Fort Lauderdale's Republican Mayor Jim Naugle wants to spend a quarter million dollar on a robotic toilet that is supposed to make it more difficult of gay people to have public sex on the beach. This is clearly homophobic of him, as he stated "We're trying to provide a family environment where people can take their children who need to use the bathroom," he said, "without having to worry about a couple of men in there engaged in a sex act."
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/07/mayor-fights-ph.html?csp=34
My questions for this joke of a mayor:
1. You think three minutes is sufficient time to go to the bathroom? You don't have young kids, do you?
2. According to your plan, the stall's door opens after three minutes, so that those outside can see in. Using your logic, wouldn't this expose more people to seeing gay sex occur?
3. I never knew gay people were the only ones that had sex in public restrooms. Do you have a bit of inside knowledge of that?
2007-07-09 02:43:11 · 9 answers · asked by guess 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Jim Naugle has said that the American Civil Liberties Union acronym ACLU means "Atheists and Criminal Lobbying Union"
He is a GREAT guy in MY book!!!
2007-07-09 02:47:04 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
In the article I read about that the police were asked if there was a problem...they stated no that they knew of no problem of public sex...gay or straight...so apparently it is another witch hunt in order to try and secure votes in the next election...might also see if he has any connection to the company who will supply the new toilets...campaign contributions?
2007-07-09 02:51:22 · answer #2 · answered by HouAnswerGuy 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
This is the first I've heard of heard of this, and now that I am finished laughing, I just have to say that I completely agree your points. If it's that big of a problem, something does need to be done, but this is not the solution.
2007-07-09 03:04:09 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
What I find funny is anyone being outraged by expensive toilets instead of being outraged by the fact that people are f***ing each other in a public restroom.
2007-07-09 03:00:10 · answer #4 · answered by osborne_pkg 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Gross. The whole topic to me is gross.
I avoid using public restrooms whenever I can. They are usually not "well maintained."
And I would hope just about everyone could agree that public restrooms and sex acts don't mix.
Do what you want. In private.
No, I don't think the three-minute rule will help.
Strict enforcement of the law - one to a stall, please - and a sense of common decency would work much better.
2007-07-09 02:45:30 · answer #5 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Being gay isn't the situation. the situation is the hypocrisy of somebody in his place condemning others in notice and deed for the very comparable issues the he allegedely does while no person is gazing. because of the fact of this people leap throughout the variety of element.
2016-12-10 06:32:30 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You know what they say about people who are that extremely homophobic....
they aren't straight to begin with, just trying to convince everyone else that they are. pitty the poor guy, being a gay mayor couldn't be easy.
2007-07-09 02:55:40 · answer #7 · answered by qncyguy21 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Apparently this has become a problem. One does not sit around trying to figure out how to spend taxpayers money just to piss off the gay populations. No plan is perfect and there may need to be some adjustments made.
2007-07-09 02:49:06 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Wow..I hate to see Republicans getting tarnished for this one, that's not my platform... the guy's a moron regardless of affiliation.
2007-07-09 02:47:56 · answer #9 · answered by gcbtrading 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋