We live in a country with a legal system based on the preponderance of evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt before a man is convicted of a crime. We cherish this, rightly so. We are innocent until proven guilty. This too is a fundamental truth. We conservatives insist on factual knowledge, on experience, on logic, reason, and a fundamental truth to things. Liberals, as we all well know, live in a sort of amorphous dreams and wisps of imaginary problems, buttressed by the flimsiest logic known to mankind. Socialism, communism, progressives, liberals, social justice … oh, they use so many terms it’s hard to keep track; you know of whom I speak.
But, then, beyond all this stuff about economics and foreign policy and patriotism and entitlements and the debt and deficit and the budget, or, non-existent budget, and the current politics of our times … there’s the gay thing. The homosexual issue. Oh, I contend we are so very different that it requires an appeal to something beyond mere math, such as might be contended with a budget. The gay thing simply stands apart from every other political problem facing the nation. And so, as the gay guy who is quite conservative in every sense of the word you might imagine on any issue before the public – immigration, bank bailouts, dealing with Europe, the Fed, the IRS, the DHS – hell, all the D’s (how appropriate, so bad that they only get D’s, eh?) and well, I’d make Barry Goldwater proud – I will try to explain the dilemma.
I make my father proud too. He was a Goldwater Republican. Still is, I guess. He’s gone Reagan. Oh well, no one is perfect. But it was Goldwater who said, in 1994: “You don’t have to like it, but gay Americans deserve full constitutional right including military service and marriage.”
That’s what Mr. Conservative said while Mr. Third Way Liberal Clinton with his pants down was signing into law DADT and DOMA. Irony, yes? Yes, then there’s the gay thing. Well, my father and I have a great relationship, and he and I wrote a book together.
His life as he wanted to tell it, and my two cents. Well, that’s the “gays are anti-family” bit, yes? Isn’t that is what is said? Yes, “homosexuals are anti-family.” So be it. Maybe homosexuals are. But, alas, to reality, gay men are not. My own father doesn’t think so, I assure you.
Indeed, in my appeal, I posit this simple notion – I’m as opposed to “homosexuality” as the opponents of gay guys are. That is, this construct called “homosexuality” and its “lobby” “agenda” and “pro-gay liberals” is a myth, it’s a thing that doesn’t exist. And yes, I’m against it. But then, well, then there are us gay guys. And we don’t fit the “homosexual” mold. That’s the problem. That’s my appeal to the jury of my peers. The evidence against us is not real, and the facts are for us. We are, I hope, at least deserving of a reasonable doubt.
Let me start off with the sex. Yes. Most of you find the sex abhorrent. OK, fine. I’ll accept that. Let us then stipulate that minimally 95% of the male population is not gay. That leaves 5%, at most. Is this the real number? We don’t know. Out of all the things counted and quantified, studied and examined, the real numbers of gay men is not on the list. No one knows. Every study must, of course, reference Kinsey’s 10%. It’s a number long discredited, no one believes it, and yet, it must be referenced. Pro-or-con. This I agree, some gays use it, some heteros do. Then, there’s the 11 – count them – 11 studies by phone that were done over the decades. Gary Gates, of UCLA Williams Center – and a gay demographer, the gay websites helpfully tell me – concludes there are exactly, I kid you not: 2,491,034 gay men in America. This is the supposed latest number. Except the Gallop poll of just a few weeks ago which says that the “number” of “LGBT” [who would admit] on the phone was 3.5% – they did not break it down as to which were L, G, B, T nor provide an absolute number.
Some people use 1%, others 1.4, 1.5, 2, 2.3, 2.6, 2.9, 4, 6 – Here’s but one “study” of the number. Here’s a mind shocker – most heterosexuals think 25% of the population is gay and just 6.5% are gay according to Roberto Lopez at American Thinker conservative blog a month ago no source was given. Here’s yet another strange estimate
So, indeed, no one has a blessed clue as to how many of us there are. Once you face that, then you can conclude that any other study which purports to show that this number of gay guys are or are not doing this or that is utter bunkum. But you know, liberals are the bunkum artists, and conservatives deal with facts. So, the fact is, no one knows how many gays there are, on earth.
It is supposed that this is an American issue. That Obama is for gay marriage, and good Republicans–are–not. Except, gays – known as ‘gays’ in the local lingo worldwide, and English word run amok – are in every country on earth. Did you want to go to the Gay Pride event in Minsk, Belarus? Well, it’s there for those with the desire. How about Japan? Osaka, Tokyo, Kyoto – more, Sapporo – oh my. And Helsinki in Finland and Cape Town, Durbin and Johannesburg, South Africa, to Santiago, Chile and Buenes Aires, and Caracas, Rio, Sao Paalo, Bogata, Mexico City, Casablanca, Rome, Tel Aviv, Ankara, New Delhi – Teheran – gay people have the audacity for liberty to hold a gay pride march in Tehran! I suppose they’re attacking Allah instead of Jesus. What is that about the toughness of Tea Party conservatives with a 2nd Amendment under some rhetorical attack? Compare: gay guys got up in Teheran and said “the hell with this.” Oh, innocents.
In India there are the Untouchables. 150,000,000 souls considered, well, untouchable. The Brahmin doctors in the public hospitals for free health care refused to treat the Untouchables. And where are gays in the caste system of India? Beneath the Untouchables! Oh yes, that’s how despised we are. And what happens in Hyderabad, Bangalore, Mumbai, Calcutta, and lesser places? Gay pride marches. And you folks think this is an American issue? You think this is remotely related to any public policy issue the USA faces? Really?
If gay folks, the vast consortium of LGBTQ (I know, it’s confounding, I’m sorry, I’m not in charge) amount to a mere 5% or less of the population we are a mere 350,000,000 people out of 7 billion. Do you really all think we chose this to fight you all incessantly in every country on earth because Obama decided to come out for gay marriage? Or, that it’s not natural in some way? We appeal to your reason, and you switch to emotion. I can’t fight you on that – you know what you know, and believe what you believe, so be it. We are the pariahs of mankind, of that there is no doubt. But, well, here we are. We say we’re born gay, many of you demur, and essentially call us liars and then say it either happened to us, or we chose it, or a confab of both.
Let us face the reality too that there is, among heterosexuals, a clear division in the LGBT rainbow. Lesbians are not so bad. Oh, face it, Hugh Hefner and Larry Flynt have made millions off of displays of lesbianism. As a 20 year old I did color proofing for High Society magazine, please. Bisexuals are, well, lapsed heterosexuals, and they have wives and girlfriends, and a dash of intervention and all will be well. Transgendered are, strangely, heterosexuals.
Yes, let me explain that by pointing to the two most historically prominent transgendered people we can reference: Christine Jorgensen and Chaz Bono. Christine was a guy who became a girl who then found a guy and as a gal and guy have been happily married for decades. So, gal and guy – that’s heterosexual, yes? Now, Chastity Bono was a gal, who because a guy, who then went out and found a gal – so, guy and gal together. Last I looked, and correct me if I’m wrong, when guy and gal are together in holy matrimony or at least socially acceptable shacking up that’s heterosexual, yes? Yes. So, I will admit, wholeheartedly, that I am utterly flummoxed why Transgendered people are lumped with gay guys. Gay men are not gender confused, I assure you. Well, so, the three, L, B and T, are shall we say, OK, to some degree. Ah, but then there’s G – the gay guy. We are the butt of the problem (oh, pun intended, we are adults here.)
Yes, the gay man. And what does he do? Well, as the “homosexual” he is hellbent on destroying the nation, civilization, God, marriage, kids and anything else good and wholesome. There is no good in the “homosexual.” Well, the way that guy is described I don’t like him either. Now, then, there’s the gay guy. I can’t speak for us all. Alas, we don’t get a memo from Gay Agenda Central. In fact, almost certainly much to your surprise there is a very vigorous Republican-Liberty versus Democratic-Control debate going on on gay websites. You don’t know that because “homosexuals” might be pushing an agenda to make everyone gay instead of discussing something silly like whether the currency is being inflated out of all reason. No, gay men must perforce have an exact same opinion on say, the tax code, with nary a difference to be found, like among good heteros such as yourself and say Nancy Pelosi. Who you smooch apparently doesn’t affect your IRS meter – but, if you’re a gay guy, well, I guess it must be true that you’re for something else, whatever the gay guy position is on the IRS code is supposed to be. I don’t know it. Do you?
Meanwhile, let us be realistic that there are still American politicians calling for criminalizing gay sex. Yes, Rick Santorum and Allen West and Tony Perkins and many many others have spoken about the need to outlaw gay sex. I suppose that’s to stop heterosexuals from having gay sex. It certainly didn’t stop gay men. Why, that’s why we were arrested in police raids on bars – for liberty. Oh, don’t worry, gay men paid for those raids, with our tax dollars.
We also must face the fact that this ridiculously small percentage are the only gay folks, we’re not trying to make anyone gay, and we know well we can’t, for, well, you’re born gay or you are not. And the vast majority of you are not gay, and never will be. And yet, it seems the fear that if a nice word is said about the few gays folks every heterosexual will run down to the local gay bar to find some sex. It’s strange, this belief, but that has to be it. We “choose” to be gay, so, if something nice is said about it, everyone else will choose to be gay, and then what? Only, well, no one chooses, and no one turns gay. And so the fear or worry is completely unfounded.
Strangely, groups like NARTH, AFTAH, FRC, AFA, NOM – oh, fine groups I’m sure, even if a tad gay obsessed – they are sure that we make up 1% of the population, that we are richer and more well off than everyone else, that we are gay because our father, mother, uncle, man down the block, predisposition and choice made us gay (or any combo) and that we are also demented, sick, ill, childish, absurd, unnatural and worse. And so, people who would seem to be unfit to make a go of life are also just doing stupendously! I’ll let you figure that one out.
Then too, there are the various reasons we are gay. Conservatives, as I know them, wish to know causes and fact, and to drop dogma and wishful thinking – until it comes to gay folks. Then they jump onto the merry go round of why guys are gay with wild abandon. Have you seen the list? It’s incredible. My my, so many reasons, for a tiny bunch, but 1 reason for 95%. It seems gay men have such powerful minds and wills that we are able to turn off instinct and nature itself; science has not seen fit to study the anomaly.
Actually, since gay men are the majority of the 5% LBGT, I’ll say 3% gay men – OK – AFTAH says it’s because our mothers were strong and our fathers absent – OK, so there would be no black teenage pregnancy problem in America today – they’d all be gay for having strong mothers and absent fathers. Not to worry, Ann Coulter and others blame gay guys on the black teen pregnancy problem. I suppose we get them pregnant after our hours and hours of gay sex. I don’t know.
The late Charles Socarides, a doctor, with NARTH, is sure it’s the weak father and cloying mother – only, he has a gay son, a “homosexual lobbyist” even, and well, there’s tension there, yes?
The Family Research Council is sure there’s predisposition and a choice – I suppose we are predisposed to choose. The predisposition is not further explained, except, it’s not genetic or natural. So, somehow, we’re both naturally predisposed and unnaturally predisposed – and we choose to be gay too later on. I don’t know. I’m not in the business of purveying the mush, merely to present it. They also put out an information package pointing out that gay men die at the age of 41. This is news to me as I approach my 55th birthday. It’s their mush, ask them.
The Catholic Cardinal of Chicago, Mr. George, says that his gay nephew is a fine man while homosexuals are intrinsically disordered and evil and destructive to society. I will leave to you all and the Cardinal the division of proportion of how much “fine man” and how much “evil” the nephew might possess. Or, I submit, one or the other proposition – fine or evil – is off the wall. But you can’t be a “fine” and “evil” at the same time, can you?
It is well known that liberals despise the military and avoid serving. It’s not so well known that it was Log Cabin Gay Republicans and serving soldiers who challenged DADT and had won in the lower courts and were going to win higher up when Obama decided to join the bandwagon. He fought the case at first, after he lost he changed his mind. Oh don’t let his evolving and following be confused for leadership. The man hasn’t led on anything ever – now you think he’s at the forefront of gay issues? Egad. We rightly claim he’s a bumbling idiot, and then on the gay thing you think he’s changing America. He’s just another heterosexual who’s “Evolving.” Every heterosexual is evolving on the issue, you can’t get away from the discussion.
Meanwhile, gay men up and joined the military, lied as best they could to do it, at the behest of DADT and heterosexuals in general, and you still hunted them down and chased them away. The nation was in need of linguists – we had 400 linguists in the languages we needed – oh, I’m sorry, they were gay – what could they do to help the nation? – after all – it must be true that these Americans who learned Dari, Pashtun and Urdu were hellbent on destroying America by demanding a shred of decency and the ease of the legal regime of marriage. Or, the homosexual does one thing, and the gay guy another.
Which brings me to marriage. The Supreme Court is considering two cases. Two so far. There’s more in the pipeline. Even if we lose this round there’s plenty more cases, we are determined fellows. In Helen Branson’s mid-1950s book “Gay Bar” attests: gay men were for marriage, and used the word, in the 1950s. This has been a goal since the beginning. Every group, every plea, every court case, every begging has been directed towards a decent recognition of our relationships and our humanity. That’s the gay goal. It’s not political, it’s social. Meanwhile, there is the construct of the homosexual goal of destroying the place. Nothing could be father from the truth. All evidence shows it.
In fact, gay folks have jobs or own businesses. We have to, there are no public programs for us, no. We aren’t the unwed mothers on welfare. We’re not the people getting disability – even though many are quite sure being gay is some disability indeed, we still have to make our own money. So, we do. The National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce claims 1.4 million members. Say ½ are gay – that’s a lot of business folks, yes? I would think that gay folks pay roughly $100 billion in taxes. It’s a guess. And AIDS, always the big gay concern, costs about $2 billion total. And the defense of DOMA by Congress is costing $3 million. And other than that, gay men don’t get any services as gay men, but we sure pay for you folks – we add $98 billion to the pot for unwed mothers and abandoning fathers. We’re a net plus to the nation, obviously.
The clearest evidence that you can see on the difference between “homosexuality” and gay guys? Think about the next time you fly and get a hotel and rent a car and eat out. Look carefully at the young man who is tending your needs. The desk clerk, the waiter, the man who takes your credit card and brings your kid a glass of water – they are gay men. That’s the people you fear – the people who make sure you food is hot, your water is cold, your wine is chilled and your bed is comfy – while you all fly hither and yon denouncing homosexuals gay men are politely helping you do it. And it is this reality versus the myth that I bring to your attention. Why Conservatives go from fact, reason and logic based people on matters of public policy and then switch to pure emotion and religious dogma without a shred of fact, logic or reason on gay folks is something I don’t understand.
I don’t say these things to tell you gay folks are wonderful or that we are innocent of sin, or that you have to like us – but I tell you because you are as against the “homosexual” as I am, but I wish to speak to you as a gay American, who is not the “homosexual” of your thinking, and tell you, we are simply so unimportant, and so different, that the whole “left-right” divide disappears. With gays it’s a whole new territory.
@Redteam #314:
“There was absolutely NO incentive for gays to remain monogamous. ”
I’m sorry if you misinterpreted this comment, and I apologize if I failed to make myself clear. I was speaking in the context of there having been, at the time, no legal or social incentives for gays to remain monogamous. If there were any, I was unaware of them and would welcome your enlightenment on the subject.
@retire #333:
“With AIDS, although there are drugs that alleviate the symptoms, and help prevent pneumonia, there is still no cure. ”
This statement was correct in 1990, but not now.
The first significant treatment of AIDS was the virile suppressant drug “AZT,” which had nothing to do with either pneumonia or symptom alleviation. Several generations of improved AIDS drug protocols have followed, resulting in a marked decline in AIDS-related mortality.
No, there is still no cure, as HIV is doggedly persistent. But at least for those lucky enough to live where pharmacological intervention is available, AIDS is no longer a fatal condition.
@George Wells: #372
How is my statement of what marriage is imposing my values on you? It’s no more that than you telling me that being a homosexual is great would make me ‘think’ that being a homosexual is great.
So now, magically, you feel more reason to be monogamous? Surely not. If so then you are with the wrong person.
@George Wells: Your quote of Retire05:
Then you said:
Then you said:
Don’t know what you mean saying that Retire is incorrect saying there is no cure, then you stating there is no cure. If there is no cure, then there is no cure.
on marriage
Give homosexuals the same right to form unions with their partners as heterosexuals. Within a generation there will not be any distinction between those in a civil union and those in a marriage. Everyone will look at two men together and say “they’re married”. They won’t say ‘they’re unionized”, which has a whole different meaning.
People say that now about people who are together, “they’re married” but not even hitched in any formal way. And common law marriage used to exist for people that had been togehter for certain lengths of time.
If gay people being “married” bothers you, then don’t think about them being married in the eyes of god, as some of them might like to think. Think about them being “civilized” by a government that does not have the good sense to impose arbitrary and conflicting rules handed down and retranslated from a zero’th century civilization. Maybe we can get a club going or a cult even and practice some of the other 635 levitical laws that people seem to ignore, like eating shellfish and wearing blended fabric. Will PETA give us rules for proper dispatch of animal sacrifices?
But on a serious note, what do you folks think of heterosexuality? I mean it’s pretty clear in Leviticus that anyone you are not married or related to is fair game so long as they are not married or related to your family. I mean, giving explicit instructions on who you cannot have sex with is interesting, considering how much easier it would have been to simply say “no sex before marriage, no sex with anyone but your wife after marriage”. Or are you not Levites?
@ted:
Funny how many times the homosexual side of this ignores that there were FOUR things that Jesus carried over AFTER he freed Christians from the entire Mosaic Law (including the laws to the Levites, priests of the Jewish system.)
One of those FOUR things was homosexuality.
Sorry, but it is true.
Acts 15:19,20….we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.
Homosexuality is a form of sexual immorality.
As is fornication and adultery.
There is no excuse for a Christian to involve themselves in any of those things.
Acts’ context there is that new Christians had no obligation to obey the entire Mosaic Law, Leviticus included.
@ted: Ted, this may well be the dumbest post I’ve read, if not, it sure ranks up there real close.
@Nan G: Amen
@George Wells:
Nothing says crass as an “in your face” middle finger to Redteam, Georgie.
@George Wells: Congratulations Mazel tov
BTW Schpiel or Spiel O.K. Rampant Kibutzing on this thread.
@Redteam #376:
“There is no cure” was the only part of what retire05 said that is correct today. The other parts of what she said are obsolete. I thought that was obvious by my dissection of EACH portion of her statement. If one part of a statement is correct but another parts are not, then the statement is not totally correct. I was correcting that parts that were not correct. Do you need further discussion of this incredibly simple mistake?
@Richard Wheeler #382:
Thank you very much, Richard.
@Redteam #375:
“So now, magically, you feel more reason to be monogamous? Surely not. If so then you are with the wrong person.”
I can’t imagine how you arrived at that magical conclusion. I have beem happily monogamous for 38 years.
But retire05’s characterization of the gay community as it was before any of us could marry is basically correct. Many of us were a bunch of sluts. We were told that we were sexual criminals by our clergy, and by anyone else who had an opinion on the matter. All we had to go on was the basic male instinct to plug anything that walks, just as a lot of straight guys do even WITH social, cultural, moral and legal incentives to behave monogamously. If you took all of that away from straight guys today, what would remain to compel them to be monogamous?
Why are males of EITHER orientation monogamous? When you answer that question, see how many of those reasons apply to gay males. Then, remember that before AIDS, there really weasn’t much of a STD problem to worry about. I don’t remember there being any other issue. Can you refresh my memory?
LOL! Indeed there is. And for the benefit of the phonetic Yiddish curious, you could also say there is rampant kibitzing, kibetsing, or kibbitzing furiously in action as well.
@MataHarley #354:
“I suspect the legislative quest would be for another name for the same benefits to make it as palatable as possible to the masses.
However I have a suspicion that all Hades will break loose late June, and that SCOTUS will be inclined to rule that DOMA is unconstitutional in Windsor.”
IF SCOTUS decides as you expect, would that not encourage congress to move in the direction you predict? By then, close to 100 million Americans will be same-sex-marriage optioned, and I would expect socially conservative legislators might start looking for a “draw” as opposed to a “win” on the issue. Much like “Don’t-Ask, Don’t-Tell” kept the openly gay out of the military for a decade, “civil partnerships” would delay country-wide marriage equality by at least that much time. Nobody was happy in either case, a fairly good indicator of rational compromise.
@George Wells:
There, fixed it for you. Odd how you think that the American clergy held so much sway over the actions of homosexual men. All powerful, are they? It would be interesting to know just what percentage of homosexuals, in that time frame, you think even attended religious services or held any religious beliefs.
Bottom line; you were sluts because that was the gay culture. Hence, the objection to shutting down the bath houses in San Francisco, and to a certain extent, that culture still exists today.
Right. So what you are saying is that any heterosexual male who was told by his clergy that adultry is wrong would go out and “plug” 6, 7, 8 women a day because his feelings were hurt? You take absurdity to new levels, George.
@retire05:
“Right. So what you are saying is that any heterosexual male who was told by his clergy that adultry is wrong would go out and “plug” 6, 7, 8 women a day because his feelings were hurt?”
I didn’t say that, you did.
“Odd how you think that the American clergy held so much sway over the actions of homosexual men.”
I can’t speak for others, but as a teen, I listened to my Presbyterian minister. His condemnation was the impetus for my attempted suicide. Perhaps YOU didn’t listen, but I did.
“You were sluts because that was the gay culture.”
Wonder how I missed that…
@George Wells:
What you said was:
And then you indicated the reason for it was:
Obviously, you were inferring that the clergy, who disapproved of your actions, were the cause of those actions to turn into “sluts.” Now you’re trying to backtrack.
@retire05:
Yes, I agree. Where did I backtrack?
@retire05:
Oh, I think I see. “We were sluts.” referred to gays in general.
“Wonder how I missed that” referred to the fact that I was never a “slut,” never part of “the gay culture.” I can count my “partners” on one hand. Sorry if I confused you – didn’t mean to.
@George Wells:
Since I don’t/didn’t know your Presbyterian minister, no, I did not listen to him. Nor did I listen to other ministers except my own. And I doubt he had any influence on you, or your actions.
Mentally healthy people do NOT attempt suicide. Thanks for proving my assertion.
You attempted to eqate the actions of heterosexuals to homosexuals. Major fail. You were “sluts” due to the homosexual culture and for you to feign ignorance about that is just too funny. Where do you think the “hook-up” culture that is infecting our university campuses originated?
Congress already has some legislation in committee, (such as Leahy’s United American Families Act), or in “pause” mode (i.e. Nadler’s House bill for DOMA repeal, and Feinstein’s Senate companion bill). The latter is waiting for the SCOTUS opinion on Windsor before introducing it. Leahy’s bill only specifically addresses immigration status of an American that marries a same sex foreigner, and amends the Immigration and Nationality Act. If DOMA falls, it may be unnecessary as it again relates to a federal definition of “marriage”. Hard to say since, as I said, chaos will reign for a while.
I think you can tell by sundry comments on various threads over time that this isn’t wholly defined as a partisan issue. Many, such as RT stated, have no problem seeing same sex couples enjoying the same benefits, as long as it’s called anything other than marriage. Others, like me, just resent government inserting it’s nose into places they don’t belong in order to dole out money. In either one of those views is where the LGBT community finds their greatest support. It’s just not in our founding nature to support discrimination.
Some of this support was reflected in Amicus briefs filed in DOMA , coming from conservative sources. One of those was a group of conservative and libertarian law professors who, like me, believe that Congress does not have the power to define “marriage”. There are also young conservative organizations actively seeking repeal of DOMA. You can read the sundry filed briefs, including the Amicus Briefs, here at the ScotusBlog links.
None of this is to suggest this support is based around personal moral approval or disapproval of your lifestyle choices. I’d wager a guess that within all of these movements are individuals who do not sanction the homosexual orientation. But the majority of people seem to recognize how to separate their personal moral objections from legislation, designed to regulate sexual morality, which accomplishes little more than promoting discrimination. That type of government behavior presents an equal danger to us all.
INRE Windsor, who knows… but my gut says that the four liberal justices will go for striking DOMA as unconstitutional. Kennedy will strike it for infringement on States Rights. What I will be more curious to read is how the (likely) minority conservative Court will argue their dissent. Personally I think it would behoove them to address why they think the central government, meddling in marriage definitions, is constitutional via taxing/spending power. If they attempt to argue the right to legislate morality, it will be counterproductive to them retaining a reputation dedicated to limited government intrusion.
In the end, while the DOMA battles, State legislation, and perhaps some modification of federal meddling may be altered – the effect being a gain in fiscal and legal benefits by same sex couples – it is unlikely to change hearts and minds of those that are governed solely by their emotions about acceptable sexual activity. Just as this society has become less enthralled with long term relationships, and more openly accepting of sexual freedom and experimentation over time, that won’t happen until we old timers exit the planet.
I’m not thrilled with the new morality myself. But I also know two things… there is little I can do to change it outside of my own sphere of influence, and I will not carry my own perceptions about morality into the realm of “there oughta be a law”, when you are not committing any crime… save what some see as a crime against nature. But then, that’s nothing new either… perhaps just less openly debated than in eras past.
@Richard Wheeler: @Richard Wheeler:
Not according to Dictionary.com
@George Wells: Well, other than the fact that you say she is incorrect and then go on to say that what she said was true was a little confusing.
You quoted her as saying ““With AIDS, although there are drugs that alleviate the symptoms, and help prevent pneumonia, there is still no cure. ” what part of that is incorrect and what part is correct, since you broke it down.
@George Wells:#385 George you said: “There was absolutely NO incentive for gays to remain monogamous. ” you are the one that implied that ‘marriage’ now gives homosexuals a reason to remain monogamous, then you made the statement that you had just gotten married. It is a reasonable conclusion that the next number in the series 1,2,3,4, is 5, isn’t it?
If you didn’t have a reason to be monogamous without being married and you announced that you just got married, what follows? ta da….
Not sure what the confusion is here, RT. George didn’t say that she was incorrect about being no cure. That part he agreed with.
What he disputed as outdated data, was the portion of retire’s statement, “…although there are drugs that alleviate the symptoms, and help prevent pneumonia,…“…. by saying that AZT’s design had nothing to do with either alleviating symptoms, or preventing pneumonia. That is correct.
The various AZT manufactured drugs are NRITs (nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors). What they do is block the HIV enzymes, preventing them from replicating and lowering the effective amount of HIV in the blood…. diluting it, so to speak.
A side effect is that it may result in alleviating symptoms and preventing pneumonia, but that is not the purpose and action of the drug. It’s purpose is to reverse the amount of HIV levels in the bloodstream. i.e. they’ve advanced far beyond just making the symptoms livable, and prevention of other complications that arise with a weakened immune system.
@MataHarley:
And exactly WHERE did I mention any particular drug or drug family? I said “…although there are drugs that alleviate the symptoms, and help prevent pneumonia” Where did I say anything about AZTs?
There is NOTHING wrong in that statement. There ARE drugs that alleviate the symptoms, including helping to prevent pneumonia, which can be absolutely deadly to an AIDS patient.
@MataHarley:
When you reduce the viral load, it also follows that symptoms are reduced.
AIDS patients do not take just one drug; some address the viral load, some address the white blood cell count, some are multi-purpose drugs that deal with viral load/white blood cell count/symptoms or a combination of any of those problems.
@MataHarley: Mata, I have to agree with 05 here, the statement as she made it was 100% correct. If George decided to add additional statements and dispute them, it has nothing to do with what 05 said. I quoted what George said that 05 said and then he said it wasn’t correct and then he said it was true. This is all minor stuff and just an attempt by George to find fault with 05’s statement.
@Redteam:
This is just a list of antiviral drugs:
http://www.avert.org/hiv-and-aids-drugs.htm
Other drugs, designed to prevent pneumonia, et al, are also prescribed to AIDS patients.
George, since you say you have very good Gaydar, what does it tell you about our ‘lustrous leader’? I’ve heard he used to be a frequent visitor in the bath houses in Chicago. Does your Gaydar bounce any returns?
@MataHarley #398:
Thank you, Mata, for being the only one here that understood what I was trying to explain. And of course you explained it much better than I did.
When I read retire05’s line on AIDS treatment, it seemed to me that she was at least IMPLYING that there were only three possibilities: #1-relief of symptoms, #2-treatment of pnemonia, and #3-a cure which does not currently exist.
The CDC lists the following as diagnostic for AIDS when accompanied by HIV infection:
•Candidiasis of bronchi, trachea, esophagus, or lungs
•Invasive cervical cancer
•Coccidioidomycosis
•Cryptococcosis
•Cryptosporidiosis, chronic intestinal (greater than 1 month’s duration)
•Cytomegalovirus disease (particularly CMV retinitis)
•Encephalopathy, HIV-related
•Herpes simplex: chronic ulcer(s) (greater than 1 month’s duration); or bronchitis, pneumonitis, or esophagitis
•Histoplasmosis
•Isosporiasis, chronic intestinal (greater than 1 month’s duration)
•Kaposi’s sarcomav
•Lymphoma, multiple forms
•Mycobacterium avium complex
•Tuberculosis
•Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia
•Pneumonia, recurrent
•Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy
•Salmonella septicemia, recurrent
•Toxoplasmosis of brain
•Wasting syndrome due to HIV
Since retire05 chose to characterize the treatment and prognosis of HIV/AIDS patients (the majority of whom are heterosexual,) I thought that at least the characterization should accurate.
@Redteam #403:
No matter how much I may have disagreed with G.W.Bush over the Iraq War, his tax cuts or his support of a constitutional amendment against gay marriage, I never stooped anywhere near so low. You should be ashamed of yourself.
I think that is the way someone wishes to perceive how each person worded their statements, RT.
When I read retire’s statement, I got the impression she believed little more could be done than make an AIDs patient comfortable by alleviating the symptoms, and attempting to prevent some of the repercussions, like pneumonia, that result when the body’s immune system degenerates. As George said, back in 1990, that was absolutely correct. I also knew more advances have been made since then, but didn’t remember which drug was making the most headway until George mentioned it in his response.
INRE his response, I didn’t find it rude, nor attempting to “find fault” with retire’s statement, but to note that we’ve gone way beyond the days in just making AIDs patients more comfortable, and are drastically reducing the mortality rate – as well as extending life. That’s a good thing.
There isn’t criticism needed if someone isn’t up on the latest results from the new drugs they are constantly trying out. And enlightenment should always be a graciously welcomed thing. We spend every waking moment, learning more everyday.
Strikes me as a bit of hypersensitivity, building mountains out of molehills, and personal defense mechanisms are getting in the way of a perfectly legitimate and civilly put medical cure update.
@George Wells, you’re welcome.
I think we can attribute most societal ills and woes to the “failure to communicate” problem. I’m not sure that can ever be corrected. Sometimes all of us can word our thoughts every which way from Sunday, and they still fall on deaf ears because we (that’s a collective, non specific, plural “we”) either listen, or read, with a preconceived notion as the starting point.
@George Wells:
Taking to making crap up now, Georgie?
Well, according to the CDC:
Diagnosesof HIV infection among Adult and Adolescent Males by Transmission Category – 2011
Male to male contact – 78.2%
Male to male contact and injection of drugs – 3.6%
Heterosexual contact – 12.1%
Diaggnoses of HIV infections among Adult and Adolescent Males, 2008-2001
Of the 196,200 diagnoses of HIV Infection among adults and adolescents during 2008 thru 2011:
77% were in males
76% of diagnosed HIV infections in males were attributed to male to male sexual contact
Only 24% of males who contracted HIV during 2008/2011 were infected by male to female contact.
@MataHarley:
If that is what I meant, that would have been what I said. But you have to rely on your “impression” in order to distort what I said.
@MataHarley: Yes, I pretty much agree that there is a propensity to work on mountains rather than mole hills as I’ve used that simile several times in legislation that may be needed. I do find it interesting that both you and George said you were responding to what you thought Retire said, rather than what she actually said.
@George Wells: #405
Thanks so much for this comment:
I can think of nothing you could have said that made a point so eloquently. Remember a few days ago when everyone was talking about how the tide was moving toward homosexual acceptance and I said that you were being fooled and I used as an example, just imply that someone is homosexual and see how long and loud the cry of protest would be. Well, I label your comment Exhibit 1.
So you think an implication that our ‘lustrous leader’ is homosexual is a huge slam? That implication is a low blow? Wouldn’t you think it put him in a ‘special class’? Thanks for the Exhibit, I’ll save it for future reference.
@retire05 #409:
Yes, heterosexual. World-wide, approximately 80% of HIV/AIDS cases are the result of heterosexual sex.
@Redteam #411:
Your spreading an unsubstantiated and intentionally malevolent rumor about your president visiting bathhouses in Chicago goes way beyond an academic inquiry into his sexual orientation. Do you still beat your wife?
The answer to your question is: Obama visited Chicago bathhouses far less often than you did over the same period. Distort that.
I wonder how you, as a proud American, could be so ugly toward your commander-in-chief. Bet you burned a bunch of flags back in the day.
Is Obama gay? No. He might be homosexual but rank smartassery is not indicative of gay. I read the bathhouse rumors before the first election. They were buried in a Chicago newspaper comments section talking about the gay issues surrounding Obama. They were said in such a way as to be credible.
But if you just stop and look at the body language between him and his ‘body man’ Reggie Love it is unmistakable. And what ex personal assistant happens to show up and vacation with the president? And why are there no women attending him?
And I am not sure what the slam is. I am gay and quite respectable. Why is nailing Obama – so to speak – so bad?
@George Wells:
Oh, world WIDE. Excuse me. I was under the impression that this over 400 post long thread was about U.S. homosexuals/AIDS, NOT world WIDE. Well, that throws a whole new ingredient into the mix. Now we can talk about how same-sex marriage has pretty well failed world WIDE.
You have just given me a whole new plethera of facts to dispute you with.
@retire-5 #415:
“Now we can talk about how same-sex marriage has pretty well failed world WIDE.”
OK.
Start here:
Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden allow same-sex couples to marry. Uruguay and New Zealand have both enacted laws to legalize same-sex marriage which will come into force in August 2013.
Andorra, Austria, Colombia, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, Greenland, Hungary, Ireland, Isle of Man, Jersey, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Switzerland and the United Kingdom recognize civil unions and/or registered partnerships. (These countries are not included in the tally below.)
Bills allowing legal recognition of same-sex marriage have been proposed, are pending, or have passed at least one legislative house in Andorra, Colombia, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Nepal, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom. (These countries are not included in the tally below.)
“Pretty well failed world WIDE????”
In the United States, twelve states (Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington) and the District of Columbia sanction gay marriage. Colorado, Hawaii, New Jersey and Illinois have civil unions, and California, Oregon, Nevada and Wisconsin have domestic partnerships.
While the United States has a somewhat higher percentage of states participating in gay marriage than the world’s percentage of similarly empowered countries, our leadership in this campaign has only recently been achieved. The Netherlands came first, in 2000, followed by Canada and Belgium in 2003, the same year that Massachusetts granted gay marriage. In both the World and in the US, there then followed a bit of a pause, as people waited to see if the World would come to an end. When it did not, the ball started rolling again, and progress toward marriage equality has been dramatic both here and abroad.
In all, some 611 million people will have marriage equality by the end of 2013, 84% of whom are not United States citizens.
I don’t think that “pretty well failed” is a fair characterization.
Iran, North Korea, China, Nigeria… countries like those will be hold-outs, just as Oklahoma, Alabama, Texas, and Arkansas (oddly, tornado states) will also be. Some groups of people are just destined to remain behind the rest, and are seemingly happy in their backward position. At some point in the future (maybe ten or twenty years hence) the American courts will find that the tipping point for this issue has been reached, and will pull the remaining states into the 21st century, for better or for worse. The rest of the World is not as fortunate, as I would not expect the United Nations to exercise a similar prerogative.
@Ted #414:
“Why is nailing Obama – so to speak – so bad?”
After four years in office, every president has a record liberally strewn with missteps and mistakes, embarrassments and scandals. It is perfectly reasonable to challenge the decisions he makes as President of the United States.
It is NOT reasonable to monger rumors of a scurrilous nature – not reasonable in any event and certainly not appropriate when the victim is the President of the United States.
The rumor being bandied about is just that – something easily constructed with no verifiable supporting evidence and designed to generate revulsion among those people already too eager to ruin the man.
History will judge Obama on his accomplishments and on his failures. It will also give mention to tawdry detail that historians think complete his portrait in much the same way that all other presidents’ sex lives come under examination. Kennedy had his Marilyn Monroe, Lincoln slept in a small bed for four years with Joshua Speed, and James Buchanan was as queer as a three dollar bill. There is a proper time to discuss all this, but it is not now.
Decorum and discretion requires that contemporary speculation on these presidential matters be kept private, as the honor and dignity of the United States is at stake. Obama weakens himself enough by making his own bad decisions, he doesn’t need our help to make matters worse.
I AM gay, and for me, being “out” is a source of pride. But each individual is different, and each should enjoy a right of privacy at their discretion. I do not support “outing” people.
@George Wells: You didn’t address the question, did your Gaydar sound any alarms. I didn’t say he visited bathhouses, I just said it was widely reported. But you continue to make my point. Shouldn’t he and you be proud to be recognized as homosexuals? Why would it be a “malevolent rumor”?
@Ted: Ted, you made the point very well. I use the term homosexual, rather than gay because I feel that few homosexuals are ‘gay’ in the ‘having fun’ context and I consider it to be equivalent to the “N” word.
@George Wells: George, I notice your lists don’t include very many Muslim countries. Do you think in-roads are being made there? You’re going to lose some of those countries, Sweden and France will soon be run by Muslims and it’ll be bye-bye homo marriages when that happens.
@George Wells:
What? With all this ‘acceptance’ of the lifestyle, you think it might be repulsive to some? Why is it a ‘rumor’? Does Gaydar work or not? Ted seems to say his Gaydar is returning strong echoes when our ‘lustrous leader’ is in the vicinity. I just don’t get it, shouldn’t he be ‘proud’? or something?
@Redteam#410:
“Both you and George said you were responding to what you thought Retire said, rather than what she actually said.”
Both of us responded the way we did because we both recognized that what retire05 said was not an accurate assessment of current AIDS treatment. Since she chose to characterize AIDS treatment in a particularly abridged manner – leaving out the most effective options – anyone reading what she wrote might incorrectly conclude that the prognosis for AIDS patients is still quite grim. Mata and I were not mistaken in what we “thought Retire said.” We just set the record straight.
“Fair and balanced” is a worthy goal. You will notice that I often point out portions of posts that I agree with. When retire05 announces that “George will never admit blah-blah-blah”, and the “blah” is correct, I’m happy to prove her wrong. I agree with some of what she says, but retire05 can’t return the favor. When she can’t find fault, she simply remains silent.
Not fair and balanced, just bad manners.