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.
@retire05 #260:
Your comment #1 is EXACTLY why I am delighted. Is there any other interpretation?
Your #2: “You seem to be under the misguided conception that the gay vote is necessary for a candidate to win.”
You seem to have misread my comment where I said “Republicans would get MY vote…” as I was addressing ONLY my vote. And the only reason I brought it up was that you keep harping on my motives for voting Dem. I have no illusion that the gay vote is pivotal. It helps a few percent, and until you stop pooping on Hispanics, it just might be enough.
Yesterday, a gay guy was shot dead in Greenwich Village, New York. The assailant called him hate names, asked him if he wanted to die, and shot him in the head. I’m going to make a HUGE leap of logic and speculate that the assailant was not a Democrat, and that he was a heterosexual. The gay community hears about these hate crimes regularly, but we don’t hear of examples where gay people murder straights after shouting heterophobic slurs at them. You may not give a crap, but crimes like these have an impact on us.
“false flags?”
I get that you are once again challenging my motives. Presumptuous of you.
I can only begin to imagine what a Black person felt when a cross-burning was conducted on someone’s front yard, or a Black man was hog-tied and dragged behind a truck until dead. Perhaps you mocked them too. Most homosexuals stayed in the closet for hundreds of years, and you went looking for us. Hounded us out of the military, fired us from jobs, assaulted or murdered us on a hunch. The closet didn’t work for us, and now you’re unhappy with us being in your face, “shoving stuff down your throats.” Well, you asked for it.
About the best thing I can see in all this is that both of us are optimistic about the future. I see equal rights for gays coming, and you see a pendulum swinging back and forth. Did racial civil rights swing back toward slavery? Did women’s right to vote swing backward? I don’t worry about rights coming and then going, as there isn’t much evidence of that happening in our history. Rights, once given, seem durable. Sorry.
@Ted #262:
What, you don’t make stuff up for the locker room? Where have you been?
@George Wells:
Ok George, I’m going to accept your statement that you don’t have equal rights. Now, since you don’t have equal rights, name just one right that you don’t have that I do have.
1. we’re both males and we both have the right to marry
2. we both have the right to have children
3. we both have the right to have employment
4. we both have the right to live in a house with whomever we please (as long as they are of legal age)
I could go on and on, but save us some time and tell me what I have the right to do that you don’t?
@George Wells:
You arrogant, dimwitted SOB. Do you even know my ethnicity? No, you don’t. You, like ALL sick progressives, just assume that if someone might, I say MIGHT, be white, then they most certainly are RAAAAAACIST.
How do you know the dead man was called names? Dead men tell no tales. When you make a claim, it is proper to provide links. You want dead men? One of the worst serial killers in the U.S. was a closet sodomist who raped his prey prior to torturing them and then killing them. JOHN WAYNE GACY ring a bell with you?
Since you want to call me a RAAAAACIST, do I get to call you a faggot in return? You know nothing about me, POS. Nothing.
And stop with the “black” comparisons. There is NO scientific proof of your perceived “gaydar.” It’s bullshit, and you know it. You are one sick man, George. You’re not just a sodomist, you’re mentally ill and you need to seek psychiatric help as quick as you can.
And when the blowback turns the other direction, will you admit YOU asked for it?
@Redteam #265:
Your #1: I do not have a moral right to marry a woman. The only way I would have a “legal” right to marry a woman would be if I did so fraudulently, as she would be instantly granted a divorce if my homosexuality were divulged. Your argument to the contrary debases marriage in every sense, not just in the sacred sense.
Your #3: There are currently only two states below the Mason Dixon line that protect homosexuals from job discrimination and/or termination on the exclusive grounds that they are homosexual. Current Federal employment law protects other classes of minorities from employment discrimination, but not homosexuals. As I do not know if you are a man or a woman (gender is protected) or a racial minority (minorities are protected) or old (age discrimination is forbidden) or religious (religious discrimination is forbidden) etc., I don’t know exactly how protected you are. But I know that I am not.
Gays are routinely harrassed by schools, by hospitals, by law enforcement, and by hateful or intolerant individuals who have an axe to grind. I would hope that there might be buried in the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness some sense of a right to not be harrassed, but I see little evidence of it.
@retire05:
“How do you know the dead man was called names?”
Independent corroboration by multiple whitnesses to the event.
“Since you want to call me a RAAAAACIST…” Sorry for the misunderstanding. When I said “until you stop pooping on Hispanics” I meant the Republican party in general, not you. I know nothing about you personally, and do not mean to use YOU as an example of either the Republican Party OR the Human Race.
Of your remainder of your post, just so much verbal vomit. I would advise seeking remedy, but your condition is clearly terminal. You have my sincerest condolences.
@George Wells:
Oh, my, a sodomist talking about “moral” rights. That’s pure Saturday Night Live material.
Here’s a suggestion for you; if you don’t want to be discriminated against because your queer, don’t tell a prospective employer that you like boys. Pretty simple, isn’t it? Or do you think that all employers have “gaydar?” Or are you such a flamer that it is obvious you are queer?
Bottom line; if I don’t want to hire some sodomist, I should be required by the government to hire them. I should, as a business owner, be allowed to hire those who would be an asset to my company, not someone riding the “I’m queer and I deserve something because of it” band wagon.
And fat people get teased, skinny people get teased, blonds, well there are more “dumb blond” jokes than you can count, short people get teased, exceptionally tall people get teased. So what? Life ain’t fair. Deal with it. Grow a set. And stop the damned incessant whining.
And still no link from you. Could it be because the gangbanger (yeah, there’s a picture on one of the NY papers showing the victim flashing gang signs) was shot by a guy names Morales who had fake I.D.? Oh, my, what a quandry. Defend the queer or defend the [possibly] illegal alien. That one should really have the Dems heads spinning.
Then you should take a class in English construction. When you say YOU, that is personal, singluar.
Verbal vomit is the only thing you have offered here since the first time you logged on.
I’m not the one who’se queer. And I believe that homosexuality is a mental disorder, as it was listed in the DSM-II prior to all the threats that the Gay Liberation Movement made against American psychiatrists.
Oh, and don’t think that I didn’t notice that you refuse to talk about John Wayne Gacy who murdered more gay men/boys than any heterosexual ever has. And he wasn’t the only queer serial killer.
@George Wells: #267
Wait a minute, are we talking “the right to”? Are you now advocating the passing laws regulating moral rights? Do you have the right to marry or not? No one has a ‘legal right’ to marry whomever they please. If I wanted to marry a certain woman, I have the legal right to do so only if she also wants to marry me. How is that different from your rights, since you claim our rights are not equal. If I married someone fraudulently, my wife would also be eligible to get a divorce. So, I’m not seeing the ‘unequality of rights here’.
I don’t believe that. I don’t believe ‘any’ state anywhere allows termination of anyone on the ‘sole grounds’ that they are homosexual. Many states allow business owners the right to terminate anyone for any reason, but you can be sure that if they give a reason and that reason is ‘homosexual’ they would not allow that. The same as if the reason given was ‘race’. Saying that all states allow termination for being homosexual because they don’t specifically forbid it in a law is not intellectually honest. They would be covered under all ‘discrimination’ statutes.
Let me re-quote you here:
If I understand your concern here, you are saying that if someone were to hire someone that is homosexual, but didn’t know it, that if they decided to fire that someone because they were homosexual, that they couldn’t just for that reason. So, if they said it was just for a reduction in headcount, that would be ok? Would it matter to the person without a job if he were fired for being too short, too tall, too old, reduction in head count, homosexual? He would be without a job either way. It’s all semantics. Is that what you want, the right to keep a job ‘just because you are homosexual’? Really?
Then claim that they can’t fire you because you’re a ‘man’. If gender is truly protected, you would be covered.
Just curious, how many jobs have you been terminated from because you are homosexual? How many marriage licenses have you been denied because you are homosexual?
@Redteam:
Actually, that’s a bit incorrect; you cannot marry your mother, your aunt, your sister, your niece or your first cousin, even if she wanted to marry you.
@retire05: Well, yep, but I assumed everyone took that as a given.
@George Wells: #254
With obama siding more with the Muslim countries, and less with the free countries, I doubt that that is an accurate statement. Our hope, as always, is in the people who want to keep all of the freedoms we were born with, and who are willing to do the things necessary to keep them.
@Redteam #270:
“I don’t believe that. I don’t believe ‘any’ state anywhere allows termination of anyone on the ‘sole grounds’ that they are homosexual. Many states allow business owners the right to terminate anyone for any reason, but you can be sure that if they give a reason and that reason is ‘homosexual’ they would not allow that. The same as if the reason given was ‘race’. Saying that all states allow termination for being homosexual because they don’t specifically forbid it in a law is not intellectually honest. They would be covered under all ‘discrimination’ statutes.”
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is not prohibited at the Federal level.
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) would provide basic protections against workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The bill explicitly prohibits preferential treatment and quotas and does not permit disparate impact suits. In addition, it exempts small businesses, religious organizations and the military. ENDA has not been passed in congress and is not law. It is my opinion that ENDA should be passed.
Twenty one states have laws that prohibit discrimination based upon sexual orientation. Nine additional states have laws prohibiting state employment discrimination based upon sexual orientation.
Twenty states have no laws prohibiting discrimination based upon sexual orientation. In these states, an employer may fire an employee for the sole reason that the employee is homosexual. Your so-called “discrimination statutes” do not protect homosexuals in these 20 states. I think that you should look into this matter a bit more before you “believe” otherwise.
If you are “employed at will,” your employer does not need good cause to fire you. In every state but Montana, employers are free to adopt at-will employment policies. In fact, unless your employer gives some clear indication that it will only fire employees for good cause, the law presumes that you are employed at will. However, even if you are an at-will employee, you still cannot be fired for reasons that are illegal under state and federal law. You would think that employers would have enough sense to fire anyone they want to fire WITHOUT explanation, but in fact they often leave a mountain of evidence that the termination was in fact the result of illegal discrimination.
@retire05 #269:
John Wayne Gacy is dead. He got what he deserved. There are bad heterosexuals and there are bad homosexuals. What’s your point. Do you really want to trade sociopaths?
“If you don’t want to be discriminated against because your queer, don’t tell a prospective employer that you like boys. Pretty simple, isn’t it?”
No it isn’t. You want me to live a lie, while you get to live the truth. Not fair. If you can put a photo of your loved one on your desk at work, I should have the same right and not be fired for it.
“I know nothing about you personally, and do not mean to use YOU as an example of either the Republican Party OR the Human Race.”
I did mean “YOU” in the personal, singular sense, as in YOU are a poor example of either…
“Stop the damned incessant whining.”
Such an easy cop-out when you enjoy rights that you withhold from others. “Now that I’m at the head of the line, everyone behind me can kiss my ass.” I hear you.
@George Wells:
That’s why the whole, discrimination against homosexuals is a red herring. Even if a state or fed passed a specific law prohibiting discrimination, it is meaningless in an employed at will state, which is all of them (you said Montana is an exception) because NO reason for termination is necessary. Even in a state without a specific naming of homosexuality as a reason, if an employer were dumb enough to say that is why someone was terminated, I suspect he would be involved in a lawsuit, and I suspect he would lose. This is ONLY an issue for the sake of ‘having an issue’, in fact it is a total ‘non-issue’.
@George Wells:
George, leave the dead horse alone. Are you seriously gonna say that someone has fired someone and listed the cause as having a picture of someone on their desk? I worked for over 40 years and never had a photo of my wife, of over 50 years, on my desk. Was I living a lie? Do I think they should pass a law requiring me to have, or not have, a picture of my wife on my desk? If your ‘partner’ were a registered sex offender, would you want to have a news clipping framed on your desk to that effect? Why not? Shouldn’t everything be out in the open, or is it your business? If you had a photo of a man on your desk, would someone ask you if that were a homosexual? or would they ask if it were your son? What about your father or brother? If you were allowed to have a photo of your homosexual partner on your desk, would you put a label on it so everyone would know it was your ‘partner’? I mean, do you want an all out advertising campaign to make sure everyone knew who it was and what your relationship is? Who’s damn business is it?
It is a total non-issue.
No Redteam it is an issue. A lesbian friend of mine was fired from a state university because she was discovered to be gay. There is vicious discrimination against gay people and it does matter. Maybe you live in an open minded utopia but down here in the Bayou State a picture on a desk is what it is – indication of affection. So if it does not make any difference then why not pass the ENDA laws? Or do you like the idea of being able to discriminate willy nelly? To see my recent testimony on transgender issues before the Louisiana House look at HB 85 online. I testify third I believe. ENDA. I was trying to explain that transgendered people are not sexual deviants/perverts. I am a republican by the way. they voted no. They feel God wants them to persecute deviants in His name at the state employment level, if the vote is an affirmation of the two preachers testifying against it.
@Redteam :
Your “suspicions” are wrong. Employers are constantly being taken to court for exactly the dumb discrimination that you say never happens. And in states that have NEEDED protections for sexual orientation, they lose. In the other twenty states, the cases are dismissed because there is no state or federal statute protecting against discrimination based on sexual orientation. If it is such a meaningless “red herring,” why don’t you pass ENDA? Because you KNOW that there is discrimination against gays, and you want it to remain legal.
Retire05 is a perfect example of why these laws are needed. She thinks gays are sick, mentally ill, and that’s right around the corner from having 10 million of us institutionalized. She is full of hate, and that’s right around the corner from going postal. Protective laws won’t stop the violence, but they send a message that gay-bashing isn’t OK, and that’s a start.
Your insistance that laws against discrimination are unnecessary could be applied just as easily to racial minorities, women and Jews (for example.) I guess that you are suggesting that CRA 1964 was unnecessary. But if it wasn’t for CRA 1964, you’d still have those classes under your thumb, too. How greedy ARE you?
Your argument over the desk photos is REALLY silly. But it does prove my point that everybody should be treated EQUALLY, and gays clearly are not. Thanks for your help.
@George Wells:
It has nothing to do with trading sociopaths. It has everything to do with your claims of people being murdered because they are gay (an incident that is NOT all that common) while you ignore those who are gay that murders people. People are murdered for all kinds of reasons, with the number of black on white violence markedly up since The Won took office. And you dropped your whining about the murder of a queer guy in Greenwich Village when I pointed out that it was probably done by an illegal alien, another protected minority by the Dems you vote for. Well, you better get used to it because most Hispanics have a pretty low opinion of queers.
I NEVER worked for any company that allowed personal momentos to be placed on my desk. So that issue is moot. Most companies I have worked for had a defined “code of conduct” which included attire, personal items displayed at work, etc. which I had to sign upon employment. I worked for a major news publication, and any violation of the “code of conduct” was a firing offense. So once again, you’re talking out your lower orifice.
Whining, and playing the victim, is all you have done since you got here. It’s gotten old and tired. And does nothing to advance your agenda.
WoW~! You’re a real drama queen, aren’t you? Did I say you need to be institutionalized? No, I didn’t. But in spite of talking about your “morals” that didn’t stop you from lying, did it? Lots of people suffer from mental disorders and don’t require being institutionalized. Veterans with PTSD; children with ADHD, women with post-partum depression, children who are molested, often by members of their own gender, trauma victims due to crime, natural disasters, etc., those who suffer from extreme grief, the list goes on. They are not institutionalized. Treatment is usually out-patient.
Then you determine, from your jaded viewpoint, that I am full of hate. Who the hell are you to make that determination? Provide us your degree in psychiatry. You are just the typical full-0f-shit progressive that can only resort to your own form of hate when judging others. You claim you seek only tolerance for yourself, and those like you, but you have zero tolerance for someone who disagrees with you.
You brag about being queer then turn around and whine about it and complain how unfair the world is to you. Get a life. Life is not fair. One should do the best they can and deal with what life hands you. We have an Administration that is persecuting conservatives groups via the IRS, four patriotic Americans were slaughtered by radical Islamists in Benghazi, Christian faiths are being forced to go against their religious freedom in clear violation of the First Amendment, thousands of Americans, on a daily basis, have their Forth Amendment rights violated, the AP reporters had their Constitutionally protected First Amendment rights violated, the debt we are leaving our children and grandchildren will destroy this nation and whistleblowers are being persecuted and all you can think about is being queer and getting the ability to marry.
If you want to marry, and you want to still be able to be a sodomist, marry a lesbian and have an open marriage. That way, you can fake your way through sex and have the children most queers claim they want. You can raise a whole passel of future homosexuals.
And stop lying about what I say.
@Redteam:
Bingo. The agenda is “forced acceptance” not tolerance. George is like the hippy broad that walks around her front yard stark naked and claims that her neighbors do not have the right to complain about it because it is HER front yard.
@retire05 #280:
“And stop lying about what I say.”
I did not lie about what you said. I quoted your “belief” that homosexuals were mentally ill. I added that “institutionalization was right around the corner” from that belief, but I did NOT say that you had suggested it. The two things are not the same. You are scoring rather poorly in reading comprehension.
“Provide us your degree in psychiatry.”
I need neither a degree in psychiatry nor law enforcement to know hate when I see it. The litany of homophobic slurs you hurl exposes your hatred well enough. I wonder what Jesus would think of your potty mouth.
“I NEVER worked for any company that allowed personal momentos…(etc.)”
What personnel policies held at YOUR place of employment are irrelevant to this issue. What I request (not “demand”) is a fair and equal application of whatever rules ARE in effect. In a place of employment where personal photos ARE allowed, a photo of me and my husband on our wedding day should not be grounds for my dismissal. In many places it is, and it will continue to be until anti-discrimination legislation is amended to include sexual orientation.
“And you dropped your whining about the murder of a queer guy…(etc.)”
Didn’t mean to drop it. It was a hate crime, and it should be prosecuted as other hate crimes are. Doesn’t matter who the perpetrator is, or where he’s from. No dilemma there.
I can’t imagine what rationale you are resorting to in denying the commission of hate crimes against homosexuals. Matthew Sheppard ring a bell? When was the last time you heard a heterophobic slur? (I even had to make up the word “heterophobic,” as my computer doesn’t think there is such a thing.)
Any heterophobic murders?
Funny how you good Christians defend your right to bully minorities.
“while you ignore those who are gay that murders people.”
Ignore what? I said “John Wayne Gacy is dead. He got what he deserved. There are bad heterosexuals and there are bad homosexuals.”
What more are you looking for? He was one sick puppy. He was EATING people. I can’t THINK of a punishment that would fit HIS crimes. I CURSE him. I SPIT on him in absentia.
Heterosexuals have committed equally heinous crimes, and I condemn them as well. But this fight is over gay rights, not over a catalog of what terrible crimes have been committed. More children are abused by heterosexuals than homosexuals, but that fact is irrelevant to the gay rights issue. The only reason to bring up an irrelevant topic – like John Wayne Gacy, OR child abuse – is to dodge the real issue.
A disproportionately high number of gay children are bullied because of their sexual orientation, and a disproportionately high number of gay children commit suicide.
A disproportionately high number of gay people are attacked and/or murdered because of their sexual orientation.
The legal protections I am asking for will not stop the hatred, but they will at least discourage it.
What you said was:
Reti
That is a clear indication that you believe that people who are of the same opinion I am would support institutionalization of queers because we believe it is a mental disorder. So you just continue to obfuscate what you said trying to worm your way out of it.
You bet. He’s the poster boy for all the claims of persecution made by the gay lobby, including you. But you never talk about the harrassment of heterosexuals by gays, as if it didn’t exist.
Obviously your computer didn’t try to hard. I just typed “heterophobic” into my search engine and came up with:
http://www.allaboutcounseling.com/library/heterophobia/
and
http://gaylife.about.com/od/gayslang/g/heterophobia.html
Either you are lying again or you need a better computer. My bets on #1
When it comes to your sodomist life style, He would say “Hate the sin. Love the sinner.” But it is not your queerness that I dislike, it is you personally, as a person and a liar.
What proof do you have that I have ever bullied anyone? You have none. That comment was just more of your bullshit mantra. You make a lot of claims about people you have never met, don’t you, in order to play the victim.
You are a disgrace, not only as an American, but as a representative of those homosexuals who don’t subscribe to your policy of forced acceptance. Thank God they are not all like you, and your buddy, Hlavac.
@Ted: And it said on the notice of termination that it was because “she was discovered to be a lesbian”?
Actually, I live in the Bayou State. No, a picture on the desk is ‘advertisement’. As I said I never had a picture of my wife on my desk, because I didn’t feel a need to ‘display’ my affection. My wife knows how I feel about her and knows I don’t have to prove it to anyone. Most persons I’ve known in my 50 years working have not had photos on their desk. Geez, I just realized, it must have been because they were homosexual and were afraid they’d get terminated. Hmmm…
I’m not sure what that means, but I don’t treat a homosexual as a deviant. I treat them the way they treat me, that’s the custom. Are you implying that there is a law that allows someone to discriminate? Which law is that? Does it clearly state: “Straight persons are allowed to discriminate against homosexuals”, or do I have to look deeper than that?
@George Wells:
George, I don’t know what ENDA is but I’m sure it must be something that allows homosexuals to discriminate against straight people.. i.e, suppose I own my own business and a homosexual gets a job working for me and I don’t know it is a homosexual. But then I find out and want to terminate that person. This appears to give the homosexual the right for me not to fire that person, even though I supposedly have the right to ’employ at will’. Is that about it? Why would I want to give a homosexual a right that no one else had?
It was meant to be. I never realized that persons without photos on their desks are homosexual. (Gee, and I never had a photo on my desk and no homosexual ever came up and acknowledged me as a fellow closeted guy)
@George Wells:
George, I’m gonna have to disagree with you on that one. As I said before, I was propositioned 3 times, at age 10, 12, and 15 and it was by homosexuals. No heterosexual ever propositioned me or attempted to ‘abuse’ me. I don’t think you can support your statement.
@Redteam:
Time after time, research study after research study, some conducted by our own government, has shown that homosexual men have a higher rate of being molested by a member of their own gender when they are young compared to heterosexual men. Lesbians report a high rate of being sexually molested as a child by a member of their own gender compared to heterosexual women.
Perhaps George, and his side kick, can name the organization that would be comparative to NAMBLA (North American Men/Boy Love Association) that actually promotes pedophilia, but I doubt it.
And therein lies the great crime; children molested by adults that go unreported. It is life destroying and it is the 800 pound gorilla that gays never want to talk about. Are there gays that don’t go after children? Sure, but there are many who do (a child being anyone under the age 18).
It is like the dark side of illegal immigration. No one wants to talk about the hundreds of thousands of young girls in the U.S. who have been raped by illegals because it makes illegal immigration look bad. But when the age of consent in Mexico is 12 years of age, and there are few prosecutions in Mexico for rape, we are going to get the dark side that no one ever discusses. Same with rape in the Islamic world where, if a girl/woman is raped, she is the one that is punished.
@retire05 #287:
OOOHHhhhhhhh! Well that certainly clears things up! You were raped by a 800-pound lesbian gorilla from Guadalajara when you were 12 years old!
You should have said something sooner.
I’ll send you a card.
@George Wells:
Once again you brush off a serious topic by trying to be too cute by half. Sorry, Georgie, but I think the fact that a greater percentage of male homosexuals, in comparison to heterosexual males, were sexually abused as children is no laughing matter. Obviously you seem to find some humor there. Perhaps you are a member of NAMBLA or support their cause.
@Redteam #286:
“Other researchers have taken different approaches, but have similarly failed to find a connection between homosexuality and child molestation. Dr. Carole Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children’s hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% in which an adult molester could be identified – only 2 of the 269 cases (Jenny et al., 1994).”
“In a more recent literature review, Dr. Nathaniel McConaghy (1998) similarly cautioned against confusing homosexuality with pedophilia. He noted, “The man who offends against prepubertal or immediately postpubertal boys is typically not sexually interested in older men or in women” (p. 259).
This well known lack of a linkage between homosexuality and child molestation accounts for why relatively little research has directly addressed the issue. Proving something we already know simply isn’t a priority. Indeed, a commentary that accompanied publication of the 1994 study by Jenny et al. in Pediatrics noted that debates about gay people as molesters “have little to do with everyday child abuse” and lamented that they distract lawmakers and the public from dealing with the real problem of children’s sexual mistreatment (Krugman, 1994).”
The Family Research Council (one of yours) admits “the majority of child molestation cases are heterosexual in nature.” They go on to point out that the majority of adult child molesters are male. (True.)
Then they add that about 70% of the molested children are female. (Also true.)
However, they disagree with the findings in paragraph 2 above, as they assert a literal equivalence between homosexuality and man-boy pedophilia. I no more agree with that assertion than I would agree that there is a literal equivalence between heterosexuality and man-girl pedophilia.
Pedophilia is a terrible and criminal abuse of children. Pedophiles should be prosecuted vigorously and to the full extent of the Law. Although their advocacy of pedophilia is protected by the First Amendment, NAMBLA is an embarrassment to law-abiding gays, much like well-publicized child abuse cases are an embarrassment to the Catholic Church.
@George Wells, here’s the link to the UC Davis Psychology dept article article where many of your quotes are used, and more in depth analysis of the methodology in the studies.
INRE ENDA, that bill (in varying degrees and language) has been introduced every Congressional session since 1994 except for one. It also goes back in roots to the mid 70s. And yes, it is the quest to get sexual orientation added as one of the currently seven protected classes (i.e. race, color, religion, national origin, gender, familiar and disability). However, as you yourself point out, a majority of the States have already included that in their State laws.
@Redteam #285:
“I don’t know what ENDA is…”
ENDA is basically the CRA 1964 PLUS protections for sexual orientation.
“The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) would provide basic protections against workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The bill explicitly prohibits preferential treatment and quotas and does not permit disparate impact suits. In addition, it exempts small businesses, religious organizations and the military.”
The House of Representatives refuses to pass ENDA because they want to continue discrimination against homosexuals, and because they really don’t have any time for it, being as they are so busy voting to repeal Obamacare every so many days.
You know something, redteam? I think that the country is moving away from the virulent homophobia that I see/hear on this site, and that gives me hope for the future. If I thought that retire05 was representative of the majority of Americans, I would despair, as I would be certain that this issue would never reach a peaceful solution.
I was honestly surprised that at the height of the AIDS crisis, infected gays with no prospects for survival didn’t start murdering “the enemy” – those Republicans who blocked legislation protecting gays from discrimination, or who blocked funding for AIDS research. Like retire05, I had over-estimated the organization and the very conviction of the “gay movement.” If there was ever a sound “gay agenda” item, I thought that would be it. But I was wrong.
Still, I can’t believe that the seemingly rigid positions on both sides of the issue and the fact that “compromise” has become a dirty word bodes well for our future. I do hope that I am wrong in that as well, and that calmer minds will prevail. I have tried to help, but I don’t think that I’ve been successful. Sorry if I wasted everybody’s time. Peace be with you.
Sorry.. you’ll have to expand your distaste to your party as well. They could have easily passed that, if the majority of Dems wanted to do so, between 2009 and Jan 2011 when the House had a Dem membership of 257… more than was necessary for passage. Apparently there are many in your own party that did not want to address the bills of the same name introduced in that session. The only time the bill wasn’t introduced since 1994 was in the 109th Congress… 2005-07.
In the days of supermajority Dems, Barney Frank introduced HR 2981 and HR3017 in the House, and Oregon’s Jeff Merkeley introduced S1584 in the Senate. None of the three ever made it out of Dem majority committees.
@George Wells: #290 George, most of what you said there is not of much value. First, it relies on the persons being asked the questions to be honest. If the person doing the questioning did not have “gaydar” then they would have to rely on the person answering to be telling the truth. Then, of course, Gaydar doesn’t work for detecting Lesbians, only male homosexuals, if I understand what you’ve been telling us. That data was back in the early 90’s when I assume many of them didn’t want to be out of the closet. At the ages I mentioned, I would have been a victim of sexual predators, not pedophiles. Attempting to blame molestations on pedophiles is not productive.
@George Wells: #292
George, I knew ‘basically’ what ENDA was, I just don’t know, nor do I want to know, all the minute details of it. I know it is not necessary and is only an attempt to legislate morality.
Sounds as if you’re placing the blame for aids on straight people? Why? AIDS is virulently spread amongst homosexuals and not mainly by straight persons having sex with them
Then George, I’m afraid you’re headed toward more despair. I think about 85% of the country feels as she does. Many people publicly pretend to support you but, I’m think that is mostly because they want to get and give sympathy and not project that they are not for the homosexual agenda.
@George Wells:
Of the 352 medical reviews of those children, only 76 were boys. Even so, the study has come under scrutiny for not adhering to standard research techniques. Here is why (you even referred to it yourself):
So let’s look at some studies that are both more recent, but more extensive, shall we?
In 2001, the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior published a study entitled Comparative data of childhood and adolescence molestation in heterosexual and homosexual persons. The abstract for this article states the following:
In research with 942 nonclinical adult participants, gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women. Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation. This research is apparently the first survey that has reported substantial homosexual molestation of girls.[2]
The authors of the above medical journal article entitled Comparative data of childhood and adolescence molestation in heterosexual and homosexual persons also stated that childhood sexual molestation may not be a causal factor for homosexuality and that the abuse molestation may be occurring after the individual is a homosexual and the medical researchers speculated that the victims of molestation may be engaging in behaviors that put them at greater risk for molestation.[2]
In 1998, Dr. William C. Holmes, M.D. and Dr. Gail B. Slap, M.D. reported in the medical journal JAMA the following:
Adolescent boys, particularly those victimized by males, were up to 7 times more likely to identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual than peers who had not been abused (P<.001). [3]
Comparative data of childhood and adolescence molestation in heterosexual and homosexual persons, Archives of Sexual Behavior, 2001 Oct;30(5):535-41.
Sexual Abuse of Boys Definition, Prevalence, Correlates, Sequelae, and Management, William C. Holmes, MD, MSCE; Gail B. Slap, MD, MS, JAMA, Vol. 280 No. 21, December 2, 1998
Boys, sexually molested by men, have a higher incidence of homosexuality as adults than do boys molested by women. Women, on the other hand, who, as children, were sexually molested by men, have a higher incidence of becoming lesbians.
Then we can assume that if 70% of the molested children were female, 30% of them were male (boys). And if queer men were not interested in molesting boys, there would be no NAMBLA. But NAMBLA exists because those homosexual men are interested in BOYS, not girls. You are trying to separate pedophilia from homosexuality and that is a stretch too far as gay men would not be interested in molesting little girls, only boys.
Quite true. But the problem lies in the fact that the Jesuits decided to “modernize” their order, and allowed openly gay men to enter the priesthood. How did that work out for either the Church or the boys that were abused?
Does that mean you felt that the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the 1964 and 1968 Civil Rights Acts, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act in 1967, the Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation Services of 1973 & Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the 1974 Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act were also an attempt to “legislate morality” and “not necessary”? Just looking for a bit of consistency here, Redteam. All were instrumental in defining federal “protected classes” that are used in Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Employment laws.
I agree that none of this legislation *should* have been necessary since our founding principles really don’t support discrimination of citizens in general. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t occurring, and that Congress felt the need to spell it out with federal legislation. It’s rather like voting… no where in the Constitution did it prohibit women or blacks from voting. Rather it left it up to the States. But when the State voting criteria was infringing on that founding principle (i.e. had to be a landowner in many States, which women couldn’t do in those days), they stepped in with Constitutional amendments.
I think what what George Wells is missing is that the reason ENDA fails, year after year, is that Congress doesn’t see sexual orientation discrimination as being a wide spread problem. And since States seem to follow up with their own, they (mostly Dems, but also GOP) just back out to save their political careers. When the bill reappeared in 1994, it was a hotly contested Congressional election year, and there are many in the Dem ranks that also hold strong views of marriage definitions. Thus why it doesn’t get any traction.
However by allowing the government to assign federal or state definitions of “marriage”, as well as to allow who can marry under what circumstances, you are, indeed, sanctioning government legislating “morality”. It was the whole reasoning for marriage licensing to begin with… which has been my point since the start of this multi-subject thread. Were there no federal/state/private or litigation benefits which evoked marital status, as defined by the government, this would be a non existent discussion.
@Redteam:
What Georgie will not admit to is that at the time he is speaking of, HIV/AIDs was considered a gay “cancer.” It was even called that. Nor will he ever admit that when Dr. Don Francis, of the CDC, went to San Francisco and tried to shut down the “bath houses,” he barely made it out of SF with his life. Gay men were frequenting those bath houses, having recreational sex with as many as 6-7 other men, PER DAY, infecting everyone they had sex with, and this was happening all across the nation in cities like Houston, New York, Chicago. Gay men were killing each other, but rather than stop their behavior, they demanded a cure for a disease that no one on two continents had a handle on or why some (carriers only) suffered no symptoms while others would die in a relatively short time.
@retire05:
Bigotry + ignorant gibberish = high comedy.
Obama Went Off Script To Address Gay Grads Directly At Morehouse College
President Obama addressed the graduates of the all-male, historically black Morehouse College on Sunday, sharing with them his views about what it meant to be a good man — a vision that included gay men. Obama told the graduates, “Be the best husband to your wife, or your boyfriend, or your partner.” The line was powerful and immediately noticed by the students, who stirred, leading the president to raise a finger and seek silence.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/obama-went-off-script-to-address-gay-grads-directly-at-moreh
The vast majority of blacks in Georgia oppose homosexuality….officially.
@Tom:
So the truth is now “Bigotry + ignorant gibberish = high comedy” to you?
Unfortunately, for queers, And The Band Played On depicted the situation back then very, VERY well.
When the AIDS Hospital of Houston would interview the patients about the number of sex partners Houston gays had that could possibly be infected, the answers were shocking. A large portion of the patients did not have a clue who might have infected them because they were so sexually prolific. Multiple encounters on a daily/weekly basis was not out of the norm.
The reason for the question about sexual partners served a purpose; the Houston Department of Health was trying to track those who might possibly be infected to a) have them get tested and b) if positive, have them seek medical treatment. It was designed to try to save lives.
Now, when you have something worthwhile to contribute come back. Until then…………………………………
@retire05 #298:
“What Georgie will not admit to is that at the time he is speaking of, HIV/AIDs was considered a gay “cancer.” It was even called that. Nor will he ever admit that when Dr. Don Francis, of the CDC, went to San Francisco and tried to shut down the “bath houses,” he barely made it out of SF with his life. Gay men were frequenting those bath houses, having recreational sex with as many as 6-7 other men, PER DAY, infecting everyone they had sex with, and this was happening all across the nation in cities like Houston, New York, Chicago. Gay men were killing each other, but rather than stop their behavior, they demanded a cure for a disease that no one on two continents had a handle on or why some (carriers only) suffered no symptoms while others would die in a relatively short time.”
Why on Earth would you think that I would not admit any of that? Everything you said is true. You left out several important facts, however. Most gay men were NOT engaging in the type of behavior you describe, and as a result, most gay men did not contract AIDS. The majority are still HIV-negative. In the hedonistic communities you referenced, the death toll was alarmingly high. Greenwich Village in New York is to this day but a dull shadow of what it once was. But in more tepid communities throughout the land, gay people heard the whispers of the “gay cancer,” and they behaved, played safe, and survived. That’s most of us, not those you described. Not all the same. Silly idea.
The institution of marriage fortifies sanctioned monogamous relationships. Countless social and legal persuasions compel married people to behave properly or suffer the consequences. Gay people’s behavior has never enjoyed any of those positive influences. The best advice we ever got was “don’t have any sex at all,” and we see how well that worked for priests. WE were told from an early age that we were the same depraved criminals that you believe we are. What possible reason would we have to pursue any other behavior? There were no positive role models. There was absolutely NO incentive for gays to remain monogamous. If there had been, fewer would have died.
If polygamy was legal, there would be more polygamists. If gay marriage was legal, there would be more married gays. Sad thing is, no matter how many gays die, you keep giving birth to more, at a rate of about 3%. Sodomites, as you put it, every one of them.
By the way, I’m having trouble finding where Jesus said “Hate the sin, love the sinner.” Maybe he WOULD have said it if you had reminded Him, but He didn’t.
@Nan G:
And your point?
@retire05:
Don’t be an ass. We’re supposed to believe your only concern with the sexual habits of the men in question is from a DOH perspective relating to the spread of disease? It’s purely science with you, huh?
Bull shit. This isn’t your first post, you know. We all know your observations stem purely from your personal morality, and your need to justify why you’re personally angered and appalled that anyone would have the audacity to seek a cure to a disease. What’s wrong with that, we ask? Because they brought it upon themselves, because they deserve it, because they’re sinners, God’s wrath, etc. etc. blah, blah, blah God, your moldy old arguments really deserve an archeologist more than anything else.
@George Wells:
By the way, I’m having trouble finding where Jesus said “Hate the sin, love the sinner.” Maybe he WOULD have said it if you had reminded Him, but He didn’t.
To begin with, you did not ask me what HE said but wrote:
To which I replied: Hate the sin. Love the sinner.
Having trouble remembering what you said?
@Tom:
You know, Tom, it is better to be thought an idiot than to prove it. You know nothing about me, but like all militant gays, you have to express your hatred toward those of us who do not support your participation in sodomy. I guess all those bumper stickers plastered on the cars of gays that say Hate Is Not A Family Value is just so much empty rhetoric.
You see, Tom, I was one of those volunteers at the AIDS Hospital of Houston. Young men dying from a disease that was purely preventable was a tragic time. And while we worked to get funding from donations to keep the hospital open, it closed down. Even wealthy gays would not support it, while they didn’t seem to have a problem accessing the services offered. Most of the patients were sick, or out of work, or just flat too involved in the gay “scene” to want to work. It wasn’t bad management, it was the fact that the Montrose area was providing more patients than could be supported. So before you run your ever unintelligent mouth, put your brain into gear.
The only ass here is you, Tom. And your butt buddy, George. Of course I don’t want to see anyone die of a totally preventable disease. And to assume that ANYONE does is completely assinine on your part. But calling me an “ass” makes you feel better about your homosexuality, doesn’t it?
Now, when you come back with your predictable retort, please try to put some intelligence into it.
Oh please… I’m dying of belly laughter here. Over 3100 comments since 2010, and we know “nothing” about you?
LOL!
That’s darned interesting. Because you sure have formed lots of opinions about me, and plenty of others here, using the same interactive forum format. And I think we can safely say you’ve not pulled any punches about expressing your personal judgements about others here. So I have to say… ya gotta be kidding me with this BS victimhood when others deliver like kind judgement.
If there are two areas where you’ve lost any rights to lecture, it’s on hatred/judgement of others, and command of the English language. And speaking of command of language and “a class in English construction”… “you” is not solely “singular” or “personal” as you assert, and can be a plural pronoun – much like thy or thine (singular) vs thou, ye, yours (plural) in Biblical language – in any grammatical relation. The exception is when it’s used as a possessive pronoun.
Or perhaps you think that when you are addressing a larger, non specific group of “you”, it should be “yous”?
Perhaps a class in English construction is in order?
@George Wells:
Are you now claim gays are born, not made? You seem to be having a problem making up your mind on that issue. So which is it? Nature or nurture?
@retire05:
I’ll have to share the mindboggling irony of this statement with my wife.
I know. You’ve mentioned it on more than one occasion. If you think that gives you a free pass to be a bigot, you’re sadly mistaken. Neither does marching with Dr. King, another nugget you like to share.
Ah. There it is. The hits just keep coming.
@Tom:
If you have a wife, it just proves that some women are so desparate they will marry anybody.
Find that statement make by me before. I dare you.
If you think calling someone a bigot because they don’t agree with a certain issue makes you look tough, you are sadly mistaken. It just makes you look like the jerk you are who resorts to pejoratives when you have nothing better to say.
But you are sooooooo easy, Tom. Just a contrarian that has nothing to contribute.
@MataHarley: Mata, you got it right. I don’t feel as if most of the laws you mentioned were necessary, and in some cases, only increase discrimination. I don’t think anyone can argue that affirmative action is fair. I don’t feel as if I should have any of my rights ‘adjusted’ just because the British brought slaves to the New Country back in colonial days. If they could pass a retroactive law that would improve the lives for the persons that were actually slaves, I might be for that. But to give a free scholarship to a less qualified person just because of their skin color is discrimination, which should not be allowed.
Who do you think should ‘define’ marriage? Why? Should marriage have a definition? To me, a marriage is one man and one woman. A partnership of anyone else is not a marriage, call it anything you want, but it’s not a marriage. I have no problem with it having the same ‘legal’ status.
@retire05:
Nice to know you’re still just as eloquent. Now is there anything else you need, you repetitive clown?
@Tom: #299 Tom:
Tom, nothing Retire05 said was not accurate. I see no bigotry or ignorance in her statement. It’s high comedy on your part to not understand the difference.