Dude - heartily seconded to all the above.

Hmmm. On the one hand perhaps people should hold off snogging in public where it might alarm the horses. (please someone think of the horses!) On the other hand, right now *every day* Disney Land is visited by *hundreds of thousands* of straight folk who do kiss, canoodle and make out in public. Hell, given Disney's place in popular culture I'm sure there's a healthy number of fantasies people want to act out there as well. Anyway Gay Day seems to be about nothing more than creating a space where homosexuality is the norm and heterosexuality isn't. Now this happens all the time in gay clubs, bars, Castro, whatever, but like it or not these are cultural ghettos. By creating spaces where homosexuality (or other things like, oh, free speech) are tolerated you implicitly state that this behaviour isn't acceptable elsewhere. The point of Gay Day seems to be that it temporarily creates an environment where the roles are reversed. Of course if everyone is as tolerant as everyone says they are there shouldn't be a problem with this. The gay folk aren't doing anything straight folk don't, and the straight folk aren't being made to feel any different than the gay folk usually do (namely as a somewhat uncomfortable minority who's sexuality can only be openly displayed at the risk of comment or persectution). Would people complain if 100 000 born agains descended on Disney to preach the gospel? Well yes, they would, and they'd be wrong too. So either Disney bans people from making out, be they straight or gay, or it does what it seems to have been doing rather admirably so far - and welcomes them like any other guests.

Martin: You are making the argument based upon a false equivalence. Sure, I know there's some folks who do some fooling about at Disney World. I'd expect that if I walked around the park for the day, I'd occasionally see a couple or two, once in a while, sharing a kiss. Probably I'd not want to make it a Kodak moment. I might even (though in some visits to the park I never have) come across a couple--lets say some teenagers--up to something inappropriate. On the other hand, supposing I were a parent, I'd feel that the probability of running across such a thing was very low, and probably feel up to the task of running interference between that and my children, if I so chose. The majority that you seem to feel is being inverted isn't "heterosexuals cannodling about in wanton display" vs. their homosexual counterparts, but (to quote the author above) "two queens frenching outside Cinderella castle" vs. the normal dominance of Disney World, boys young enough to still think girls are "yuck" without any great question to their heterosexuality. A more relevant equivalence would be if a bundle of oversexed 20-somethings decided to stage an Animal House Orgy in front of Mr. Toad's Wild Ride, if they did so after organizing through the Sigma Epsilon Xeta Fraternity all year, and proceded to completely change the tone of the park from family fun to James Belushi. If they did so, we'd call the frat boys exactly what they are: immature. I don't see why Gay Day--as described above--should get a free pass. It would be wholly different if the event were a "Bring Heather and Her Two Mommies To See Mickey" style arrangement. But there's nothing intolerant about saying that one does not want to scare the horses. Or the ducks, mice, dogs, and princesses on flying carpets, for that matter.

Huh. Probably disagree; the thing that upsets us sexuality-egalitarians is the sneaking suspicion that a lot (not all) of the people who complain about two gays kissing in public wouldn't react similarly to two straights. So the your "false equivalence" is exactly the equivalence we're trying to establish. But: Hey, Disney set up a whole separate area of the park as an "adult playground," albeit probably with less latex than the term normally evokes among adults. Snicker. You wrong.

If Disney wanted to throw out the animal house orgy they'd be well within their moral and legal rights, and if Gay Day were to turn into a fuckfest they should obviously chuck them out. But to suggest that "two queens frenching outside Cinderella castle" is somehow inferior or deserving of different treatment to you and a young lady of your choice doing the same is bollocks. Which I suspect is what Tony the Pony is saying - only in nicer language. Look, if we're treating people equally then the parents you're so concerned for have to make a decision. If little Jonny goes outside he's going to see people kissing. Some of them will be same sex. So either we ban kissing, or we keep little Jonny indoors, but the one thing we don't do is ban same sex kissing - because that way lies segregation and prejudice. Personally I think little Jonny (and his parents) should just deal with it. Now, rewrite the original post substituting the word black or jewish for gay, publish it on the blog and see if you're still comfortable with it.

Martin: I refer you to my original source material:

I don’t like it when I hear pompous windbags telling me I’m going to burn in hell for being gay, and I’m sure most of the free world would appreciate a visit to Disney World that did not include the vision of grown men in go-go shorts, and ads for lubricant prominently displayed throughout the host hotel. Oh, and while we’re on the subject of ‘image’ at the host hotel (the Sheraton World on International Drive)– the line of beer trucks outside the resort was a nice touch, and the liquor kiosks and condom ads every 5 feet will certainly not further the image of us as a bunch of drunken sex fiends.

. . . .

Then there is the issue of drugs. It is widely known throughout the gay community in Orlando that if you want good drugs and great sex, the first week of June is a great time to visit. So much so, that the Orange County Sheriffs office found it necessary to station deputies and drug sniffing dogs in the lobby of the host hotel. And before the oppression chorus starts warming up, just get real – we all know that it goes on in droves during gay week – and it’s not ‘oppression’ if it’s justified. I don’t mean to imply that every person attending gay days is a drug crazed lunatic – the vast majority are not – but no one in the gay community can deny how pervasive this problem is, and the problem travels with us.

Note that the last paragraph isn't just one homosexual talking. It's recently been the subject of a rather detailed article in that noted gay-bashing rag, the New Yorker. I'm sure you will now say that this is commonplace on non-Gay Days at Disneyworld, and that there is a perfect heterosexual analogy that goes on every other day of the week. If you're saying that your odds of seeing a heterosexual canoodling on any given day in Disney World is the same as seeing two homosexuals kissing on Gay Day, you obviously have a differing view of it from not only myself or Judge Pryor, but a rather informed source on the subject. Further, I have said nothing about a particular two men kissing in public--which on a normal day would be rather rare in Disney World, but would also, I maintain, be relatively rare for heterosexuals--but a day in which many of them converge on the park. If you don't want to deal with that fact, you should admit to avoiding the subject. You are simply making up the facts to suit you. As for your final challenge, well, it's the last resort of a fantasist. The opposite of Gay Day at Disney World is not Straight Day. It's "Sex Really Isn't That Important to Creatures That Don't Have Genitals" day, if anything at all.

problem with Gay Day isn't that society shouldn't respect homosexuality, but that adults should respect that in some areas sexuality has no place. Perfectly, beautifully, eloquently said.

"If you don't want to deal with that fact, you should admit to avoiding the subject..." As Joe Strummer once shouted 'you have the right to free speech, as long as you don't actually try it' Or as you might prefer it 'Of course gay men can kiss in public, as long as they don't all do it at once' You see this as being about manners, others see it as being about asserting human rights. You may not like it - but that why it's called tolerance, not support.

Ah, Martin, yes, yes, yes, it's all a question of rights. We have the right to do it, and thus we should. If tolerance means passively accepting people acting like hypersexed imbeciles, you can keep it. Fortunately, yours is a rather bizarre definition. Furthermore, which is your argument? Am I intolerant because I don't want a lot of gay men acting out sexually in a place set aside for children? But if so, aren't you intolerant of heterosexuals? Didn't you say, just a bit above:

If Disney wanted to throw out the animal house orgy they'd be well within their moral and legal rights...

If I'm being "intolerant," it's not of homosexuality, since I'd be upset with a bundle of heterosexuals engaging in a similar event. And if you want to color me intolerant of overly-sexual conduct at a kids' park, well color me guilty.

Truth, of course, lies somewhere in the middle.

I’m the first to agree, the gay community has a sex issue. I’ve read all sorts of arguments, on both sides, but I still feel like the gay image could use a little more restraint when it comes to overt sexuality.

That said, the writer’s primary complaint seems to be that gay men go to Disney and kiss. And, as others have pointed out – so what? The over-the-top ‘orgy’ comparison is foolish. I’ve gone to Disney plenty of times, and people kiss. Even French Kiss. Gay people should be allowed to do so as well (though, I agree that full on pawing of one another while waiting for ‘it’s a small world’ is out of bounds).

You then go one too say the problem isn’t the kissing, but that the 5 year old boys shouldn’t have to questions their own sexuality, or some such. This is the same double standard that Martin points out. Man-Woman kissing – no questions. Man-Man kissing- EGADS!

Further weakening the original writer’s observation/complaint is his attack of what happens at the ‘host’ hotel. My god – beer trucks, and lubricant ads. At Disney?!! Well, no. At a hotel not on the Disney properties – which has been reserved exclusively for this event. Just like other hotels get reserved by college students at Spring Break. No worries of kids, here (unless brought by the gay couples). Unless, the writer is saying that there should be no gay partying anywhere in Orlando.

Listen, I’ve never been to a Gay Day – I have no strong need to. However, if groups want to organize a gay party involving Disney – why shouldn’t they be able to? If Disney was really all that worried about the impact on the 5 year old boys, they would find a way to discourage the event. It wouldn’t be that hard to do. Not only do they not discourage it, they quietly encourage it. Why? Because, deep down inside Disney is about the bottom line. If having Gay Days in June was caring away large populations of non-gay Disney patrons, then Disney would end it.

Apparently, they don’t seem too concerned.

You then go one too say the problem isn’t the kissing, but that the 5 year old boys shouldn’t have to questions their own sexuality, or some such. This is the same double standard that Martin points out. Man-Woman kissing – no questions. Man-Man kissing- EGADS! No. No, no, no, no, no. Please read the above. I've said that the problem with Gay Day--and the reason that I would see no problem with keeping my family away from it--is that a congregation of homosexuals there on a single day makes it likely that the number of people kissing, of any gender, is probably much higher than normal. This, indeed, seems to the the author's point, unless you'd like to come to the bizarre conclusion that a man who visits Disney's properties so many times with his partner has never kissed therein. (Further, if you think that the average 5 year old seeing two men or two women kissing isn't going to bring up a lot more questions of an awkward nature than the average heterosexual kiss, I'd like to know what planet you're living on. Now, you may not care that a parent doesn't want to have to confront such issues with their children at such a point, but hey, they're not your kids. Me, I figure it's polite not to thrust my sex life into other people's business in order to make their lives harder for them. If you're saying homosexuals shouldn't have such standards, fine, but I like to think that sexuality doesn't take place over propriety.) You and Martin wish to boil it down to a single couple kissing, because if you do, you can make it into some sort of righteous anger against discrimination. But no one is talking about that. I've been to Disney several times, and never noticed an awful lot of kissing going on of any sexuality. The trouble with Gay Day is not--EGADS--one couple kissing, but many. As for Disney not being that concerned: do you really want to hold yourself to that statement? "Silence implies nonconcern" will reach a new low in nonsense as applied to marketing. What exactly do you think the New York Times headlines would be if Disney made a move to ban it?