80 replies to this topic

[luv2increase]

That poor woman.

A lot of substance to that one Richard. Do you care to elaborate? Think about it; this was possibly one of the most watched debates on TV, and all you can say is "That poor woman." And this is coming from a "Director". Gimme a break; that is just plain wrong.


Was this a sexist comment Dick? Was it a biased comment Dick? Do you sincerely feel bad for her because she may have been treated unfairly? Come on Dick; you have to do better than that.

Edited by luv2increase, 03 October 2008 - 04:20 AM.

[luv2increase]

Palin is MY Dogma Mama! I (<--very gay) cannot get married to a man, but she TOLERATES me! As does Biden! Hurray! And say it ain't so, Joe, but she WINKED at me! I totally BLUSHED! I think I am going to go watch hockey! I might even "choose" to turn straight again someday if she keeps it up with those adorable smiles and Tina Fey glasses, troublesome natural climate cycles be DAMNED!

Now I want to ride around on a domesticated dinosaur. Hurray!

Ok, I just read this. I completely understand why you are upset Dick, but you can't channel your intolerance of another person's views into complete hatred. Why do I say this is hatred? Because you are a "Director" who just made a pretty bad comment which shows you are a very frustrated individual.


I just want to make sure you relax and to know that I, luv2increase, TOLERATE you as well, but you are going to have to tone it down a notch; otherwise, I may just think you don't TOLERATE straight people who TOLERATE "to a degree" homosexuals.


I'm glad this fueled you enough to actually show your voice on this subforum. That is another reason I know that you are fummin hot. Relax bro for it's all good.

[Richard Leis]

Oh Richard, welcome to the Politics Forum. I know why you don't like Palin......

Why?

[Richard Leis]

I'm glad this fueled you enough to actually show your voice on this subforum. That is another reason I know that you are fummin hot. Relax bro for it's all good.

What? I'm not angry. I think the debate went well. Good times.

My dad, Richard Leis, Sr. goes by Dick. I do not. Rich or Richard is fine. Thanks!

[Richard Leis]

That poor woman.

A lot of substance to that one Richard. Do you care to elaborate? Think about it; this was possibly one of the most watched debates on TV, and all you can say is "That poor woman." And this is coming from a "Director". Gimme a break; that is just plain wrong.


Was this a sexist comment Dick? Was it a biased comment Dick? Do you sincerely feel bad for her because she may have been treated unfairly? Come on Dick; you have to do better than that.

Oh, I thought she seemed really nervous, but she calmed down later in the debate.

[Richard Leis]

Ok, I just read this. I completely understand why you are upset Dick, but you can't channel your intolerance of another person's views into complete hatred. Why do I say this is hatred? Because you are a "Director" who just made a pretty bad comment which shows you are a very frustrated individual.

I just want to make sure you relax and to know that I, luv2increase, TOLERATE you as well, but you are going to have to tone it down a notch; otherwise, I may just think you don't TOLERATE straight people who TOLERATE "to a degree" homosexuals.

I'm glad this fueled you enough to actually show your voice on this subforum. That is another reason I know that you are fummin hot. Relax bro for it's all good.

Who could hate her? She is really nice, for goodness sakes. She is certainly dogmatic, and I tend to shy away from dogma, but there is no question why she is likable. I am a little discouraged that Biden and Palin seemed to TOLERATE homosexuals, which is a far cry from accepting them, or better yet, considering it a non-issue.

I don't consider gay marriage a priority (the economy, education, life extension, science, technology, and transhumanism are at the top of my personal priority list), but I understand that some people do, on both sides of the debate. I think gay marriage, as a legal entity, as a civil right, should be authorized, but every individual and church and similar organizations should decide for themselves whether or not it is acceptable for them.

What is a "to a degree" homosexual? A bisexual? I haven't heard that specific phase before.

I notice you sometimes point out in your posts other commentators' roles ("Director", "Navigator".) What is that all about? You are a "Member". Am I missing something? A lot of different people are posting in the Politics & Law forum.

Edited by Richard Leis, 03 October 2008 - 04:58 AM.
"Politics & Law" instead of "Politics & Laws"

[eternaltraveler]

I am a little discouraged that Biden and Palin seemed to TOLERATE homosexuals, which is a far cry from accepting them, or better yet, considering it a non-issue..

Yes, well. I think we're still a ways off from politicians being free to admit that they couldn't care less what other people did with their lives. To many of their constituents do think they have not just a right, but an obligation to interfere in other people's lives. God told them so.

On the upside atheism only needs to go up one more log for that to happen. Far less than it's gone up in the last century.

[RighteousReason]

I really didn't see the moderator bias that "bayesianbandit" (aka Savage) was claiming.

I agree. I think Ifill was fair.

I think her bias wasn't obvious but evident in her actions.

[RighteousReason]

I am a little discouraged that Biden and Palin seemed to TOLERATE homosexuals, which is a far cry from accepting them, or better yet, considering it a non-issue..

Yes, well. I think we're still a ways off from politicians being free to admit that they couldn't care less what other people did with their lives. To many of their constituents do think they have not just a right, but an obligation to interfere in other people's lives. God told them so.

On the upside atheism only needs to go up one more log for that to happen. Far less than it's gone up in the last century.

I think her usage of "tolerate" was an indication that she does not intend to interfere with your choices of what you do in the bedroom or who you choose as your partner, though she has the right to disagree with your selection and voice that disagreement if she wants to.

It's like if you buy a new car, say a Toyota Prius, and you have what you think is good reason to do so. Just because you have a good reason doesn't mean people have to agree with your choice or your reasoning. To expect everyone to agree that the Toyota Prius was the best choice, or to not voice any disagreement they have with your choice or reasoning, isn't very fair, although it is certainly fair for you to expect them to tolerate the choice enough to not interfere, for example by slashing your tires.

I also agree this should be a non-issue. I'm against the degenerate mobs who parade around flaunting their sexual fetishes and making a big deal out of it, like any of that shit matters compared to anything of even the remotest seriousness, e.g:

http://www.sfgate.co...c...PGV.DTL&o=0
"Sickos in a leather parade, whipping each other in the streets, some wearing outfits with their genitals hanging out."
"These people are not wholesome people. They are sick. They are mentally ill, and the city is looking away."
(from MichaelSavage.com)

Everybody wants to know about some slut on sunset boulevard who pulled up her dress and said I'm a lesbian. In my opinion a country with a culture wallowing in sexual addiction as much as our's, not to mention the invasion being allowed to take place across our borders, has lost so much fundamental integrity that it is probably doomed.

While the San Fran-sicko mayor Gavin Newsom keeps himself busy with sex parades, illegal aliens are slaughtering families in the streets.

Edited by Savage, 03 October 2008 - 05:22 PM.

[biknut]

I wasn't able to see the debate last night, and by the time I got home even the reruns were over. I was only able to see some snippets. That wasn't enough to tell much, so I've been studying the reactions in the media to try to find out how it went.

Based on the fact that the liberal media ( ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and don't forget MSNBC) isn't crucifying her I'd have to guess she probably won. Of course as expected all their polls of 4 or 5 hundred people say Biden won. But one poll that puzzles me is this AOL poll. I would tend to think AOL would favor young people being that seniors are under represented on the Internet. At any rate I fail to see how AOL would favor any particular political group. This poll is still apparently on going as we read because the numbers seem to keep changing.

AOL Poll Results
Who won the debate?

Sarah Palin 47% 230,234
Joe Biden 45% 221,353
It was a draw 8% 41,579

Total Votes: 493,166

http://webcenter.pol...p;pollId=152822

[RighteousReason]

While the San Fran-sicko mayor Gavin Newsom keeps himself busy with sex parades, illegal aliens are slaughtering families in the streets.

Examples like these are evident of the implicit bias, for example in Ifill's questioning.

While she keeps everyone busy talking about homosexuals, not a single word is uttered about illegal immigration.

[Richard Leis]

I am a little discouraged that Biden and Palin seemed to TOLERATE homosexuals, which is a far cry from accepting them, or better yet, considering it a non-issue..

Yes, well. I think we're still a ways off from politicians being free to admit that they couldn't care less what other people did with their lives. To many of their constituents do think they have not just a right, but an obligation to interfere in other people's lives. God told them so.

On the upside atheism only needs to go up one more log for that to happen. Far less than it's gone up in the last century.

I think her usage of "tolerate" was an indication that she does not intend to interfere with your choices of what you do in the bedroom or who you choose as your partner, though she has the right to disagree with your selection and voice that disagreement if she wants to.

It's like if you buy a new car, say a Toyota Prius, and you have what you think is good reason to do so. Just because you have a good reason doesn't mean people have to agree with your choice or your reasoning. To expect everyone to agree that the Toyota Prius was the best choice, or to not voice any disagreement they have with your choice or reasoning, isn't very fair, although it is certainly fair for you to expect them to tolerate the choice enough to not interfere, for example by slashing your tires.

I also agree this should be a non-issue. I'm against the degenerate mobs who parade around flaunting their sexual fetishes and making a big deal out of it, like any of that shit matters compared to anything of even the remotest seriousness, e.g:

1. Why link to slanted articles and not objective articles? I think we can all agree we have little time for slant; science papers and objective news reporting are very much appreciated.
2. "Busy with sex parades" does not equal "illegal aliens [] slaughtering families in the streets", unless you can point us to scientific evidence that this is the case?
3. What is wrong with fetishes? Leather, for example, is not a gay fetish, it is a fetish for people of many different persuasions. I happen to be a prude, but adults, within obvious boundaries, are free to embrace their fetishes.
4. Me buying a Toyota Prius is not quite like me being gay. I don't remember kicking the tires of a variety of sexualities before picking homosexuality, LOL! Besides, why would anyone get emotional about your purchase of a Toyota Prius? Oh, and I bought a Corolla.
5. I went to gay pride in San Francisco once a couple years ago and I found it really boring. Lots of religions in support and families marching (not that there is anything wrong with this) and little of the craziness I expected from watching clips on TV. I guess they have gotten much more tame. Too bad; I totally missed out!

Your point, though, is well taken: everyone, including Palin, is entitled to their own level of tolerance and acceptance. Tolerance is a step up from "interfer[ing] with your choices of what you do in the bedroom or who you choose as your partner." Progress has definitely been made and it is wonderful!

I think the radical life extension and transhumanism movements have a lot to learn from the LGBTQA movement(s) and vice versa.

[Richard Leis]

I am a little discouraged that Biden and Palin seemed to TOLERATE homosexuals, which is a far cry from accepting them, or better yet, considering it a non-issue..

Yes, well. I think we're still a ways off from politicians being free to admit that they couldn't care less what other people did with their lives. To many of their constituents do think they have not just a right, but an obligation to interfere in other people's lives. God told them so.

On the upside atheism only needs to go up one more log for that to happen. Far less than it's gone up in the last century.

The trend toward atheism is exciting and it still surprises me!

Unfortunately, I know some atheists who still do not tolerate homosexuality because they say it is against "Nature". I guess "Nature" takes the place of "God" in their thinking. My favorite line: "I'm not a bible-thumper, but it is UNNATURAL!" They also tend to be anti-transhumanist and anti-longevity, for exactly the same reasons.

[RighteousReason]

I am a little discouraged that Biden and Palin seemed to TOLERATE homosexuals, which is a far cry from accepting them, or better yet, considering it a non-issue..

Yes, well. I think we're still a ways off from politicians being free to admit that they couldn't care less what other people did with their lives. To many of their constituents do think they have not just a right, but an obligation to interfere in other people's lives. God told them so.

On the upside atheism only needs to go up one more log for that to happen. Far less than it's gone up in the last century.

I think her usage of "tolerate" was an indication that she does not intend to interfere with your choices of what you do in the bedroom or who you choose as your partner, though she has the right to disagree with your selection and voice that disagreement if she wants to.

It's like if you buy a new car, say a Toyota Prius, and you have what you think is good reason to do so. Just because you have a good reason doesn't mean people have to agree with your choice or your reasoning. To expect everyone to agree that the Toyota Prius was the best choice, or to not voice any disagreement they have with your choice or reasoning, isn't very fair, although it is certainly fair for you to expect them to tolerate the choice enough to not interfere, for example by slashing your tires.

I also agree this should be a non-issue. I'm against the degenerate mobs who parade around flaunting their sexual fetishes and making a big deal out of it, like any of that shit matters compared to anything of even the remotest seriousness, e.g:

1. Why link to slanted articles and not objective articles? I think we can all agree we have little time for slant; science papers and objective news reporting are very much appreciated.
2. "Busy with sex parades" does not equal "illegal aliens [] slaughtering families in the streets", unless you can point us to scientific evidence that this is the case?
3. What is wrong with fetishes? Leather, for example, is not a gay fetish, it is a fetish for people of many different persuasions. I happen to be a prude, but adults, within obvious boundaries, are free to embrace their fetishes.
4. Me buying a Toyota Prius is not quite like me being gay. I don't remember kicking the tires of a variety of sexualities before picking homosexuality, LOL! Besides, why would anyone get emotional about your purchase of a Toyota Prius? Oh, and I bought a Corolla.
5. I went to gay pride in San Francisco once a couple years ago and I found it really boring. Lots of religions in support and families marching (not that there is anything wrong with this) and little of the craziness I expected from watching clips on TV. I guess they have gotten much more tame. Too bad; I totally missed out!

Your point, though, is well taken: everyone, including Palin, is entitled to their own level of tolerance and acceptance. Tolerance is a step up from "interfer[ing] with your choices of what you do in the bedroom or who you choose as your partner." Progress has definitely been made and it is wonderful!

I think the radical life extension and transhumanism movements have a lot to learn from the LGBTQA movement(s) and vice versa.

1. It is an objective fact that an illegal alien slaughtered Ms. Bologna's sons and huband. That is what the article says. It is only as much slanted as it is *not* slanted to the left.

2. I am agreeing with your statement that this should be a non-issue, because there are much more important issues.

3. There is absolutely nothing wrong with sexual fetishes. I'm talking about "Sickos in a leather parade, whipping each other in the streets, some wearing outfits with their genitals hanging out.", "These people are not wholesome people. They are sick. They are mentally ill, and the city is looking away."

4. I think you are intentionally missing the point of the analogy. It's point was to address this mysterious distinction you are making between tolerance and acceptance.

Edited by Savage, 03 October 2008 - 05:36 PM.

[Richard Leis]

Tolerance: a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

Acceptance: favorable reception; approval; favor.

The first is despite disagreement, the second is agreement.

[RighteousReason]

Tolerance: a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

Acceptance: favorable reception; approval; favor.

The first is despite disagreement, the second is agreement.

So by your definition, one in "acceptance" finds someone's [whatever] different from one's own [whatever] more favorable than their own [whatever].

Just like to point out... that's does not make logical sense.

[RighteousReason]

continued below...

Edited by Savage, 03 October 2008 - 07:30 PM.

[Richard Leis]

3. There is absolutely nothing wrong with sexual fetishes. I'm talking about "Sickos in a leather parade, whipping each other in the streets, some wearing outfits with their genitals hanging out.", "These people are not wholesome people. They are sick. They are mentally ill, and the city is looking away."

What is wrong with "people in a leather parade, whipping each other in the street, some wearing outfits with their genitals hanging out?" Some people like that sort of thing. So what? Why are they not wholesome? I'm not sure that any scientific studies have suggested that such people are sick and mentally ill...can you point us to some references? Commentary is not recognized as rigorous evidence of anything. I admit I write a lot of commentary, but I recognize that commentary has nothing on rigorous evidence-based study and peer review.

However, if it turns out that public displays of fetishism are due to mental illness, then we will need more than commentary to investigate the matter and come up with a cure. Funding is required, scientific research, drug development, testing, and FDA approval. Before we embark on such an effort, we should probably see if there is any evidence that this is a mental illness first.

[Richard Leis]

Tolerance: a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

Acceptance: favorable reception; approval; favor.

The first is despite disagreement, the second is agreement.

So by your definition, one in "acceptance" finds someone's [whatever] different from one's own [whatever] more favorable than their own [whatever].

Just like to point out... that's does not make logical sense.

Woops, sorry, I forgot to include the links to the definitions:

http://dictionary.re...rowse/tolerance
http://dictionary.re...owse/acceptance

And then "favor"

1. something done or granted out of goodwill, rather than from justice or for remuneration; a kind act: to ask a favor.
2. friendly or well-disposed regard; goodwill: to win the favor of the king.

http://dictionary.re...om/browse/favor

I don't think they meant favor in the way you mean, though I may be wrong. I think they meant it as goodwill. Like, "I'm straight, but I accept that you are gay." instead of "I'm straight and I think being gay is wrong, but I tolerate that you are gay." I like the first one better.

[RighteousReason]

In fact, I would argue your definition is coercive:

Like you said,

I am a little discouraged that Biden and Palin seemed to TOLERATE homosexuals, which is a far cry from accepting them, or better yet, considering it a non-issue.

Tolerance is a step up from "interfer[ing] with your choices of what you do in the bedroom or who you choose as your partner."

I don't think they meant favor in the way you mean, though I may be wrong. I think they meant it as goodwill. Like, "I'm straight, but I accept that you are gay." instead of "I'm straight and I think being gay is wrong, but I tolerate that you are gay." I like the first one better.

Which essentially boils down to, if you don't agree with me, then you are (at least a step closer to being) a bigot. I think it is a dispicable point of view, although I can't fault your cleverness is masking and misleading people of that fact.

Edited by Savage, 03 October 2008 - 07:30 PM.

[RighteousReason]

continuing down below....

Edited by Savage, 03 October 2008 - 06:45 PM.

[inawe]

Went out for lunch and met my friend Sean. Up to now I tried but was unable to convince him to vote Obama. He told me he was a born-again
undecided.
Now he said he watched the debate and made up his mind.
OK, what is it?
"Palin gives me a headache and Biden puts me to sleep. Since getting a good night sleep is important, I'm going to vote Democrat".
The Lord works in mysterious ways.

[RighteousReason]

3. There is absolutely nothing wrong with sexual fetishes. I'm talking about "Sickos in a leather parade, whipping each other in the streets, some wearing outfits with their genitals hanging out.", "These people are not wholesome people. They are sick. They are mentally ill, and the city is looking away."

What is wrong with "people in a leather parade, whipping each other in the street, some wearing outfits with their genitals hanging out?" Some people like that sort of thing. So what? Why are they not wholesome? I'm not sure that any scientific studies have suggested that such people are sick and mentally ill...can you point us to some references? Commentary is not recognized as rigorous evidence of anything. I admit I write a lot of commentary, but I recognize that commentary has nothing on rigorous evidence-based study and peer review.

However, if it turns out that public displays of fetishism are due to mental illness, then we will need more than commentary to investigate the matter and come up with a cure. Funding is required, scientific research, drug development, testing, and FDA approval. Before we embark on such an effort, we should probably see if there is any evidence that this is a mental illness first.

I disagree with your reasoning.

I say (through quotes from Michael Savage) that these people are mentally ill because they are so foolish to use their brain power in publicly broadcasting a non-issue that is so abjectly self-indulgent when there are so many other things of very grave importance going on that they are ignoring and overshadowing.

Remeber that addiction is a mental illness, and such behavior can really only be understood through the lens of sexual addiction.

Edited by Savage, 03 October 2008 - 08:13 PM.

[Richard Leis]

1. It is an objective fact that an illegal alien slaughtered Ms. Bologna's sons and huband. That is what the article says. It is only as much slanted as it is *not* slanted to the left.

It is an objective fact that a crime occurred, but the article itself is slanted. Word and phrase choices like "blissfully unaware thanks to San Francisco’s sanctuary city policy", "There’s nothing else I can say to prepare you for it so I won’t try.", "No wonder Newsom hasn’t contacted Mrs. Bologna; how could he ever look her in the eye?" etc. are commentary, not objective news reporting. I find that people in forums often link to commentary rather than the actual news story, which always comes across as biased. In fact, when reporting and even in my commentary, I generally try to choose the original science report or objective news article rather than the various layers of commentary that are build on top of the original items.

I agree that a forum is not the most objective of places (which is why I don't label all my posts [Commentary] - this is understood), but it can be helpful to try to strip away commentary to get to the facts, and then allow people to express their opinions about those facts.

I have found here in Politics & Laws in particular that people are expressing emotional opinions, personal attacks, and exceptionally biased commentary, even more than usual. Some of the problems:

• Assuming other members identify as Republican or Democrat.
• Assumptions about other members in general.
• Links to and quotes from commentary, rather than objective news reporting, science papers, etc.
• Various lapses in logic and reason. For example, saying one thing is the cause of another thing, without providing the necessary steps to get one from there to the other.
• Name calling.
• Godwin's law-like statements.

[Richard Leis]

Oh, sorry Savage! I guess your posts are being moderated! I will refrain from answering until they are approved!

Very, very sorry about that. I didn't realize that was what the purple color meant. Still learning about this forum software and features!

[RighteousReason]

1. It is an objective fact that an illegal alien slaughtered Ms. Bologna's sons and huband. That is what the article says. It is only as much slanted as it is *not* slanted to the left.

It is an objective fact that a crime occurred, but the article itself is slanted. Word and phrase choices like "blissfully unaware thanks to San Francisco’s sanctuary city policy", "There’s nothing else I can say to prepare you for it so I won’t try.", "No wonder Newsom hasn’t contacted Mrs. Bologna; how could he ever look her in the eye?" etc. are commentary, not objective news reporting. I find that people in forums often link to commentary rather than the actual news story, which always comes across as biased. In fact, when reporting and even in my commentary, I generally try to choose the original science report or objective news article rather than the various layers of commentary that are build on top of the original items.

I agree that a forum is not the most objective of places (which is why I don't label all my posts [Commentary] - this is understood), but it can be helpful to try to strip away commentary to get to the facts, and then allow people to express their opinions about those facts.

I have found here in Politics & Laws in particular that people are expressing emotional opinions, personal attacks, and exceptionally biased commentary, even more than usual. Some of the problems:

• Assuming other members identify as Republican or Democrats.
• Assumptions about other members in general.
• Links to and quotes from commentary, rather than objective news reporting, science papers, etc.
• Various lapses in logic and reason. For example, saying one thing is the cause of another thing, without providing the necessary steps to get one from there to the other.
• Name calling.
• Godwin's law-like statements.

I object to your description of news reports and science papers as objective. That is certainly not always the case.

You are grouping a whole bunch of things against my one little article. Just because the article contains non-objective commentary does not mean its facts are skewed or dileberately fabricated with the intention to mislead.

Besides all that, finding facts and truth are *personal responsibility*. It is often the case that the only place to find a large number of facts along a particular theme is in a non-objective article, where one must discern between fact and opinion.

It is an individual reader's responsibility to believe any given statement according to the evidence they personally have (thus spake Reverend Bayes).

Edited by Savage, 03 October 2008 - 07:00 PM.

[RighteousReason]

Oh, sorry Savage! I guess your posts are being moderated! I will refrain from answering until they are approved!

Very, very sorry about that. I didn't realize that was what the purple color meant. Still learning about this forum software and features!

This is so frustrating!

[RighteousReason]

What is wrong with "people in a leather parade, whipping each other in the street, some wearing outfits with their genitals hanging out?"

Not to assume that you would ever want children, but what would you rather see your child doing:

1. parading around being publicly whipped in the streets as a sexual fetish, wearing leather outfits with their genitals hanging out,

or.... say,

2. at school doing math, or serving in the military, the peace corps, or, Science Forbid, in church, praying for the betterment of less fortunate people?

Edited by Savage, 03 October 2008 - 07:23 PM.

[RighteousReason]

Unless you can possibly retort anything I have said in this entire thread, I think I can rest my case

[Richard Leis]

3. There is absolutely nothing wrong with sexual fetishes. I'm talking about "Sickos in a leather parade, whipping each other in the streets, some wearing outfits with their genitals hanging out.", "These people are not wholesome people. They are sick. They are mentally ill, and the city is looking away."

What is wrong with "people in a leather parade, whipping each other in the street, some wearing outfits with their genitals hanging out?" Some people like that sort of thing. So what? Why are they not wholesome? I'm not sure that any scientific studies have suggested that such people are sick and mentally ill...can you point us to some references? Commentary is not recognized as rigorous evidence of anything. I admit I write a lot of commentary, but I recognize that commentary has nothing on rigorous evidence-based study and peer review.

However, if it turns out that public displays of fetishism are due to mental illness, then we will need more than commentary to investigate the matter and come up with a cure. Funding is required, scientific research, drug development, testing, and FDA approval. Before we embark on such an effort, we should probably see if there is any evidence that this is a mental illness first.

I disagree with your reasoning.

I say (through quotes from Michael Savage) that these people are mentally ill because they are so foolish to use their brain power in publically broadcasting a non-issue that is so abjectly self-indulgent when there are so many other things of very grave importance going on that they are ignoring and overshadowing.

Remeber that addiction is a mental illness, and such behavior can really only be understood through the lens of sexual addiction.

Then their doctors will need to make the determination that they are suffering from sexual addiction. I'm not sure what you or Michael Savage bring to the discussion in terms of expertise, and I would prefer to see the science behind the claim. As far as I know, public fetishism during parades and celebrations has not been listed as a mental illness. I will also note that this is not a gay only activity. You have only see commercials for Girls Gone Wild and Boys Gone Wild to see that if it is a mental illness, then college students are sick, too I don't think anyone has made that case yet.