against since pre-school… Cheers IR firstbrokenangel January 23, 2005 It sounds to be that whoever said this (governor maybe?) that he’s trying to make a “gay neighborhood.” NOT a good idea by any means. You have people out there who HATE gays and if they are all in one place, they’d be easier to target for hate crimes. This person is looney tunes. Cindy firstbrokenangel January 23, 2005 Suzy – the problem is not the gay community; the problem is straight people who fear homosexuals. It’s a real shame because differences in people is what makes life interesting. Cindy -S- January 23, 2005 No, firstbrokenangel, it is homosexual behavior that’s the problem, as per my morality and ethics. I know no one who “fears” homosexuals, mistreats or otherwise poses any problem TO those who practice homosexuality, but I do know of and continue to read about many with those behaviors who continue to need to define enclaves and districts for purposes of separating themselves based upon sexual behaviors. But I do like IT’s plan. We could have next a district for us plaid people — descendants of Nordics — or maybe for Germans, then for white people, then for…perhaps I make my point. I think that the very idea of “district(ing)” sexual behaviors is entirely, for lack of a better word here, crazy. Or, perhaps prejudicial. Probably a lot of both. -S- January 23, 2005 Next, the Prostitution District. Then the Bestiality Town. Then the Heterosexuals Homeland. Then, and then, and then… -S- January 23, 2005 However, cindy, where and how do you equate “fear of homosexuality” in anything I wrote, and why about what I wrote, and about me? Just curious, because a lot of people often project, so was curious about your comments here. I am finding it tedious, this ongoing thing about homosexuality, that when and if anyone makes any remark about anything homosexuals do, say, promote, that there then has to follow by someone (in this case, you, cindy) the projection that to discuss these issues is related to ‘fear’ of homosexuality. I’ve had my fill of it, having worked in S.F. and L.A. for many years, and often for homosexuals doing their thing, promoting their businesses, an employee. I’m really tired of the whole environment, quite personally, but mostly I am tired of the sarcasm, hate and animosities that generate from homosexuality about everyone else. If they need to “go” to wherever to do whatever, I don’t see why it has to become labelled and districted, is my point. About their behaviors, they have theirs, I have mine, and I’m just fine with mine. -S- January 23, 2005 And, last thing, Spokane is just fine with being “non hip,” in my experience, a very, very family oriented place and surrounding area in that part of Washington, a very wholesome and nice place to live, a nice city and area. As with all humans everywhere, I am sure that there are homosexuals there as with elsewhere, I only mean that the general “non hipness” of Spokane is by design, not by accident or lack of plan, but because of that. Lots of farms and ranches and very non-hip entertainment, like rodeos and large tires. I like Spokane. Gail January 23, 2005 Gays get together and call us breeders. They are allowed to openly scorn us without being challenged as heterophobic. Where are the designated “gay free” spots? If they have the money (and they seem to), and the desire, they can convene and create districts. This is the job of governments? The rise in open homosexuality also seems to be the fall of empires. Blacks can openly despise whites and be exclusive and they go unchallenged. Gays can pretend to be superior but the old “penis envy” that Freud alluded to is real because gays envy us our family circle and breeding. Why not encourage Irish Americans or Polish or Russian districts. These are also people who sing, dance, have culture. So what next? Pedophile districts? M. Murcek January 23, 2005 It would also help for a lot of people to publicly admit that Bush is not Hitler, but that isn’t happening either. FreakyBoy January 23, 2005 Then, after we segregate all the different people into districts, we can build walls arouind each district to keep them in and restrict movement between districts. This progressive thing is so retro. Joe Grossberg January 23, 2005 Not one, but two commenters present a pedophile district as the inevitable next step after a gay district. And yet -S- says “I know no one who “fears” homosexuals, mistreats or otherwise poses any problem TO those who practice homosexuality”. I’d say comparing them to baby-fuckers certainly qualifies as mistreatment. Drew - Dallas, TX January 23, 2005 No public funds will be used to create the district, which is dependent on developers My bullshit detector was set off on this one. How are they going to maintain district without modifying current zoning regulations in order to make this happen during “development”. It makes me think about west Hollywood, or Oak Lawn in Dallas, which are both gay neighborhoods, but have developed over the years without such announcements. Neither of them has been “dependent on developers” either. It’s not like they were setup as an area of track homes in the suburbs as they are both full of shitty apartments and liquor stores. You can’t have such districts for straight folk, right? I guess that it would be too much for us straighties to expect them to limit their parade routes for this district only. Keep in mind – they don’t just want equal rights, they want more rights. Steve L. January 23, 2005 How would the world react if the city decided to create a “gay zone?” They would be decried for attempting to segregate gays from the rest of society. There would be protests in the streets. Every news outlet would be there running stories condemning the city for such a thing. Someone rightfully pointed out that, for a group purporting to be just like everyone else, gay groups spend most of their time pointing out their differences and wanting people to KNOW that they are gay. Logic wold tell you that, if you truly wanted people to accept you as just like them, then you should act just like them. Personally, I don’t think most of the gay organizations are really fighting for equality. They are fighting for publicity and political influence. Paladin January 23, 2005 That’s just not reasonable. How could any self-respecting homosexual practice their art without the finery only found in metropoliton areas… I mean, Wal-Mart? Pffaww. Drew - Dallas, TX January 23, 2005 Joe, it’s not offensive for one to be gay, just for someone to act gay. That’s what really offends people like me – not because I’m phobic, but because 99% of homos that I encounter feel the need to announce their presence as if anyone gives a rats ass. I was at a Pub near my house the other day when this dike started singing loudly, followed by eyeballing my wife, then obviously glaring at me. She then started discussing with the bartender about how people who hate gays are [insert every word under the sun here]. She made indirect comments continusouly about me until the bartender dropped our check. I told the bartender while staring directly into this bitch’s eyes that I didn’t hate gays, that I just hate annoying assholes who sing in bars. -S- January 23, 2005 Dear Joe Gross Berg: I referred to the ‘fear’ factor about homosexuals as in being afraid of homosexuality, the old “homophobic” histrionic lob that is flung about to and about most who share a candid opposition to homosexuality as acceptable practice, behavior WITHIN THEIR OWN LIVES. Not that certain homosexual practices aren’t to be feared as YOU refer, as to pedophilia, whatever. But, in the context I used the “fear” reference, as in knowing no one who “fears” homosexuals, it was used (by me) within a differnt context. Meaning, it is possible to reject the behaviors without loathing individuals who are that (not to include pedophiles, however, now that you’ve focused on that behavior, about which also heterosexuals are responsible for). I was just trying to comment on someone else’s comments directed to me here, which you seem to have overlooked. Either intentionally or not (I don’t think so), but I think what it is is that you’re probably completely misperceiving via homosexual prejudice my hetereosexual comments. Also my comments that reflect a Christian morality to and about homsexual behaviors. I realize that homosexuals revile that morality — at least most do because it identifies their choices as being immoral within a behavioral capacity — but they also then demand that their behaviors be ‘accepted’ if not often “celebrated” (interesting word), and, in good old fashioned social mores alone, you don’t garner respect when you don’t offer it. People are just offended by the demands and the attempts to force an offensive set of behaviors on some by use of government action — not so respectful, when you think about it, where other people’s morality and religious beliefs are concerned. -S- January 23, 2005 Point is, you’re free to make your own choices about your own morality, as is everyone else. But in the context of this thread, creating “districts” that are “homosexual”, I mean, aghast here, what would be any difference then if I and others began promoting “heterosexual districts” and similar? No difference, just that homosexuals never seem to get the offense about their behaviors within these force-fed ‘social engineering’ projects, such as this foolish thing where Spokane is concerned. You know, San Francisco was once a mostly Irish Catholic and Italian Catholic and Protestant place. Once. Spokane is now not San Francisco and has it’s own culture that fosters a certain anti-urban and pro-rural small town America atmosphere. I don’t see why “the homosexual community” has to now create a “district” there or anywhere other than to make a counter statement to the naturally developed social environment that exists there now. I don’t get it. Leave the place alone. Spokane is just fine as is, and most who live there think so, too. By deeming it “terminally non-hip” as this homosexual person describes Spokane (article linked here), they’re suggesting it is in need of being made “hip” and leapign through to conclude that being “hip” is also having a “homosexual district.” Um, Spokane exists as is in actual “hipness” in that you can go sit day or night in the Park and not find certain activities going on there and certain litter lying around afterward. You can take your kids to the park and enjoy a picnic on the lawns. They have annual children’s festivals and various other fun and very wholesome, ‘non hip” events that most folks there and elsewhere like just fine as is. Not looking for any Seattle or San Francisco environment, so no reason to move that to Spokane, is my point… I don’t think you understand what I’m saying here. I think it’s best to just say that the certain ‘hip’ aspect that these district-creating people are referring to is entirely counter to why most people have already moved to Spokane and enjoy about the place. And the district idea is just a ghetto mentaliity, people who want to recreate divisions in Spokane that don’t exist there. Why, perhaps they should explain beyond their insipid plea for more ‘hipness’. OneDrummer January 23, 2005 Uhhh… I’m feeling that the point is also being missed here. As one who lives smack dab in the middle of Washington state, I can honestly say that it doesn’t matter what anyone does… Spokane will never be hip. (Well, except for the ‘Zags.) Wonder why anyone would think this whole gay-neighborhood idea would be wise when you’re 45 minutes away from Hayden Lake, ID? I can just picture it now, they’ll be more diversity in Spokane alright, just not what anyone envisioned. bullwinkle January 23, 2005 I remember years ago when the line was “What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is nobody else’s business”, now it’s “flaunt it in your face-put on a feathered headdress and leather crotchless pants and march down main street-chanting “we’re here, we’re queer, get used to it!” I agreed with the first one, the second one is getting harder and harder to take. We all know what would happen if “breeders” got together and wanted to make a gay-free zone. I’m all for gays having the same rights as anyone else, this country was founded on that, but they too often confuse rights with privileges, marriage is not a right, you don’t need a license to exercise a right, there are restrictions on it in every state in the union. It’s like fishing, hunting and driving, there are limits, rights have no limits, but both rights and privileges come with a whole shitload of responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is not abusing the right or privilege, like making a zone based on preference or exclusion. The left will never understand that distinction whe it’s applied to them, but they surely do when applying it to everyone else. It’s just like the same people that remind us we can change the channel if we don’t approve of what’s on TV, but can’t do the same thing themselves when something offends them, like prayer for instance. Drew - Dallas, TX January 23, 2005 Why is it that gays constantly say that they are feared and mistreated? I’m sure it happens, but these two words seem to be the de-facto description of everyone who’s not gay. It’s presumptuous as usual, for them to assume that people with which they are indifferent actually are scared of their existence or mistreat them by actually having an opinion about it. It’s one thing to fear for your life somehow, or I’d even say that I would fear eating a tub full of grub worms. For someone to judge someone else based on any reason whatsoever – doesn’t constitute fear. If someone posts their opinion in a blog, which is actually an optional read, that’s mistreatment? I’d say that for gays to regard themselves as deserving a devoted community before Spokane’s transient population, is closer to mistreatment than having an anti-gay stance. Just Me January 23, 2005 I don’t understand the point of a “gay district” I admit I have lived in small, almost rural towns in mostly rural states in my whole life, so haven’t actually seen a real gay district. Why are they needed? What exactly is their purpose? Why should a city zoning/planning board set one up? What happens to the straight people and businesses in this new district? If a straight person wants to open a business or live in said district, would they be prevented? Just seems to me, that this is a redundant idea. TallDave January 23, 2005 I think Joe makes a good point. For rational people, I think, homosexuality is morally different than pedophilia, because it’s been amply demonstrated that sexual contact is very bad for children while (nonpromiscuous) sexual contact between consenting adults is generally found not to be. OTOH, is anyone really hurt by bestiality? It’s certainly deviant, and Peta might argue against it on the basis of animal rights, but can anyone show (using reason as oposed to dogma) that it’s morally worse than homosexuality, heterosexuality or even masturbation? Of course I am not arguing in favor of bestiality, I’m just trying to point out some of the apparent logical fallacies in modern sexual mores when examined by reason alone. Whether this indicates that reason alone is insufficient basis on which to examine sexual mores or that society is not being sufficiently rational I would leave as an open question. Joe Grossberg January 23, 2005 I think a lot of you are seriously confused about the relative threat and frequency of discrimination versus reverse-discrimination. Oh you straight white Christians, you have it so hard. My heart bleeds for you. bullwinkle January 23, 2005 I don’t think it’s irrational to make laws against disgusting things like beastiality. Some things are just obscene and better off not allowed by law or mentioned or even imagined, for instance, we have laws to prevent Teddy Kennedy from appearing in public nude for good reason. I don’t want to see it and very few people would. I also don’t want to be out on a drive in the countryside and see someone frolicking in a herd of sheep, whether or not PETA approves. We’re right back at the point of my previous post, it rapidly goes from the private acts of consenting adults to public displays in no time at all. If we used Talldave’s reasoning it wouldn’t be long before Wallawalla was asking for a zoning variance for chicken coops and sheep pens inside the city limits. Things definitely have a way of going from baaaaaad to worse and doing it in a hurry. Drew - Dallas, TX January 23, 2005 Us <false stereotype>straight white Christians</false stereotype> disliking and speaking our minds on every ludicrous thing that gay activists want does not represent the threat of discrimination. If someone is openly gay, knowing with absolute certainty that they are inviting all severity of disdain from others, I can’t feel pain for them at all either. Rightwingsparkle January 23, 2005 -S- I’m thinking we start a conservative smart girl district. Make em come to us. Power to the Females In The Know!! And to Joe, lighten up. NOt everthing is meant to be an insult. Just Me January 23, 2005 Joe please tell me what the purpose of a “gay” district is? Why do they need a gay district? This is has nothing to do with fear, or discrimination, I just don’t understand the purpose of needing a gay district. Also, it is in some ways divisive-if a group wants acceptance and inclusion, seperating yourself out into your own district probably isn’t moving in the right direction. Joe Grossberg January 23, 2005 “Just Me”: I never said I was in favor of a gay district. And I agree that it could be divisive. That said, I don’t hate gays so much that I use this as a launching point into a tirade against the evils of homosexuality, how they’re assholes toward straight people, or that it’s the equivalent to “Bestiality Town”. Drew: “If someone is openly gay, knowing with absolute certainty that they are inviting all severity of disdain from others, I can’t feel pain for them at all either.” I am openly Jewish, even though I know for certain that many, many people hate Jews. Are you saying I should hide that fact, like you expect gays to? Parnelly Jones January 23, 2005 As a resident of Spokane I can tell you there is no need for a gay district. Plus our city is not that big. I belive the population is somewhere around 500,000 if you include surrounding area. Last time I checked the gay community was welcome in any business in town. This is just an attempt of a very small protion of the population to get attention. The downtown night life is open to all and there is every flavor of nightclub. As for businesses, if you offer a good product at a good price with excellent customer service you will do well. You don’t have to label it as “gay owned”. I don’t care if someone is gay, what bothers me is when people throw in your face and expect you to be fine with it. My best friend (who was also my best man) is gay but, you don’t see him prance about town demanding a “gay district”. He does not hide the fact that he is gay but he does not advertise it either. It’s just who he is. He does not define himself as a gay man in need of special rights or in need of anything specifically gay. I have never understood why someone would want to define themselves by who they sleep with. It just seems that it’s a self-esteem problem to define yourself that way. Just Me January 23, 2005 But you see I am a straight white christian. I didn’t use this topic as a way to launch a discussion on the evila of homosexuality etc. So who was using the generalization here? I don’t see the need for a “gay” district, not because I think gays are evil, but because I think it is a stupid and pointless idea. Sue Dohnim January 23, 2005 Joe, the same people who have taught you that there is such a thing as “reverse discrimination” are the same people who wish to categorize us Jews as a race. They teach a Marxist doctrine that substitutes races, sexes, and sexual preferences for the upper and lower classes. The transmutation from the original Marx to today’s Gramsci-Frankfurt critical theorists is a little something like: workers -> dark-skinned/homosexual/female = GOOD bourgeois -> white heterosexual male = BAD Of course, the mindless sheep who bleat such things never seem to realize that the pioneers of (and indeed today’s greatest champions of) this movement are white, mostly heterosexual males. All they know is the chant given to them by Napoleon and Snowball. Four legs good, two legs bad. Until it becomes four legs good, two legs better. Drew - Dallas, TX January 23, 2005 So, it’s ok to compare sexual preference with religion now? It’s not the same comparison within any stretch of the imagination… but, to answer your question – No, because I don’t have any problem with the 1000s of years of deep-rooted and interesting tradition of such a religion. I do have a problem with the beautifully and eloquently put nobody else’s business vs. flaunt it in your face activism that we see nowadays. Personally, I don’t think people need to advertise by skipping around and speaking in “Flame” or driving a Ford Ranger with giant rainbow stickers on it. Neither should they present such a proposal for Spokane – not because I’m a homophobe, but because it benefits no one and is only a bid for attention to a larger agenda of more rights than the rest of us. I really lost a lot of respect for the gay community when the Log Cabin Republicans announced about 6 weeks before the election that they weren’t voting for Bush because of his stance on gay marriage. Tsk, tsk tsk. Henry January 23, 2005 Animal Farm… Man if only Orwell were here I wonder what he’d say…. julie January 23, 2005 what the purpose of a “gay” district is? To make money by offering goods and services to a particular interest group. It’s business. Drew - Dallas, TX January 23, 2005 Julie – do you really need more antique hats? julie January 23, 2005 Okay, Drew, you convinced me. :p Rob Hackney January 23, 2005 Jesus, if they want to try and create another gay getto, good luck to them. Emily January 23, 2005 Regardless of whether homosexuality is “right” or “wrong”, I really don’t like this idea of segregation…wasn’t that supposed to be over by now? If people can’t live together without separating themselves into exclusive groups along lines of sexuality, race, etc, then what’s the point of the civil rights stuff anyway. I thought it had been decided in the courts years ago that “separate but equal” wasn’t gonna work, because separate is never equal and never better. I’m all for diversity, and living in Spokane I would love to see more people of different backgrounds making an effort to participate in the community…but I don’t think separation, the “creation of a gay community” (implying separation from everyone else) is a logical or intelligent step in that process. I think it’s exclusive and immature. If you can’t grow up and learn to get along with people in everyday life, then you’ve got bigger problems. ferrethouse January 23, 2005 “the problem is straight people who fear homosexuals” fear homosexuals?!? I fear God, not homosexuals and because of that fear I oppose homosexuality. Penn January 24, 2005 As long as the gay enclave remains a private initiative, and as long as it is not sponsored by the government, I see nothing wrong with it. Jack Tanner January 24, 2005 ‘but who doesn’t love little shops?’ Uhhh…me!?!? If homosexuality is private lawful behavior what interest could a community legitimately have in either promoting or discouraging a ‘gay district’? Other than as Julie said promoting business development and the accompanying graft? Henry January 24, 2005 Um How come they have to create the district. What’s wrong, is the closet not good enough anymore? 😉 (F$%# you to those who don’t see this as a joke) -S- January 25, 2005 Later (d’oh)…I am trying to straighten out Joe Grossberg’s transmogrification from “gay district” to “bestiality” to the fact that he’s Jewish and disdains “white…Christians.” Lemme see here: wasn’t it v.e.r.y…w.r.o.n.g…and…v.e.r.y….b.a.d….when Jews were defined as those/them who resided in a segregared “district” within a larger society? It was paganism and occultists, by the way, who devised that segregation and that “disctricting” and initially, also homosexuals who were a part of the German Socialist Party, and, actually, quite demonstratively involved in structuring the “spiritual” references, which were occultist, in and of that Party — later to return and bite them on the arse by that Party, it’s noted, but that is also the way of occultism in theory and practice to and about those who promote it, as was also, in retrospect, the German Socialist Party about those they fancied they’d be representing. Christians, many of them “white” (some Protestant, some Catholic, some atheist, I imagine) and many other types of Americans included brought relief to those suffering Jewish persons since relocated from one terrible “district” to others far worse, but still “districts”… So, I don’t see the point of this same problem recurring anywhere else in our world, a district for one type, one behavior, one race, one sort, one of this, one for that…and I also don’t see why the very thought of that is anythin related to being “white…Christians.” But, Joe, you do show your actual motivation here as you have earlier, elsewhere, and attempted even on my own blog a while ago and that is that you really revile Christians and now, apparently, also “white” people. And here I thought it might be districting that would bother you, as it bothers in theory and practice nearly everyone else, including other Jews and for good reasons. -S- January 25, 2005 OneDrummer…ha, I was wondering the same things as to Spokane and surrounding area.