From SF Gate....
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...BAGJ2OEMTH1.DTL


The article goes on to say that Mayor Newsom disagreed with the notion and didn't sign the proclamation (blaming it on staff). However, Mark Leno-D thinks it's a great idea.

He said:



Questions for Debate:

1. Is a day promoting a gay porn studio in San Francisco socially acceptable?

2. Is Mark Leno morally right to promote this as somethign we should acknowledge?

3. If this is acceptable, what other "fringe" industries should be allowed?

1. It probably wouldn't be here in Columbus, Ohio, but apparently it's fine and dandy in San Francisco. So what? What's "socially acceptable" anyway? One person's morality is another's immorality. Nobody's life is adversely affected by Colt Studio Day. This is more about Bill O' Reilly pimping his lousy book and beating up on San Francisco's relaxed attitudes about gays.

Move along. Nothing to see here...

2. "Morally right?" Leno is a gay man who doubtlessly represents some gay constituents. "The owners of the studio are taxpaying, law-abiding San Francisco employers who promote safe sex," Leno says in the story. Okay, so a gay porn studio doesn't exactly strike me a likely candidate for the local Chamber of Commerce, but once again, SO WHAT??? The fact that a few folks are upset about this means little to me. Some people just look for a reason to be outraged and Leno gave them ample ammunition.

I fail to see where a city proclamation in San Francisco means anyone outside of their city limits has to "acknowledge" anything. Pornography is a multi-billion dollar business and a lot of it is created in California.
It's not all that shocking to me that some legislator acknowledges that fact.

3. Ah yes...the old "slippery slope" argument. Allow one "fringe" movement to have its day in the sun and next thing you know they'll all come crawling out of the woodwork.

Personally, I'm not particularly worried that this sex-soaked, saturated and obsessed society is at any greater risk of coming loose from it's underpinnings than before. Heterosexuals tend to get a little weird when the subject of gay sex comes up in polite conversation. As it stands, gay men and gay porn isn't going away, so while we may never get used to it, we'll just have to accept there are worlds far different than the one we're comfortable with.

I personally don't see anything redeeming from recognizing a pornographic studio as an outstanding business. What does that say about our community, our country, or what's happening to us as a people? It's not about gay porn, but about porn in general.

Seriously. It's okay with you? Do you have daughters? If she came home tonight and said "Hey, Dad, I'm in this great skin flick Dad, you ought to watch it", how would you react? Many people endulge in porn, sure. It's like people drink too much, smoke, drive too fast, and swear. Should we condone it? No way. That's a mile and a half over the top.

The homosexual thing fits San Fran, so whatever. If it was a gay flower shop or motorcycle company no one would care NT. It's a Gay Porn company. That's HOORRRRRIBLE if you ask me. Society has to have standards. We have to draw some lines somewhere, or else we'll have no society. Applauding a gay porn company, what's next? It IS a slippery slope NT. It is...

I think that the mainstreaming of porn is a real problem for our society. Little girls are expected to do things that big girls 20 years ago would never have to do. And many of those things are very very risky, not to mention horrible for their self-esteem. STDs are rising in younger people as a result of this.

I liked where he noted that Colt "promoted safe sex." Yeah, like NASCAR promotes seat-belt usage.

[quote][quote name='aevans176' post='210015' date='Mar 13 2007, 02:39 PM']
From SF Gate....
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...BAGJ2OEMTH1.DTL
[quote]
Conservative activists and pundits nationwide belittled the city after Newsom's office declared Feb. 23 to be Colt Studio Day, honoring the 40th anniversary of a San Francisco movie company whose Web site invites visitors to "come inside to experience the hottest man-on-man action." [/quote]

The article goes on to say that Mayor Newsom disagreed with the notion and didn't sign the proclamation (blaming it on staff). However, Mark Leno-D thinks it's a great idea.

He said:
[quote]
"The owners of the studio are taxpaying, law-abiding San Francisco employers who promote safe sex," Leno said. "With a war out of control and the planet's temperature rising, I would have hoped Bill O'Reilly had more pressing issues to discuss. Clearly, with his viewership currently plummeting, he thinks denigrating gay male entertainment will be his lifeline." [/quote][/quote]

Questions for Debate:

1. Is a day promoting a gay porn studio in San Francisco socially acceptable?


Whether it is acceptable in SF, it certainly is not. Porn of any stripe is just not something we should promote--tolerate in the name of secular free speech within certain limits, perhaps, but no sane parent would ever hope their kid grows up to be a porn star, gay or straight. There is nothing "good" about porn. It promotes and sanctions licentious behavior and promiscuity of all stripes.


2. Is Mark Leno morally right to promote this as somethign we should acknowledge?

See above.

3. If this is acceptable, what other "fringe" industries should be allowed?


We need to go for "kiddie porn" day promos next, certainly.

If this were straight porn, there would be a ton more outrage - as it should be. We shouldn't have cities celebrating the selling of sex anymore than we should have cities celebrating the selling of handguns.

What about my tiny engineering business...can I get a day too?

Once again, the gay community attempting to gain special rights and as usual, will get plenty of support.

Is a day promoting a gay porn studio in San Francisco socially acceptable?

I find it socially unacceptable. I would feel the same way about a straight porn studio. I'm very much for keeping one's sexual expolits in the bedroom.

Is Mark Leno morally right to promote this as somethign we should acknowledge?
No, he's not. When men buy their porn flicks that is acknowledgment enough. Things like this will undoubtedly do more to make people less accepting of homosexuality than they already are, and that is not a good thing. Why can we not use a little moderation in the way we manage our public affairs? What's wrong with being discreet?

If this is acceptable, what other "fringe" industries should be allowed?
It's not acceptable. Nor is the propagation of any other subject matter that is for adults in the privacy of their own homes with the men/women they want to be intimate with. What is the reason to do it? Because we can?

Is a day promoting a gay porn studio in San Francisco socially acceptable?
Three words for you: “contemporary community standards” brought to us by Roth v. United States (1957) and modified in Miller v. California (1973). While SCOTUS has ruled obscene material doesn’t enjoy First Amendment protection the production and sale of adult pornography is so widespread states don’t have the resources to prosecute most incidents if they choose to outlaw porn and the federal government would have to devote its Pentagon budget to make a dent nationally. So the Supreme Court, led by newly appointed conservative Chief Justice Burger, left it up to the states to decide what is and isn’t obscene. San Fran can honor Colt Studio and Nevada can honor The Bunny Ranch. If people don’t want it they should outlaw it.

Is Mark Leno morally right to promote this as something we should acknowledge?
Mark Leno feels he’s in the right to acknowledge Colt Studio helped “his development as a gay man”, but you must be a social conservative or at least disapprove of gay porn to think you have to share in that acknowledgement.

If this is acceptable, what other "fringe" industries should be allowed?
I think acknowledging legal businesses/services is acceptable, otherwise they wouldn’t be legal. That said I find the idea of city/states giving businesses/groups accolades for whatever reason a waste of public funds. This includes Colt Studio, a hypothetical Christian group serving a million meals to the homeless, or a software company generating millions in state revenue.

Is a day promoting a gay porn studio in San Francisco socially acceptable?
As far as I am concerned, if its within the confines of the law, then yes, I believe it should be socially acceptable, and I believe this is both. However, like others have said, I don't understand the need or desire for an official office to promote a private business of any kind or any kind of behavior for that matter. That is wrong for many reasons and I disagree strongly with it.

Is Mark Leno morally right to promote this as somethign we should acknowledge?
"Morally right" is such ambiguous term. As far as one operates inside the law, and within the spirit of the law, in a democratic society, then I see no reason why one shouldn't be just as "morally right" as everybody else.
Som argue porn promotes promiscuity and what not, but that is irrelevant. Who's even to say promiscuity is inherently wrong? I certainly would not make that argument, as I have absolutely nothing to base it on, as long as people practices safe sex. Promiscuity is rampant in Denmark, probably even compared to the US, yet I dont see the fabric of society falling a part because of it. Far from it in fact.

If this is acceptable, what other "fringe" industries should be allowed?
Every industry which operates inside the law should of course be allowed. The official standard of society is law - there can be no other standard by which to operate. If you don't like porn between consenting adults, or the promotion there of, then by all means move to have the constitution amended to suit your desires. If your problem is with the lack of ethics by an official office that is promoting a private company, then I agree with you, that that is clearly unacceptable.

Wow, homosexual law is a scary thing. I mean they actually got something donated to them and look at all the outrage, now maybe we can move on to seeing what all these law talks about homosexuals raping other soldiers in the shower will lead to some empathy in people to people relation in general. I mean we don’t hold some outrage when we make laws against them, but see something that has to do with homosexuality being put into law that is not against them and boom, the outrage. Maybe this will surf in somewhere like San Francisco because many people have had to basically attempt to make a safe haven for themselves in relation to our general brutal and selfish society, I am thinking cause and effect really, or action and reaction. Discriminated peoples typically don’t have to do such things, or commit such acts. I think its also pretty much the same ignorance when this is referenced as something created by the homosexual community! Its right back to the showers with the raping, such joy and pointless endeavors, what a waste of time.

Then maybe you should have rephrased your first question. You're the one who went ballistic over a gay porn studio getting it's own day. The Internet is overflowing with heterosexual pornography and you don't have to work hard to find it. As I said, America is a sexually obsessed society and I don't know what it says about our community, our country or what's happening to us as a people. Sex is a commodity and nobody knows how to sell sex than Americans.



Yes, I have a daughter and no, I don't want her to be a porn star, stripper or a prostitute. But if she chooses to be, I won't be happy, but there's not much I can do about it. All I can do is provide her with the best moral foundation possible and hope that's enough to help her make the right decisions.

Yes, a lot of people indulge in pornography. Porn is estimated to be a $8 to 10 billion business and that's just here in the good ol' U.S. of A. Americans LOVE porn. We eat it up like buffalo wings. We can wring our hands and wail about how porn is corrupting our souls and causing moral rot, but the fact remains it isn't going to stop pornography. It never has before and it won't now.

But this is GAY porn issue here. Guy meets girl, guy likes girl, guy nails girl is a pretty standard porn riff, but make it guy meets guy, guy likes guy and guy nails guy, and suddenly there's a problem?

You don't have to condone any kind of pornography if you don't want to Aevans176. But there isn't a lot you can do about it either.



Why should homosexuals be denied their own outlets for sexual fantasy? What's so HOORRRRRIBLE about people having their own kind of turn-on? It's a hedonistic society and people have their petty little pleasures.

Gay porn is not going to destroy society. Society is a lot more resilient than you give it credit. The real travesty is heterosexuals flipping out over ANYTHING that doesn't portray gay sex as anything but something dirty, dangerous and disgusting. Nobody is forcing you to watch a Colt Film Festival. I don't care what an adult does behind closed doors. Get as freaky as you want to. The sun will still rise tomorrow.

Draw all the lines you want. The lines in Dallas are different than the ones in San Francisco, so why sweat something that doesn't directly affect you in any way, shape or form?

Yes, indeed. Do it behind closed doors. Flaunting it only serves to drive an even greater chasm between gays and their bashing counterparts.

How about a "gay parents day" instead of "gay porn day?" That would be more positive and beneficial for subverting stereotypes. Why does there have to be so much revolving around the sexual act itself? Why don't we put the focus on the issues that will not make gay people look like sex fiends.

I do agree with nighttimer on this point. Being across the Trinity River from Dallas, I find what the Texas Legislature (now in its every other year 120 day session) is doing much more of a concern than happenings 1500 miles away. Of particular interest are the cost of electrity, which TXU has driven through the roof since deregulation, and teacher retirement annuities and retired teacher healh insurance. What's going on in Austin is sufficient worry for the moment - well really - until the end of May.

Its reallly non-news- really- who cares? I mean, other than residents of SF? I am thinking the failure of right wing ideology in a rather crazy-frothing-at-the-mouth-manner-while-the-world-goes-up-in-flames might be a much better focus of conservatives at this point.

My questions would be right back at you:

1) Can you prove in an empirical manner that this somehow harms any person that didn't do porn or watch porn in any measurable way?

If no- and

2) Is there a net benefit to the community?

The first one should have to be proven beyond any doubt, and if it can't be, the second is worth the risk of thier money, that they chose to spend- that is that communities biz.

Considering that sexual predators like O'Rielly are harping on it- ya, he isn't a bit conflicted, is he?

NT, It's not about GAY PORN because it's gay, but moreover the headline read Gay Porn because that's the company the city applauded. It wasn't a straight porn company, which probably would've never flown.

In my opinion, the gay community in SF allowed this to slide through. The very fact that it was gay doesn't make the action horrible, but rather probably made it socially acceptable by people like Mark Leno. Had it been some other porn company... in my opinion it probably would've never flown. They'd have been laughed out of the office.

Finally, it's not that the Gay Porn company exists that poses a problem. It's that the PORN company got its own day and people think it's fine. You even said you'd rather not see your family be in porn, so what on earth makes you stand up for these actions? Like I said, had the business been a Flower Shop, a Mechanic, or a Lawyer... no one would care. But only in SF can a porn company have its own day and be defended by a public servant.



What??? Man... some people will defend anything.

Your last sentence cuts to the heart of the matter, Aevans176. "Only in San Francisco..."

San Francisco is a gay-friendly city. Not exactly a news flash. Is it any surprise that a gay politician might cater (or pander) to a segment of the population that likes gay porn? I agree that celebrating a porn studio--gay or straight--is out there where the buses don't run. But as I've said before, what flies in S.F. may not get off the ground in Dallas or Columbus. That's why ice cream comes in more than one flavor: people enjoy having individual choice.

We just disagree about the evils of pornography. My wife and I have watched and enjoyed X-rated movies and I've interviewed and met a few porn stars. Some of them are just as stupid, shallow, superficial and screwed up as you might expect. Others have been some of the most normal folks in the world. They just have a weird job where they take all their clothes off and have sex with strangers in front of the camera.

I'm not in the moral judgment business. I leave that to others more qualified to render those types of decisions. There are ample reasons to condemn pornography, but I think this one has absolutely zero effect on anyone not residing in San Francisco.

I'm not a fan of gay porn. But it doesn't drive me crazy that other people are. I feel the same way about Chinese food and the Dallas Cowboys.

Then again, I am a San Francisco 49ers fan. I could be wrong.

I am not sure what you mean- defending O'Rielly's sexually predatory behavior or films of consenting adults doing something that I may go "eww" too- but CERTAINLY not as bad as behavior as a sexual predator!

I don't watch gay porn- it makes me say things like "eeewww" or some such-

there are far, far, far worse industries in this country that are treated to all kinds of big goverment money- Haliburton comes to mind-

in the grand scheme of bad things in this country- because some city decided to let a gay porn biz have it's own day- well, it is just no big deal.

If I see Cheney up on charges of treason, I am guessing that we have finally start to work our way down the moral ladder and have started worrying about REALLY bad things than about who is viewing whom doing whomever.

Don't like gay porn? Don't watch it.

If all those dang Christian preachers would stop doing that and snorting meth then perhaps the problem would go away on it's own

Porn is over a 10 billion dollar industry- that means, for all the complainers- probably all the complainers- the ones that complain the most is who's direction I am looking in- are the ones that fuel this industry.

We all hate reality TV- but someone is watching that too- right?

Really- consenting adults, elected official that has to answer to the electorate- that don't seem to mind- no one harmed- what is the big deal?

BTW- a very good motorcycle team is now being sponsored by MILF hunter- a porn site. It takes about 2 million a year to even be competitive- abot 10 million to win consistantly. Team Milf Hunter wins consistantly- so, this site is making enough dough to sponsor a very, very expensive form of racing!

I would rather see porn sites doing sponsorship than cigs, beer or other things bad for your health as well

Questions for Debate:

1. Is a day promoting a gay porn studio in San Francisco socially acceptable?

What upset me about this is that Mark Leno justified a 'gay porn day' by basically implying worse news was on the AP wire. But taking an extremely questionable government-officiated celebration and saying, 'well its better than that disastrous war we're fighting, and also, the planet melting,' does not legitimize it.

2. Is Mark Leno morally right to promote this as somethign we should acknowledge?

Nah. Law firms don't get honorific days. Delis don't get honorific days. Restaurant equipment manufacturors don't get honorific days. Why should a company get an honorific day merely because its 'tax-paying, law abiding.' Clearly this is a big charade, as needlessly sensational as Bill O'Reilly himself. People like Mark Leno and Bill O'Reilly feed off each other. They should be both dropped on an island in the south pacific and forced to fend for themselves.


3. If this is acceptable, what other "fringe" industries should be allowed?

I'm classifying this move as "political performace art," of which there is currently entirely too much. Not every act of political theatre has to agitate. The only function this one serves is further polarization for needless reasons. We already know:

a) Gay porn exists

b . ) people like it, specifically those Gays seeking pornography.

c) it brings in some kind of income to somebody, somewhere.


Way to go. Enlightening the nation.

I tell ya, everytime some punk like this makes the news, some republican, somewhere, gets 451 votes. Maybe more.

I mean, I could be wrong- perhaps this serves some kind of social awareness cause akin to a civil rights march. But from this angle, I can't see it.