Parents that are aware that it was hat day should also be aware thatit was gay pride day. If they had an issue they could of just stayed away. For that matter I believe Rios and Bill would have had an issue regardles of which night gay pride night was held on. As long as nothing was going on theat broke the park rules, whats the big deal? Gay couples messing around in the stands can be kick out of the park just like straight couples.

"the radical gay agenda is in the business of removing parental rights and indoctrinating children."

Wow...I'd like to see an example of this. Any troglodytes out there have an example of gays removing parental rights? Anyone? Anyone?

Actually, it's less an agenda and more just natural science.

You see, as anybody knows and as O'Really tries to point out, children act as condensate particles for homosexuals.  So naturally when you mix a high concentration of homosexuals drinking cold beer with condensate particles of children eating hot dogs, next thing you know - BOOM!  IT'S RAININ' MEN!

That was funny. Hot dogs are the symbol of idolitry for about 50% of the gays (maybe a 100%) JUST KIDDING. b.o. does not believe in addiction so how could he believe in brain science and homosexuality. These interbred mongoloids (b.o. and his ilk) are really out of touch when it comes to human nature and nature in general. They think an addiction and homosexuality is a choice sort of like when b.o. is trying to decide if he wants his sugar on his grease and bleached white flour or he wants his bleached white flour and sugar on his grease. His brain does not function properly and that is a FACT!!! You are what you assimilate and the above is the diet of b.o. according to what he has said in the past

WAAAHOOO!!! Troll fest here we come!!!!

Oops.  Am I trolling?

Not so much as McCain's campaign co-chairman was!

Oh no! Another one! Courtesy of crooks and liars...

The phone number for GOP political operative/conservative pundit, John (Jack) M. Burkman Jr. - Principal J.M. Burkman & Associates, Arlington, VA - appears in the database of phone records of the ‘DC Madam.’ From the phone logs: 2006-01-15 18:44 1.00

I watched this piece last night and it was ridiculous.  The San Diego Pride chairman was the laziest, most milquetoast spokesman for anything, I was embarrased for him.  And the lady was loaded with her homophobic talking points totally unrelated to this particular situation, she embarrased herself.

Partly to O'Reilly's credit he did hold Ms. Rios' feet to the fire a little, not enough, but he appeared a little less hysterical than he normally does on these "gay" issues of such national importance.

And when is anyone going to demand proof from these people who slur gay people by insisting their agenda is indoctrinating children, which Ms. Rios claimed, without any backup as usual.  Mr. Deharte just sat there expression-less when she went on her tirade.

This promotion by the San Diego Padres is their business, people gay or straight behave or misbehave at events like this all the time.  To single out gay people as some reason to keep children away is reprehensible, this woman out to be ashamed.

"Partly to O'Reilly's credit he did hold Ms. Rios' feet to the fire a little, not enough, but he appeared a little less hysterical than he normally does on these "gay" issues of such national importance"

A little less hysterical? O'Reilly supports civil unions for gays and gay adoption. He has the same views that you do on the issue. He's never been a social conservative.

Rino, I know O'Reilly's adoption stance for gay people, it is commendable.  However, he relishes every opportunity to put gay people in a predatory and unfair light, that is my problem with him on this issue.

We disagree.

That's a pose, just like his alleged stance on the death penalty. He says he opposes it, but then when he discusses specific cases he supports it. He even made this ridiculous statement about the Guantanamo detainees: "I probably would have ordered their execution if I had the power." That's not someone who opposes the death penalty.

He pulls the same act with gay rights. He'll toe a line between claiming to support gay rights or claiming that he doesn't have a position on them, and then he'll proceed to do one homophobic story after another.

And when is anyone going to demand proof from these people

Sadly, that sentence fragment could have stood on its own.  Bias is rampant in our media, but sadly, so is incompetence.  Rarely do the media really analyze a story anymore, and instead just regurgitate press releases. 

Focus on the Family found "evidence" of homosexuals indoctrinating children.

 Of course, said "evidence" was in The Onion... and they bought hook, line, and sinker! tee hee.

 It had charts and everything!

I have 2 issues, one for each "side" of this debate.

 First, it's disingenuous, naive and insulting to suggest that there aren't heterosexual people making out at ballgames, etc.

That having been said, I thought this quote was riddled with irony:

 DEHART: There's no distinction between having a night where kids are there to celebrate the game, just as straight families are bringing children in, gays and lesbians are bringing their children into the game, to celebrate the ball game. It's about the ball game.

If there's no distinction, why is it even necessary to have a "gay/lesbian night at the ballpark?" If there's no distinction?

"If there's no distinction, why is it even necessary to have a "gay/lesbian night at the ballpark?" If there's no distinction?"

I see your point, but it's the park's perogative all the same.  Perhaps it was to send the message out that despite the the feelings of folks like Rios, all are welcome to the ball park. When

"If there's no distinction, why is it even necessary to have a "gay/lesbian night at the ballpark?" If there's no distinction?"

I see your point, but it's the park's perogative all the same.  Perhaps it was to send the message out that despite the the feelings of folks like Rios, all are welcome to the ball park. When

"If there's no distinction, why is it even necessary to have a "gay/lesbian night at the ballpark?" If there's no distinction?"

I see your point, but it's the park's perogative all the same.  Perhaps it was to send the message out that despite the the feelings of folks like Rios, all are welcome to the ball park. When

sorry hit the button twice.

When laws against gay marriage and there is concerted effort against the gay community by a large segment of the population, I don't see the harm in a gay pride anything.

Not so much laws against gay marriage and a populations "against" gays, more of a question of whether their marriage is the same. I tend to think that the minute a government endorsed a religious union, it was stuck letting everyone have it.

I think "gay pride" and singling them out as sexually different are separate things, and I don't think concentrating on a difference helps the larger population accept them as "normal", as arbitrary a word as "normal" is.

Fair enough. I can see where your coming from. I just think it doesn't hurt.

Gay Pride day rose out of a different situation.  It morphed into more of a pure empowerment celebration than a celebration of a singular event of empowerment.

It's no big deal.  All sorts of groups celebrate their own empowerment or culture. 

Gay people wearing hats undermine the sanctity of straight people wearing hats.

This is a serious problem though.  I remember when I was twelve and I was a perfectly hetersexual kid.  Then, I saw a gay couple and suddenly, I was gay.  Luckily, I went to Ted Haggard's sexuality-rehab clinic and I was straightened out.  Now, I'm glad that we have people like Bill O'Reilly around to look out for the interests of regular folks.  And by "regular folks," I of course mean "bat-sh*t crazy homophobes."

Maybe O'Reilly would prefer our children hang out in ball parks with these outstanding christians instead.

Snoop, 

With all due respect, to use extreme examples, of which there always are in any situation, as a reason or backup for anything is really not fair.

It isn't fair to decent gay people to lump them in with some extreme nutcase who share the same sexual orientation, just as it isn't fair to decent Christians to lump them in with these idiots either.

Tommy,

trust me, I don't lump them in with these extremists, I've commented before how my dad always called them Sunday Christians. I do however think O'Reilly may feel at home with them.

And then another group of "christians" comes out of the woodwork. Tommy, notice the "...

Snoop,

I don't really know what your point is, if it's too show there are nutty Christians out there, then you needn't convince me.  I have never said that there aren't extremists in all sectors of our society under all types of movements or beliefs.  

My statements about cherry picking extreme examples to make an overriding point is unfair......if I answered you back with some story about a gay pedophile, wouldn't you have the same reaction?, you should.

Tommy,

I know I don't have to convince you. I've seen enough of your posts to know that you don't like extremists. I guess I'm posting more for the shock value? Perhaps I should be punished for borderline trolling, but don't you find it interesting that the nuts seem to be coming out of the news woodworks this week? What would the outrage be if a hindu group protested a christian prayer opening of the senate? This was a first, and it was met with utter disrespect. Too bad more senators didn't stand up and denounce it in unison. Maybe that was my point...

Tommy, actually it's not extreme for a christian to hate/dislike homosexuals.

 Anyone recall the Sodom/Gomorrah story.

 If you are a christian, and you believe the bible is the infallible word of god, they as a christian you MUST hate the "sin" of homosexuals.

 phhhht.........

That is your interpretation.  People are free to interpret the Bible as they wish...unless you are claiming you have an autographed copy of the Bible.

Oh for the sake of the kids...

Once again using children as tool to support these idiots who rant what should be just.  The poor kids will be scarred for life.  God forbid that they might even think that homosexually is a normal way of life or even worse our children might become homosexuals.  They use kids like swords and try to cut down those who have a different look at civilization then there own.  Do these people really care about the children?  If so try getting them health care, all of them.

It's not about using kids to get your point across (although Grandma Pelosi is fond of the tactic herself)... it's about preventing young people from witnessing deviant behavior. By this I do not mean homosexuality, I mean blatantly sexual gay activity in public.

Gay pride events are the worst thing possible for the gay community. Wearing chaps and dressing up as women does NOTHING to gain acceptance. And children should not be exposed to sexual activities... seeing a hetero couple kiss in public is one thing. Seeing a hetero or gay couple making out is another level.

It's the Village People freaks in the gay community that cause all of the problems, not the 'normal' gays that lead normal lives.

Please explain to me the "deviant behavior" involved in sitting next to two adults watching a baseball game.  The same standards for acceptable behavior should be expected from all adults, especially around children.  There should be no distinction.

Tommy,

The problem for gay people is that the standard of acceptable behavoir for straight people does not apply to gay people. Nobody would bat an eye if a straight couple were innocently kissing (not making out) at a ball game. If it were two gay people innocently kissing then it's a cluster/recruitment/deviant display. I think that's the crux of the issue.

I agree with you, there is indeed a double standard.  I have no interest in seeing two straight or gay people kissing in public, but innocent displays of affection between two consenting adults does not offend me, no matter who is involved. 

I am far more offended by body odor or bad fashion, I would suppose.  ;)

I mean blatantly sexual gay activity in public

What would that be? Isn’t ANY blatantly sexual activity in public against the law?.

"It's the Village People freaks in the gay community that cause all of the problems, not the 'normal' gays that lead normal lives."

Funniest post of the day. Classic.

Homosexuality causes lung cancer and heart disease? 

 Not all gay people are into "that."

How, exactly, do homosexuals "recruit" children? Here's an experiment...go up to a 14 year old boy who is heterosexual, suggest that he become gay, and see how far you get. Unless he's already gay, he'll think you're nuts.

I think recruit is the wrong word to use. Although it doesn't reflect my personal belief, there are those who firmly believe that homosexual activity (and most sexual activity beyond procreation) is congruent to alchoholism, etc.

Dex,

Many use that exact term "recruit", and it's ridiculous.  As Nerzog correctly asked, how do they actually do this?  And who is doing this?  It's a fear mongering tactic used by those who just don't like gay people.  It's deplorable.

I recognize that many use that word and I think it's not a defensable action on their part.

People have every right to despise homosexuals or their lifestyles, but to put forth scurrilous accusations against them as a group out to indoctrinate anyone, including children, is beyond the pale.  There are bad people from every sexual orientation, but to act is if there is some "homosexual agenda" at work among the majority of decent gay people is adsurd.

The woman did it here and she should have been asked to back it up.  Not suprisingly, she was not. 

O'Reilly doesn't help suggesting only they are "clear thinking people".  But then again, he's not really interested in trying to change my mind, is he?

Exactly, just more of O'Reilly's brand of "just under the radar" homophobic slurs.

I have another example. Two groups, one a group of gay men, the other a group of right wing christians. Which group is more likely to shove their beliefs on you in passing?

How about Jehovah Witnesses?

They come right to your house.

A few years back I politely read them the riot act.

They skip my house now :-)

Good move, Jeter. I usually just invite them in and start showing them my Amway products.

Not to attack Mormons, but have you ever had a Mormon missionary come to your house?

I had one come by when I was in college - a very nice guy.  He asked if I wanted a free Book of Mormon.  I said "sure".  He then asked me when we could setup an appointment so we could read it together.  I then told him that I was capable of reading it myself.  He told me pretty much "no dice" unless I scheduled a meeting to read the book with him.

I thought that was very insecure of them to require their presence while I read their holy book.

If this ever happens again, put it on You Tube.

My late wife and I did something much more effective. Of course she knew the bible better than anyone I have ever known. We invited them in and told them two ground rules. ONE, they werent there to TEACH us anything we would discuss God as long as they wanted. TWO we didnt want to hear anything about what someone from their organization had written about the bible. There is the bible Shelley said we can talk about what is in IT. We talked to them for about 45 minutes during which Shelley took them to task showing she knew much more about the bible than they did and they practically ran from our house we told them to come back anytime. Do I really have to tell you then never came anywhere near our house again?

I just spoke to Ron deHarte of SD Pride and asked him why he was a bit sediment.  He told me that was his tactic and not to engage in a lengthy discussion with BO because he knew of his reputation of cutting you off when you starting making sense.  He just wanted to show a presence.  He took the high road and of course BO will always take the low road.  Mr. deHart was to smart to take the bait.  I'm sure BO can find a pink pistol carrying lesbian that would have taken the bait.

My problem with him is why did he just sit there and let this woman claim his lifestyle is deadly, and the main agenda for homosexuals is recruitment of children?  These are horrible accusations for anyone to make, and if he isn't equipped or able to answer that, what was he doing there in the first place?

He could have asked her for backup very calmly and resolutely, instead his silence could easily be interpreted as being guilty of the charges she leveled.

I should be more specific, Ms. Rios actually said the "radical gay agenda", not the main agenda........put her even mentioning this at all in any context is ridiculous.  She knew the impression she intended to leave - that gay people are out to recruit children.

Homophobe by proxy...

Ever notice how BO conveniently has a foaming-at-the-mouth, scat-for-brains, anti-gay moron on to spew their hate?

Then, BO can act all "Jeez, tone it down, dude" like he's some kind of moderate regarding gays.

I guess BO's solution would be, for the sake of the children, to require all gay people to wear pink armbands.

Or should they be purple?

Rainbow or purple. Pink is for cancer.

I thought it was a purple triangle, not armband.

SANDY!! I just HATE 'half-time' activities at BASEBALL games!! After the top half of the fourth inning is over, I just hide in the bathroom during the 'half-time' activities and count my lucky stars the gay people aren't trying to convert my kids into being accepting, gracious, and American... please keep up the good work by discriminating and being a total scared bigot...

I noted that one, too.  She can't even get the damn sport correctly.  She then claims homosexuality is "deadly."  Outstanding use of a scholar, Bill, just great.  I guess credibility means nothing to him.  Wait...wait...he used to work for Inside Edition.  Credibility is probably a word for which he has no use whatsoever, let alone has ever heard of.  I apologize for my earlier characterization.  Forgive me, please.

Cant wait to see Keith Olbermann tonight and him naming O'Reilly "Worst Person in the World"  How many want to bet that tommorow we will see the MMFA thread on how Olbermann named O'Reilly "Worst Person in the World".  As is the state of American cable news today, a liar and hater in O'Reilly and a no talent divider in Olbermann.  Sigh. 

Olbermann is "no talent"?

Please, please, pleas, NEVER, EVER volunteer to judge a talent contest.

Sue I have issues with Olbermann also, but the man does have talent. He is very smart and a very talented writer. He is however juvenile and the show is boring most of the time, it is sad MSNBC has been able to make a dent in the FOX domination of cable news. CNN has declined so much in talent and MSNBC has its own GM now back on the air at 9pm because of Scarborugh doing his Imus impression at 6am. The station is a joke, if I were NBC I would get rid of MSNBC and make it a sports network. Then Keith can go back to doing what he loves , talk about Baseball.

According to BillO, "clear-thinking people understand it is completely out of context and inappropriate," indeed "almost unbelievable," that "thousands of gay adults ... commingled with straight families." What's more, being homosexual is "their decision as adults," i.e., being gay is a "choice."

If that does not constitute blatant bigotry, it's hard to imagine what it would take.

" What's more, being homosexual is "their decision as adults," i.e., being gay is a "choice."

I find it hard to fathom that there are still folks that believe that one chooses their sexual orientation.

I don't recall waking up one morning & deciding to be heterosexual. It just came naturally, as in ...born that way.

Perhaps what confuses these folks is that now that homosexuals are out of the closet that young people who are Gay feel less inhibited about being themselves.

They are wrongly defining this as "recruitment".

It is hard to believe anyone thinks that way, isn't it?  AutoPsychic says he chose to be straight, although he clearly didn't realize the confession that implied.  That particular embarrassment of his comes about on the 41-60 page, although there were several others on that particular thread.

Now that was a fun conversation.  I doubt the poor guy even gets it now.

: )

I'll throw a wrench into the works here, just for fun's sake -- I do believe that some people do actively make that choice, because I do also believe in the degrees of orientation - some people are more straight than other straight people, some are more gay, some fall into different degrees of bisexuality inbetween.  Some people are born with the ability to choose, but they're not the norm, and they do not emcompass any kind of majority in either the straight or gay communities.

ah, yes... during the half-time stretch when everyone sings "Take me out to the ballgame."

Are 'clustering gays" anything like cluster bombs?

Well, the pentagon did invest money to see if they could create a gay bomb. It was supposed to make the enemy horney and want to spend more time humping their foxhole mates vs. firing back...

That would be a fantastic weapon against the Iranians. Whoever didn't turn homo would stone to death those that did.

I liked the "clustering gays" phrase too. It's almost like he's talking about allowable concentrations of toxins in drinking water or something.

We've got to set some federal guidelines for the proper dilution of gayness. EPA officials could cordon off San Francisco until they can redistribute some of that gayness to, say, somewhere in Wyoming.

Once we've balanced out all areas of the country to acceptable, safe levels of gay, BilldO may feel safe.

Funny.

You are so right. As long as they are properly dispersed and not allowed to be in any one place with too large a number, then children are safe and free from their treacherous clustering clutches.  But when they are all gathered together like a virus they put children at risk of ganging up on them and teaching them show tunes and how to match outfits, or something.

Where is the legislation to stop this?

I've just created a a company that sells "gay" offsets. I'm looking for some staff to help handle the phones and accounts. Anyone interested call me and we'll talk about the 1st thing that pops up.

Snoopy, I'm your 1st staff person. Can I be employee of the month? :-)

Pearl, you are totally getting a promotion with that!

We may have to spearhead this, Tommy.And before you start worrying about new taxes to fund it, I'd suggest that the Gay Safety Level legislation would be a perfect fit for some of those Faith -based monies.

And why isn't BilldO alarmed that the Padres, whose namesake mascot is a Catholic priest, are very concentrated in this area with all of those kids?

Isn't it a scientific fact that if you get too many gays in one vicinity, it could start a gayness chain reaction...which could wipe out mankind, as we would no longer be inclined to reproduce? Eeeeek!

O'bile ee was going off on the gay baseball game today in his radio show as well.  [sarcasm] It is amazing how fragile heterosexuality must be to think of the devastation this ball game might have caused.  I am sure a lot of children must be gay now…  However, this did not outrage me as much as how he continues to slither away from being completely wrong about the Iraq war.  On his radio show today his spinning continued:  He still wants us to fall for the line that everyone was fooled about the Iraq threat: Clintons, New York Times, CIA bla bla bla  Anyway, we really need these slippery media pundits to be called on this.  O'liely's line was that some people are always against all war, so if they were right, it does not matter.  He needs his feet stuck in the fire on this one (a la Wolf Blitzer with Michael Moore).  I am sure archives from 02/03 show him dismissing and insulting credible critics of the invasion, many of whom were not against all wars.  There were many experts questioning the invasion and the evidence for the invasion.  No Billy Boy! Not everyone one was fooled.  Millions were out in the streets protesting and they were aware of the flimsy case that was being made.  Legitimate questions were raised and then marginalized by war cheerleaders like Billo.  We CANNOT let him get away with saying that if he could be fooled, any reasonable person would be.  It should be his job as a “journalist” to dig out the truth, not position himself to be some kind of average Joe cultural warrior celebrating his virtuous ignorance.  HE WAS WRONG AND HE CONTINUES TO BE WRONG and he needs to be held accountable.  It is a pure lie that everyone was fooled by Saddam and that by some strange coincidence the wrong people got it right.  What actually happened was we - the American people -were denied a real debate and an opportunity to be informed by the major media outlets, which obviously have a different agenda and purpose than keeping us informed.  Besides, if Billy Boy wants to blame the New York Times and the Clintons for being wrong about the war, then maybe these entities are not so “far left”.  You can’t have it both ways.I am sorry to get off topic but a review of the behavior of media hacks like o’riely before the war needs to be exposed so they can’t slither away from the mess they helped create.   I am sure though that the outrage Bill O is creating about the gay baseball game will distract many people any real threats that exist currently.

I was at the game that night. A few observations:

By watching the O'Reilly segment one would think that Petco was crawling with gays. In fact, a perceptive person MIGHT have noticed that there were more gays at the game than usual, but by no means were gays "clustering" (whatever that is supposed to mean).

The San Diego Gay Men's Choir sang the National Anthem. An overwhelming majority of the people in the stands were cheering after they finished and clapped for them when they were announced. I only heard one or two people booing. Which goes to show that "regular" people have more class and respect than O'Reilly and his guest ever will.

Well said, I was quite sure that O'Reilly, in his attempt to conflate every incident into his culture war effort and ratchet up a situation where it doesn't exist, was overstating this entire thing.

He thinks he is so clever at disquising his homophobic pieces as culture awareness pieces, however he is glaringly transparent to "clear thinking folks".

Overstating is an understatement :)

Seriously, I think BO said "thousands of gays" in the stands. But from what I recall hearing here in San Diego was that the Pride Organization sold maybe 1,000 tickets (I could be wrong). Very small potatoes. But BO got to use the term "social engineering" and "clustering" a few times so he's happy.

"U.S. News & World Report just came out with a study recently, and talked about how many teens are coming out younger, and more of them coming out now. Is that what we want?"

Ofcourse not! Gay teens should pretend to be straight like true patriots.

How lucky the world is to have wise men such as O'Reilly to point out who are normal gays who are just there to "cluster" around honest, straight, patriots like some sort of gay iron filings on the magnet that is the heterosexual family and radical gays who want to do O'Reilly knows what. Probably something to do with pushing the gay agenda, possibly with help from the gay mafia.

Ugh, i think i just broke my sarcasm bone.

My biggest problem with Ms. Rios and people of her ilk is that she says that homosexuality is a "choice." 

A choice?  Really?  Anyone who believes that it is a choice is ignorant beyond words. 

I'm straight, and there was NEVER a time duing my formative years that I consciously "chose" to be straight.  Nobody "choses."

Same thing with my friends who are in same-sex relationships.  They never had a moment in their life where they "chose" to be gay or lesbian. 

You are what you are.  Once people get that idea, the world will be a much better place. 

"U.S. News & World Report just came out with a study recently, and talked about how many teens are coming out younger, and more of them coming out now. Is that what we want?"

Yeah, Ms. Rios, it is a horrible thing that conditions are getting to the point that kids who are gay are more comfortable with themsleves at younger ages and are able to come out without apprehension instead of supressing their true feelings because they fear backlash and torment. 

How absolutely awful. 

</sarcasm>

"Rios later stated: 'I think it's important to understand that...the radical gay agenda is in the business of removing parental rights and indoctrinating children. I'm not overstating this.'"

No, Ms. Rios, you're not "overstating this," you're just plain making it up!!

All right, I think I've solved it. ..Bill O'Reilly

O'Reilly couldn't solve a two-line crossword puzzle.

"insane" to "cluster" gay men and lesbians during a "hat giveaway for any kid under 12." O'Reilly reported that "thousands of gay adults showed up and commingled with straight families,"I believe this betrays Billo's innermost feelings and thoughts towards gays. Mo matter which way you look at it, you get the impression he sees them as something diferent and untrustworthy around kids.

This is a non-story.

As Mr. deHarte was trying to explain, there are scores of children at the ballpark every day, and there are scores of kids promotions throughout the season. O'Reilly isn't a complete idiot, so he is aware that kids and families frequent baseball games, even when there is no hat giveaway. So, by deduction, O'Reilly's true beef (which he was skillful not to reveal) was the gay pride promotion to begin with.

And the smoking analogy is pretty lame, especially given the drinking that goes on at stadiums. Dodger Stadium has a special "Family Section," where alcoholic drinks are not sold. It's a good thing, too. I've been drunk at baseball games, and I'm pretty sure parents wouldn't want their kids anywhere near me. When given the choice, I would rather my child see a few gay people holding hands than a bunch of drunks cursing and exposing themselves. And since choosing to drink is a choice (for most), I would steer my kids clear of behaviors that they could actually choose to emulate. Since homosexuality (like heterosexuality) is not a choice, who cares if my kids see that behavior.

Therein lies the damning evidence for anti-gay rights groups. That is why they cling so dearly to the false idea that homosexuality is a choice. Since it is not a choice, "co-mingling" with gays would not have any effect on a child's likelihood of "turning out" gay.   

I think what O'Reilly said was unreasonable.  I don't think homosexuality is not natural or immoral.  But, common sense says that parents have a right to know if it is gay night.  Really simple.

That is really simple, since nobody has suggested taking away any parents right to know that it's gay Night.

Or are you suggesting that the Padres organization should be required to contact every parent in the world and warn them that it's gay Night?

Or are you just completely confused, as usual?

But were they forewarned that the gays would be "clustered"?

Will someone please explain to me this awful "homosexual agenda" that keeps getting bandied about buy all the hate promotors.

 I'm gay and don't even know what the eff they are complaining about half the time. I must have missed the memos as I go about trying to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 I mean, aren't these very same bitching people pushing a HATE AGENDA?! So which is worse? Inclusiveness or bigotry?

 AGENDA AGENDA AGENDA! EVERYONE has an agenda. Some, like Dobson and Falwell, have just as vile an agenda as any KKK-er or Black Panther or or "Conservative Christianist."

That Rios chick is HOT.  I bet she's done a little muff-diving in her time.

Hmmm... that's a tough one. She does have those "last call" eyes that i've always found so attractive, and statistically helpful to me.

But if she considers the blatant hand-holding and hugging shown in the video overtly sexual, she might be a bit of a disappointment when it counts.

Hmmm... that's a tough one. She does have those "last call" eyes that i've always found so attractive, and statistically helpful to me. HBL

Shame shame shame :-)

HBL it's not the last call look but the chew your arm off wake up call or so my grandson tells me.

 pearlene, I was only saying that my odds were usually better when the eyes were looking a little heavy.Beer goggles are good to me.

And I'm particularly offended by your "Coyote Ugly" remark.Only because. for every morning that I was ready to gnaw off my arm, there were two where a young lady was about to do the same. ;0)

HBL, at least there were two :-)

I'm one of those evil gays and probably just don't understand sports that well, but when exactly are "half-time activities" during a baseball game?

So, it's like gaggle of geese, school of fish, cluster of gays.  I get it now.  Maybe Bill was afraid (or maybe disappointed) that a clusterf*** didn't break out!