HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE 24TH CENTURY?
be...@metronet.com
>I feel it is a choice, and I do not want
>my 8 year old told that he has to make a choice to be hetero, homo, or bi
>sexual
What if you are wrong and it is not a choice? Did you make a
choice to be heterosexual?
>This has already been been taken to such an extreme
>that some schools have removed materials that portray blantent heterosexuality
>( not porn, but dual sex couples ).
"I believe that schools should purge all books that contain
heterosexuality, so that children won't have to make a choice at
such an early age!"
(Do you realise how stupid you sound?)
>There are certain moral values I want my children to have. Tolerance is one,
>and heterosexuality is another.
Can you tell me how the moral *values* of a heterosexual differ from that
of a homosexual? Are you saying homosexual people are not able
to be moral and are evil?
What are these "values" you claim to talk about? I contend that
homosexuality or heterosexuality have nothing to do with moral
values.
It's just like the lie about the "gay lifestyle". The gay
lifestyle is IDENTICAL except that gay people can love anyone of
any gender and aren't limited by the fear of the same sex that
heterosexuals have.
>In many of these matters, society superceeds the right of
>the parent to teach their children what they feel is right.
I believe that society has an interest in teaching children that
it is NOT ok to hate gay people or discriminate against gay
people -- that way less gay people will be murdered for who they
are.
Didn't you realise that there were thousands of hatecrimes
against gays last year? YOUR children are committing these
crimes, and I have a right to be protected from them.
>When the media takes over, and begins to teach children things that parents
>feel are not appropriate for their age, it is superceeding the parents rights
>to raise the child as they feel is healthy.
I think that mental health of children is important, and
that they should not be indoctrinated in irrational hatred like
that you propose to teach to your children about gay people.
>If ST were an adult show, this
>would not be an issue, but it is not only an adult show.
Most of the episodes are PG in rating for "parental guidance".
Your argument is moot. Further, I don't know why you are
bitching about this, as YOU HAVE THE CHOICE of what your CHILDREN
watch on TV.
If you don't like it, then fucking switch it off!!!
>We could further this by asking if every parent is in a position to raise
>their child in a healthy way. Who will make the choice of what is healthy ?
People who are objective -- and that means Christians are
automatically ruled out.
>Raising children is not a place the government should superceed the parent
>except in extreme situations.
The murder of gay people is serious. You'd have us believe
otherwise.
>When it comes to issues where people have no choice ( sex, race, etc... )
>society has the right (IMHO) to say everyone is equal ( as it was founded to
>do ).
I had no choice to be gay. I deserve protection.
>On the otherhand, when a person makes a lifestyle choice ( as I believe
>Homosexaulity is, although it has not been proven either way ) it is
>different.
Even if I *did* choose, I should have the same rights of
protection as a minority. I note that RELIGION is chosen, and
protected under anti-discrimination laws.
I note also, that people who are given the CHOICE to have a limb
amputated are covered under anti-discrimination laws after they
have had an amputation and become differently-abled...
Anyway, can't black people bleach their skin, and Asians get
plastic surgery to look more "European"? Wouldn't that solve
their discrimination (modification of how they look)?
That is *EXACTLY* what you suggest when you tell gay people to
not act upon their innateness. I'm sorry, but I can't change who
I am. I never chose to be gay. I will stand by that, and so
will science.
Rod
--
| ... ..... | E-mail to: be...@metronet.com | ******* |
| + + + + + + + + | http://nether.net/~rod/html/ | ***** |
| * * * * * * * * | | *** |
| R o d S w i f t | Hate is *NOT* a family value | * |
<a href="http://nether.net/~rod/html/index.html>Surf the net to my webpage</a>
Mike McKee
>From: be...@metronet.com
>Subject: Re: HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE 24TH CENTURY?
>Date: 25 Apr 1995 16:35:35 -0500
>mc...@larscom.com (Mike McKee) writes:
>>I feel it is a choice, and I do not want
>>my 8 year old told that he has to make a choice to be hetero, homo, or bi
>>sexual
>What if you are wrong and it is not a choice? Did you make a
>choice to be heterosexual?
no I didn't, it is natural.
>>This has already been been taken to such an extreme
>>that some schools have removed materials that portray blantent heterosexuality
>>( not porn, but dual sex couples ).
>>There are certain moral values I want my children to have. Tolerance is one,
>>and heterosexuality is another.
>Can you tell me how the moral *values* of a heterosexual differ from that
>of a homosexual? Are you saying homosexual people are not able
>to be moral and are evil?
I am saying that heterosexuality vs. Homosexaulity is a value in itself, not
indicitive of any other values.
>What are these "values" you claim to talk about? I contend that
>homosexuality or heterosexuality have nothing to do with moral
>values.
And I satate again, they are values in themselves.
>It's just like the lie about the "gay lifestyle". The gay
>lifestyle is IDENTICAL except that gay people can love anyone of
>any gender and aren't limited by the fear of the same sex that
>heterosexuals have.
I have never said anything about the gay lifestyle, only about gay sex.
>>In many of these matters, society superceeds the right of
>>the parent to teach their children what they feel is right.
>I believe that society has an interest in teaching children that
>it is NOT ok to hate gay people or discriminate against gay
>people -- that way less gay people will be murdered for who they
>are.
I agree with you 100%. You assume that anyone that does not feel being gay is
natural automatically hate all gays. Stop being so bigoted.
>Didn't you realise that there were thousands of hatecrimes
>against gays last year? YOUR children are committing these
>crimes, and I have a right to be protected from them.
yes, I do know this, but my views do not kill gays. I do not bash them, and
I do not terrorize them. Just like I don't kill, bash or terrorize catholics
for their choice that I also feel is wrong. And do most catholics ( not the
few educated ones, but the masses. This is not to slam religon but the
people on the net are in the upper 1% of education in the country. Most
people never question even the simplest of things ) choose to be catholics.
No they are raised in it, and their environment shapes them in that way.
>>When the media takes over, and begins to teach children things that parents
>>feel are not appropriate for their age, it is superceeding the parents rights
>>to raise the child as they feel is healthy.
>I think that mental health of children is important, and
>that they should not be indoctrinated in irrational hatred like
>that you propose to teach to your children about gay people.
I did not propose that. I have never proposed any hatred. You are being so
reactinoary, and bigoted it is scary. In your little world, anyone that
disagrees with your homosexuality wants to kill you. Sorry to pull your
blinders off, but this is a foolish stereotype.
>>If ST were an adult show, this
>>would not be an issue, but it is not only an adult show.
>Most of the episodes are PG in rating for "parental guidance".
>Your argument is moot. Further, I don't know why you are
>bitching about this, as YOU HAVE THE CHOICE of what your CHILDREN
>watch on TV.
>If you don't like it, then fucking switch it off!!!
Ah the old this is MY show, and if you don't like it, turn it off.
You have the choice of what to watch also. If you want t see homosexuality on
TV so much, why don't you choose another show. You are the one lobbing for
change.
>>We could further this by asking if every parent is in a position to raise
>>their child in a healthy way. Who will make the choice of what is healthy ?
>People who are objective -- and that means Christians are
>automatically ruled out.
You frighten me. This is the same rational used for the slaughter in WWII.
Nice attitude.
>>Raising children is not a place the government should superceed the parent
>>except in extreme situations.
>The murder of gay people is serious. You'd have us believe
>otherwise.
You are right it is wrong. I never said otherwise, as you seem to think.
>>When it comes to issues where people have no choice ( sex, race, etc... )
>>society has the right (IMHO) to say everyone is equal ( as it was founded to
>>do ).
>I had no choice to be gay. I deserve protection.
Great. So what ? everyone has the right to be protected. Now do you have
the right to force your ideals on others. This is the question.
>>On the otherhand, when a person makes a lifestyle choice ( as I believe
>>Homosexaulity is, although it has not been proven either way ) it is
>>different.
>Even if I *did* choose, I should have the same rights of
>protection as a minority. I note that RELIGION is chosen, and
>protected under anti-discrimination laws.
adn once again I agree. You should be protected. Not prefered, nor given
special treatment, but protected.
>I note also, that people who are given the CHOICE to have a limb
>amputated are covered under anti-discrimination laws after they
>have had an amputation and become differently-abled...
so what ?
>Anyway, can't black people bleach their skin, and Asians get
>plastic surgery to look more "European"? Wouldn't that solve
>their discrimination (modification of how they look)?
your begining to ramble. this is not even related to the discussion.
>That is *EXACTLY* what you suggest when you tell gay people to
>not act upon their innateness. I'm sorry, but I can't change who
>I am. I never chose to be gay. I will stand by that, and so
>will science.
Science does not stand by that statement. If you think it does, could you
show me one link to genetics. Just one.
I have also never said you should not act on your feelings. I just don't want
you TELLING me what my child will or will not be tought in school.
I think it is really sad that you preach tolerance, but are completely
intolerant to my opinions. I don't think what you are doing is natural. You
are free to do it, and I will even fight for your right to do it. But you
refuse to tolerate my opinion that it is still wrong.
You are the intolerant one, not me.
>Rod
Mike
The STrait Man :-)
Mike McKee
>From: be...@fohnix.metronet.com (Rod Swift)
>Subject: Re: HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE 24TH CENTURY?
>mc...@larscom.com (Mike McKee) writes:
>>>How nice of you to think you have the right to choose to
>>>eradicate gay people or not in the first place.
>>If you had bothered to read what I followed, you would understand this comment.
>If you had written your comment better, maybe along the lines of
>disagreeing with even the concept that one has a right to judge
>another and then execute them, then maybe you would have
>understood why I wrote a condemnation of it -- yours was lacking.
Oh give me a break. That is why we follow posts, so that we don't have to
rewrite the entire persons comments. Learn to read the whole thing, and not
only what you want to falme.
>>>>With advances and the acknowledgement
>>>>of the necessity of mental health, I do not feel it will be an issue.
>>>Considering homosexuality is beyond any "mental health"
>>>treatment and does not respond to any treatment of a "mental
>>>health" nature, it would be easy to say that homosexuality is not
>>>a mental illness. BTW, the APA and the ASA and the AMA concur.
>>You have no proof of this, because none exists. There is no answer to the
>>nature/nuture argument on Homosexuality. Despite what you think.
>Science, which psychology is a branch of, shows that
>homosexuality is not a mental disorder. Mental disorders are
>treatable with reparative-style therapies -- all of which have
>failed in the treatment of gay and lesbian people.
So have all medical attempts to find a genetic link. Just because something
is not found does not mean it is not there.
Just because Psychology has not been able to treat it does not mean it is
genetic. That is not a very scientific argument.
>Further, the case that homosexuality is an "addiction" is not
>validated, as all reparative or treatment programs to curb
>homosexuality in gay people does not work.
I did not call it an addiction. But you are not correct. Heron addicts have
not been treated sucessfully yet either ( except in the *vast* minority
of cases )
>>The only reason that the APA, ASA, and AMA do not list it as a mental
illness >>is because it has not been proven yet, they also do not concur that
it is not, >>they just don't mention it at all. Nice try.
>No. They reversed their statement based on the principles that
>there is *NO* evidence to say that it is mental. You are
>claiming they have no proof it is mental. They do have proof
>that it being a mental condition has been invalidated.
BS. There is no proof. I repeat, no studies have been done to prove it is
not psychological.
>>>>I think that it is not a genetic condition, but one of preference
>>>>( this is a >personal opinion, because nothing has been proven either way ).
>>>Will you give your religion up when the NIH finishes its study of
>>>the Xq28 region of the genetic codes of gay twins?
>>If they prove it, of course I will. Until then, my opinion is just as valid
>>as yours. SHall we turn the tables though,
>>Will you give up YOUR religion when it is not shown to have genetic links ?
>I have the fortunate case that I can claim that discrimination
>against gay people is wrong -- genetic or not. If it is genetic
>then it is just like other non-chosen behaviours or human
>conditions. If it is NOT genetic, then it's just like religion.
If it just like religion, it is learned, and as psychology advances, a
treatment will be found. ( or preventative treatment ).
I have also never said discrimination is right. It is your stereotype of me
that claims this.
>>>Christianity is a mental impairment which can be cured with time
>>>and education.
>>I would like to think so, but history proves you wrong :-)
>Maybe you should adapt your argument and look at homosexuality.
>:) You will then see the trap I set, and how you fell straight
>into it.
Not at all. They are both learned behavior. The only difference is one is
favored by evolution, the other is not. With Christianity, it forms a group
that kills to protect its ideals, and reproduces to continue its clan. With
Homosexauls, they do not reproduce their own kind to continue their clan.
>>>>I do not care what people do in the privacy
>>>>of their own homes, nor do I feel discrimination should be tolerated against
>>>>them.
>>>Yes you do care, and yes you do want discrimination to exist...
>>Why thank you for clairifying my thoughts for me. I don't know what I was
>>thinking to express myself without consulting you first.
>Well, isn't it always the case of straight people knowing best
>for gays? Again, you stepped right into the trap. I notice
>*you* don't like being told how you think.
I have never told you how to think. It is you that are telling me that I must
accept you as normal. I don't. You may believe anything you like, and until
we have proof, we will just not know.
You are further telling me what my child will be taught. At home you can
teach anything you like. At school, they should be taught what the majority
of society feels is right.
I can turn tables here, and tell you that your entire argument here is that
you want to change the current status and portray your opinion to us confused
heterosexuals.
>Why do you expect me to think any different of your assumption
>that "gays chose to be the way they are" when I know I made no
>such choice.
Can you point to many parts of your personality that you can show a direct
cause for ? No. Can I think that I made a chopice to be heterosexaul ? no.
>>>>But I do not what my children brought up believing that Homosexuality
>>>>is normal.
>>>Don't you mean that you don't want your children to treat gay
>>>people as normal people?
>>No, I mean exactly what I said. I don't want my children to be Catholic
>>either, but I don't them to discriminate against Catholics. Get a real
>>argument instead of telling me what I think, but have of yet not written.
>Take a leaf out of your own book, hypocrite. Don't presume to know what it
>is like to live life as a gay person -- or to presume what they
>want or need.
Try a lucid responce to my comments next time.
>>>>This is not a bigoted opinion as I don't treat Homosexuals any
>>>>different than Heterosexuals
>>>Bull shit.
>>Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize you have been with me and my homosexual
>>friends, and seen the way we interact.
>Have you ever asked your gay friends what they think of the way
>you want to oppress their rights to exist?
Yes actually I have. But I spoke with him not about his right to exist ( as
you seem to be arguing ), but on his normalicy. He wishes he was strait, but
just is not. There is nothing he can do about it. We are both good friends,
and he obviously has a right to exist, but we do agree that being strait is
the normal thing to be.
>>BTW, one of my best friends while growing up is a homosexual.
>>Not that you will believe me, but who cares
>Of course I believe you. I won't believe you when you say that
>you care about them or for them, because the way you treat me is
>exactly the way you treat your friend -- with piecemeal rights,
>second-class citizenship, and undue hardship to the love that
>they have and no respect for the relationships they hold.
poor little marter. I have said none of these things.
>>>>Tolerance is one thing, but to force it on others is another.
>>>Can you please tell me how me wanting to live with my partner is
>>>forcing anything on you...?
>>It isn't, and you should be allowed to do so without any problems.
>What if I told you I could not live with my partner, and that we
>live apart for 11 months a year. Would that be inhumane?
sounds like a typical LDR. I had one for two years.
>>I'm still not sure how you living with your partner is forcing it on me.
>>Maybe you can clairify this?
>Maybe if you cared to read my posting, instead of assuming that I
>have written something, you will see that I asked YOU how MY
>relationship is forcing things on you, and how they exactly
>impact on your day to day life.
I said it didn't. I am not even sure why you asked the question. It is
irrevelant because we are not discussing how your relationship even affects me.
>>>I can tell you that forcing us to live in separate countries,
>>>forcing our love to be criminal, forcing our lives to be
>>>interrupted at the most fundamental level, forcing us to hide who
>>>we are in our jobs, forcing us to be unemployed at the whims of
>>>employers, forcing us to be left destitute as we cannot leave our
>>>partners our assets after we die, forcing us to give up our
>>>children to other people's custody, forcing...
>>>... I think you get the idea.
>>Yes I do, and I stated that all the above is wrong ( you must have missed that
>>part of the post in your haste to flame me )
>You have never stated any condemnation of these unconscionable
>acts, nor have you proposed any ways or means to remove these
>injustices. Maybe if you were honest enough, you might suggest
>methods to solve the inequality.
Get a clue dude.
I am not sure what you want me to say. I have already said that gays should
have equal rights ( on several occasions ), and I have said intolerance in
unacceptable ( on several occasions ). Possibly, you should get a dictionary
and learn their meaning.
I am also not trying to solve the problem on injustice toward gays. Possibly
it would help if you tried to stick to the topic.
>I gather you are admitting that gay people are unfairly and
>unjustly treated in this society, and that they are indeed
>second-class citizens?
AS with lots of people. Society is basically unfair. Learn to live in the
real world. I don't think the method you choose will work to balance the
scales. The same method has been used in race relations for years, and they
still don't seem to be working.
>>>Mike, just consider the difference between gay people wanting
>>>equal rights compared with what you *enforce* against gay people
>>>by subscribing to the people you vote for, worship with, and
>>>ultimately write our laws.
>>I have always been an advocate of equal rights. Gay or otherwise. Not
>>special treatment, just equal chances.
>But yet you have no solutions, nor do you support any other
>solutions offered -- solely because they get in the way of your
>beliefs, even if they will not be imposed upon your beliefs.
You have ony proposed one solution. To have science make a determination,
based on no proof. In the 16th century this may have been acceptable, but not
in the 21st.
This also means that you feel that you know better than anyone else what I
should believe, and what my child should be taught. The US was founded on
different principles. I am sorry you disagree with them, but that is what
this country was founded for. The freedom to form our own opinions and
beliefs.
>>>You *FORCE* gay people to tolerate your beliefs and hatreds with
>>>laws, we only want freedom to ignore you.
>>I force nothing. But since most of society is strait, I would think that
>>being strait is what society should present.
>I don't care if you even respect my relationship, or want to see
>it, or even agree with it.
>I do care that you want to *DENY* my rights to marry my partner
>and live with them. That DOES impact on my life.
Hell, I don't care if you marry your partner. This is not the debate. If you
want to debate the scoial sanctions of homo's, go to a different newsgroup.
If you want to discuss Gays on ST then do so.
>>I could care less what you
>>choose to do, but when you TELL me that my child WILL be tought that to be gay
>>is a good thing, I get alarmed.
>I have never made such a statement. Please retract that lie.
You said it very directly.
>>It is you ( the minority ) that are forcing your beliefs on me.
>No I am not. I have never and will never. However, I will force
>onto you the fact that I do have rights, and should be able to
>freely exercise them. You do not have to agree with the outcomes
>of them, but that is my right. You don't even have to accept
>them, but you have no right to stop me based solely on your
>beliefs.
Again, I could care less what you do. This is not the topic we are discussing.
>>I could not care less what you do, but you do not want to be
>>accepted, you want everyone to believe what you are doing is good.
>What the *FUCK* are you talking about. All I want to do is live
>with my partner. Is that too much to ask, or is it
>"indoctrinating your children from 12,000 miles away because a
>queer lives with another queer"?
Get a life.
This is NOT THE TOPIC !!!!!
If that is all you want to do. Great go do it, and leave this thread. This
is specifically about GAYS ON ST.
( remaining babling on societys percusion of gays deleted )
either address the topic, or take your babling to the appropriate group. I am
not a gay basher, nor do I allow it. I hope this is clear enough for you.
be...@metronet.com
Hello OUSEY, remember me? I'm the myth buster :) Prepare to be
busted...
>Homosexuality is either a natural and/or environmentally induced anomoly,
>as it inhibits the powerful instinct all animals share - that of
>reproduction.
"How a particular sexual orientation develops in any individual
is not well understood by scientists. Various theories have
proposed differing sources for sexual orientation, including
genetic or inborn hormonal factors and life experiences during
early childhood. However..., scientists share the view that
sexual orientation is shaped for most people at early age through
complex interactions of biological, psychological and social
factors." -APA.
It's not an anomaly, Ousey. They're for space, and for ships
named Enterprise -- nice try though.
>Same-sex households implicitly devalue relationships between children
>and the excluded sex parent.
"Can lesbians and gay men be good parents? Yes. Studies
comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by
heterosexual parents find NO DEVELOPMENTAL DIFFERENCES between
the two groups of children in their intelligence, _psychological
adjustment_, _social adjustment_, popularity with friends,
development of social sex role identity..." -APA.
>Homosexuality leading to homosexual activity
>leading to a MEDICALLY AFFIRMED high risk of catching death prematurely,
>which serves to wreck and terminate relationships regularly.
"... or development of sexual orientation" -APA
It seems kids are quite healthy and are just as heterosexual from
gay or straight parents.
>If homosexual marriages are deemed Consitutional
>(I would not doubt that it could happen), we have the preogative to
>amend the Constituion to spell out explicitly into law the moral conviction
>that the State can only act as a party to those marriage contracts
>that involve only one man and one woman, who are not related, are above
>are certain age (definable by States - 10th Amendment).
Yes. Change the constitution to deny gay people rights. How
noble of you? What do you fear? The legal recognition of gay
unions which exist anyway? How wonderfully bigoted of you.
BTW, since marriage is a state-reserved right, a Federal
Constitutional amendment would not work, as it would require
revokation of the 10th, and the states WILL not like that.
>Those who would support such an Amendment simply believe that a child
>IDEALLY is raised by a mother AND a father.
Which is completely debunked. Kids are just as well raised by
gay or straight parents -- and the only level of good parenting
is the ability to be a good parent (and not sexual orientation).
>Such a scheme GUARANTEES the
>presence of a LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE member of each sex to serve as role
>models for any children.
Since children of gay or straight parents develop equally as well
in sex roles, then this is completely moot, and restricting a gay
person's right to be a parent is not necessary....
>It acknowledges that since there are TWO sexes
>involved, then the restriction of marriage to TWO people is not arbitrary.
... and hence *YOUR* arbitrary decision to limit marriage to whom
you think deserves them (based on religion, not objective fact),
is also debunked completely.
>Why should a homosexual fight for the right to marry only one other
>homosexual if they were in fact in love with two or twenty?
Polygamy is not part of this debate. I note that being denied
the right to be married to more than one person does not deny the
right to be married to any one of the people.
Being denied the right to marry someone of the same sex is not
only inhumane, but removes the right to marry that person
completely, and there is no way to marry that person.
>True, humans tend to NATURALLY bond in pairs, as they NATURALLY
>tend to bond with members of the opposite sex, but why should such
>an arbitrary value judgement be employed if "morality is subjective"?
Because sex-discrimination is not an arbitrary decision, nor
arbitrarily justifiable, as I have shown.
>Yes. But many homosexuals have integrated very deeply their sexuality
>into their whole identity.
So? That's normally a good thing.
>I have not always been proud of everything
>sexual I hae ever done, but I regard my sexual identity as the result
>of my natural attraction toward the opposite sex AND my sexual behavior
>(ie free will).
Good for you. I do not define it that way. The APA doesn't
agree with you.
>What many homosexuals here don't seem to realize is that
>the behavioral component of your sexual identity is what we refuse to
>de-stigmatize or equivocate with heterosexuality.
But I want to marry on the basis of my relationship, not on the
basis of sex. And who is this *we* you refer to? The
heterosexual majority?
>Homosexual behavior yields no benefit to soiety, UNLIKE heterosexual
>activity, which generally leads to society.
This is of course debunked because ALL human LIFE is VALUABLE to
society. Not just the procreative sides of it.
>We oppose presenting this MEDICALLY AFFIRMED dangerous
>behavioral component as a "natural alternative" to our children in the
>school system.
Medically-affirmed dangerous behavioural component?
You are claiming it is medical science which has categorised it
as:
1) dangerous?
2) behavioural?
In response to both we see that the only thing that is dangerous to
homosexual people is the type of intolerance you are spreading.
"Psychologists, psychiatrists and other
mental health professionals agree that
homosexuality is not an illness, mental
disorder or emotional problem. Much
objective scientific research over the past
35 years shows us that homosexual orientation,
in and of itself, is not associated with
emotional or social problems." -APA.
> Skin, eye color, or left-handedness does not have a such a dangerous
> behavioral component as does homosexuality.
Neither does homosexuality, it would seem. Why don't you go and
concentrate on real societal problems like crime and stuff like
that, rather than wanting to be everyone's bedroom police?
>Does any of the above sound kooky, Bible-thumping, or homophobic?
Yes. Completely. You really need to get the facts on
homosexuality. The APA publishes a brochure called "Answers to
Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality".
I have reprinted it elsewhere.
>In America, the only identity issue that should count is whether or not
>you are an American. Then any judgements on tolerance should be reflective
>of INDIVIDUAL character, not group identity.
But of course, you would never treat gay people as anything but a
product of what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms, and be
damned with whether they are good people or not.
>The behavioral component of
>homosexuality often implies that an individual embraces (of their own free
>will) certain behaviors.
Free will? You mean there is a choice in homosexuality? You
are yet again WRONG.
"Is sexual orientation a choice? No. Sexual orientation
emerges for most people in early adolescence without
any prior sexual experience. And some people report
trying very hard over many years to change their
sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual with
no success. For these reasons, psychologists do not
consider sexual orientation for most people to be a
conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed."
The question that ponders is where all those heterosexuals are
who have also been trying to change their sexual orientation for
years without success... Oh, that's right, heterosexuality is
claimed to be *normal* and homosexuality is *sick*.
Now you can see why spreading such lies as "homosexuality is not
natural and is sick" hurts gay people -- leading to suicide for
a lot of teens who are told intolerant and hateful things.
>Employers should be FREE to make such judgements.
Employers should have no right to ask information about one's
personal life. The only thing that employers should consider is
if a person can and does their job.
That is the judgement they are allowed to make -- to employ or
not based on rational job-related criteria.
I claim that employers have no right to meddle in my personal
life!
>Homosexuals who do not agree with such judgements should be FREE to boycott
>that business and would probably get a lot of support from many Americans
>at large.
No, maybe we should sue for discrimination based on political
affiliation?
>If I were an employer, I would personally not care what people do
>in the privacy of their bedrooms.
Well, that makes me feel very secure!!! NOT!
>Exceptions for me include the military
>and teaching - any institution that includes character as its keystone.
Are you saying gay people are totally devoid of character? But
my dear Ousey, you can clearly see that nothing above supports
this line. Homosexuality has been in the military and gay
teachers have always been in the classroom. It didn't affect the
world last century, when there was no way to spy on someone's
bedroom life!
>Hopefully you will respnd fairly to me too as I am always willing to
>seriously improve my reasoning and belief system.
I've respondede fairly, with scientific fact. Now, consider all
those anti-gay laws like sodomy laws, probate laws, custody
laws, immigration laws, marriage laws, cohabitation laws, housing
laws, etc, etc...
You have no justification for them being discriminatory now! Gay
people are completely equal to heterosexual people in all ways
and all manners of public life...
... Unless, of course, you wish to subjugate us into second-class
citizenship where you have always considered us to belong.
>True, homosexual relationships can be as emotionally valid, but our society
>does not have an institution of marriage that centers on individual happiness.
Yes it does. It is a choice by two people for their own
happiness. It was found in Loving v Virginia that marriage was a
*pleasure* of life exercised in "life, liberty and the PURSUIT of
HAPPINESS".
Marriage is for the pleasure of those who wish to formalise their
love. Gay people want that too.
>The marriage institution is geared to represent the basic building blocks of
>our society, acknowledging that children are the most important potential
>by-products.
And it will still recognise that, because you are extending
marriage to same-sex couples. That does NOT involve the denying
or removal of marriage as a right for heterosexual, child-bearing
couples.
>Guaranteeing the presence of a mother AND a father for any
>children that may result is simply something that our society VALUES as
>IDEAL.
The society values it as ideal, but science shows us that this
ideal need not be necessary. Further, as I have already stated,
the issue of allowing same-sex couples legal union is irrelevant
to the status of children -- heterosexuals will still have
children in and outside of marriage, and homosexuals will still
also have children. Your proposal would keep these children of
gay people outside of a stable legal union, rather than offering
a stable legal union.
It should be society's responsibility to provide same-sex
marriage for gay parents, so that they can exercise the marriage
tax break for their kids, and claim other benefits *for the
children*.
>Homosexual parents can still makes great parents, but the implication
>there that either motherhood or fatherhood is disposable with society's
>blessing is not ideal.
Please show me how providing equal legal union will diminish the
roles of parents?
>That is why I, at least, oppose the social validation
>of same-sex relationships.
Well, the opposition is not founded on any scientific or social
basis, nor is it in the best interests of the children of gay
parents, nor is it logical to think that straight parents will be
affected by about 1% more marriages (between gay people).
Society can PERMIT something while NOT PROMOTING it -- smoking,
alcohol, etc, etc.
Society does NOT SOCIALLY VALIDATE alcohol abuse, but permits
alcohol consumption. Society should similarly allow same-sex
union.
Your argument, as always, is completely shattered and flawed,
David. As a gay man, I'm no threat to "motherlessness". I have
of course no desire to have children. I do have a great desire
to marry my partner for three years so that we can live together.
I believe that ultimately the denial of a choice to exercise
freedom is more harmful to society than permitting the choice and
allowing people to choose.
If you believe in Republican ideals of getting government out of
the private lives of people, you will respect every person's
right to choose which person they wish to marry -- irrespective
of the gender of that person.
Rod Swift
>Considering homosexuality is beyond any "mental health"
>treatment and does not respond to any treatment of a "mental
>health" nature, it would be easy to say that homosexuality is not
>a mental illness. BTW, the APA and the ASA and the AMA concur.
--[Mike McKee <mc...@larscom.com> wrote:]--
>You have no proof of this, because none exists. There is no answer to the
>nature/nuture argument on Homosexuality. Despite what you think.
--[kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (Kate Orman) writes:]--
>Mike, read what people are saying. Rod didn't comment on the
>"nature/nurture" debate. He pointed out that homosexuality is no longer
>considered a "mental health problem". See below.
--[Mike McKee <mc...@larscom.com> wrote:]--
>The only reason that the APA, ASA, and AMA do not list it as a mental illness
>is because it has not been proven yet, they also do not concur that it is not,
>they just don't mention it at all. Nice try.
--[kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (Kate Orman) writes:]--
>WRONG, Mike. Homosexuality was *once* considered a mental disorder. All
>sorts of approaches were made to "treating" it, including shutting people
>away in asylums, giving them electric shocks... homosexuality has been
>*dropped* from the DSM-IV (the APA's list of mental health conditions)
>because, after many years of research and attempted "cures", it is NO
>LONGER CONSIDERED TO BE A MENTAL "PROBLEM".
Kate:
It's so true, but Mike would rather spread DISINFORMATION (I
believe that's called "false witness" in his religion). He has
claimed that the only reason the APA, ASA and AMA do not list it
as a mental illness is:
1) because it has not been proven yet
2) they do not concur that it is not (a mental illness)
So let us hear exactly what the APA _does_ say about
homosexuality:
From: "Psychology and You: Answers to Your Questions About
Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality"
By: The American Psychological Association
[This pamphlet is available from APA, 750 First St NE, Washington
DC 20002-4242, phone 202-336-5700]
Q: What is sexual orientation?
A: Sexual orientation is one of the four components of sexuality
and is distinguished by an enduring emotional, romantic,
sexual or affectional attraction to individuals of a particular
gender. The three other components of sexuality are
biological sex, gender identity (the psychological sense of
being male or female) and social sex role (adherence to
cultural norms for feminine and masculine beaviour). Three
sexual orientations are commonly recognised: _homosexual_,
attraction to individuals of one's own gender; _heterosexual_,
attraction to individuals of the other gender; or _bisexual_,
attractions to members of either gender. Persons with a
homosexual orientation are sometimes referred to as _gay_
(both men and women) or _lesbian_ (women only).
Sexual orientation is different from sexual behaviour because
it refers to feelings and self-concept. Persons may or may
not express their sexual orientation in their behaviours.
Sidebar:
Homosexual orientation is not limited to a particular type of
person. Gay men and lesbians are of all ages, cultural
backgrounds, races, religions and nationalities. They work
in all occupations and live in all parts of the country.
Q: What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?
A: How a particular sexual orientation develops in any individual
is not well understood by scientists. Various theories have
proposed differing sources for sexual orientation, including
genetic or inborn hormonal factors and life experiences during
early childhood. However, many scientists share the view that
sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age
through complex interactions of biological, psychological and
social factors.
Q: Is sexual orientation a choice?
A: No. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early
adolescence without any prior sexual experience. And some
people report trying very hard over many years to change
their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual with
no success. For these reasons, psychologists do not consider
sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be
voluntarily changed.
Q: Is homosexuality a mental illness or emotional problem?
A: No. Psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health
professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness,
mental disorder or emotional problem. Much objective
scientific research over the past 35 years shows us that
homosexual orientation, in and of itself, is not associated
with emotional or social problems.
Homosexuality was thought to be a mental illness in the past
because mental health professionals and society had biased
information about homosexuality since most studies only
involved lesbians and gay men in therapy. When researchers
examined data about gay people who were not in therapy, the
idea that homosexuality was a mental illness was found to be
untrue.
In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed the
importance of the new research by removing the term
"homosexuality" from the official manual that lists all
mental and emotional disorders. In 1975 the American
Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting
this action. Both associations urge all mental health
professionals to help dispel the stigma of mental illness
that some people still associate with homosexual orientation.
Since the original declassification of homosexuality as a
mental disorder, this decision has subsequently been
reaffirmed by additional research findings and both
associations.
Q: Can lesbians and gay men be good parents?
A: Yes. Studies comparing groups of children raised by
homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no developmental
differences between the two groups of children in their
intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment,
popularity with friends, developmment of social sex role
identity or development of sexual orientation.
Another stereotype about homosexuality is the mistaken
belief that gay men have more of a tendency than heterosexual
men to sexually molest children. There is no evidence
indicating that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals
to molest children.
Sidebar:
The APA encourages all mental health professionals to work to
help persons of all sexual orientations to accept and
integrate their inner feelings and to overcome their
prejudices and false beliefs about one another.
Q: Why do some gay men and lesbians tell people about their
sexual orientation?
A: Because sharing that aspect of themselves with others is
important to their mental health. In fact, the process of
identity development for lesbians and gay men, usually called
"coming out", has been found to be strongly related to
psychological adjustment -- the more positive the gay male or
lesbian identity, the better one's mental health and the
higher one's self esteem.
Q: Why is the "coming out" process difficult for some gays and
lesbians?
A: Because of false stereotypes and unwarranted prejudice towards
them, the process of "coming out" for lesbians and gay men can
be a very challenging process which may cause emotional pain.
Lesbian and gay people often feel "different" and "alone" when
they first become aware of same-sex attractions. They may
also fear being rejected by family, friends, co-workers and
religious institutions if they do "come out".
In addition, homosexuals are frequently the targets of
discrimination and violence. This threat of violence and
discrimination is an obstacle to lesbian and gay people's
development. In a 1989 national survey, 5% of the gay men and
10% of the lesbians reported physical abuse or assault related
to being lesbian or gay in the last year; 47% reported some
form of discrimination over their lifetime. Other research
has shown similarly high rates of discrimination and violence.
Q: What can be done to help lesbians and gay men overcome
prejudice and discrimination against them?
A: The people who have the most positive attitudes toward gay men
and lesbians are those who say they know one or more gay
person well. For this reason, psychologists believe negative
attitudes toward gays as a group are prejudices that are not
grounded in actual experience with lesbians or gay men but
on stereotypes and prejudice.
Furthermore, protection against violence and discrimination
are very important, just as they are for other minority
groups. Some states include violence against an individual on
the basis of her or his sexual orientation as a "hate crime"
and eight US states have laws against discrimination on the
basis of sexual orientation.
Q: Can therapy change sexual orientation?
A: No. Even though homosexual orientation is not a mental
illness and there is no scientific reason to attempt
conversion of lesbians or gays to heterosexual orientation,
some individuals may seek to change their own sexual
orientation or that of another individual (for example,
parents seeking therapy for their child). Some therapists
who undertake this kind of therapy report that they have
changed their clients' sexual orientation (from homosexual to
heterosexual) in treatment. Close scrutiny of their reports
indicates several factors that cast doubt: many of the claims
come from organisations with an ideological perspective on
sexual orientation, rather than from mental health
researchers; the treatments and their outcomes are poorly
documented; and the length of time that clients are followed
up after the treatment is too short.
In 1990 the American Psychological Association stated that
scientific evidence does not show that conversion therapy
works and that it can do more harm than good. Changing one's
sexual orientation is not simply a matter of changing one's
sexual behaviour. It would require altering one's emotional,
romantic and sexual feelings and restructuring one's
self-concept and social identity. Although some mental health
providers do attempt sexual orientation conversion, others
question the ethics of trying to alter through therapy a trait
that is not a disorder and that is extremely important to an
individual's identity.
Not all gays and lesbians who seek therapy want to change
their sexual orientation. Gays and lesbians may seek
counselling for any of the same reasons as anyone else. In
addition, they may seek psychological help to "come out" or
to deal with prejudice, discrimination and violence.
Q: Why is it important for society to be better educated about
homosexuality?
A: Educating all people about sexual orientation and
homosexuality is likely to diminish anti-gay prejudice.
Accurate information about homosexuality is especially
important to young people struggling with their own sexual
identity. Fears that access to such information will affect
one's sexual orientation are not valid.
Q: Where can I find more information about homosexuality?
A: The publications and organisations listed below can all
provide you with further information:
References:
Garnets, L.D., et al, "Issues in Psychotherapy
With Lesbians and Gay Men", _American_
_Psychologist_, Vol 46 #9, pp 964-972.
Goodchilds, J.D., _Psychological_Perspectives_
_on_Human_Diversity_In_America_, American
Psychological Association, Washington DC, 1993.
Garnets, L.D., and Kimmel, D.C., _Psychological_
_Perspectives_on_Lesbian_&_Gay_Male_Experiences_,
Columbia University Press, New York, 1993.
Gonsiorek, J.C., and Weinrich, J.D., _Homosexuality:_
_Research_Implications_For_Public_Policy_, Sage
Publications, California, 1991.
Herek, G.M., and Berrill, K.T., _Journal_of_
_Interpersonal_Violence_, Vol 5 #3.
Organisations:
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
1734 14th Street NW
Washington DC 20009
Telephone: 1-202-332-6483
National Institute of Mental Health
5600 Fishers Lane, Room 7C02
Rockville MD 20857
Telephone: 1-301-443-4513
Parents and Friends of Lesbian and Gays
1012 14th Street NW Suite 700
Washington DC 20005
Telephone: 1-202-638-4200
Sex Information and Education Council of the United States
130 West 42nd Street, Suite 2500
New York NY 10036
Telephone: 1-212-819-9770
Special Thanks:
Special thanks to the following APA members and staff whose
assistance made this brochure possible:
Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D., University of California at Davis.
Oliva M. Espin, Ph.D., San Diego State University, president
of APA division 44.
APA Committee on Lesbian and Gay Concerns.
Clinton W. Anderson, M.A., APA Office on Lesbian and Gay
Concerns.
Brochure written by Stephen J. Blommer.
Produced by the APA Office of Public Affairs.
[end brochure]
Rod Swift
>: Hello OUSEY, remember me? I'm the myth buster :) Prepare to be
>: busted...
>Gulp...
Gulp indeed!
>: It's not an anomaly, Ousey. They're for space, and for ships
>: named Enterprise -- nice try though.
>It is an anomoly, and the above does not discredit that. I have
>never argued that it was unnatural (ie not occuring in nature).
Did you know what anomaly means? Anomalous means that it does
not occur spontaneous, that it is odd, that it is
uncharacteristic, and even unnatural.
Homosexuality is not an "anomaly".
Zot! I win.
>: >Same-sex households implicitly devalue relationships between children
>: >and the excluded sex parent.
>: "Can lesbians and gay men be good parents? Yes. Studies
>: comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by
>: heterosexual parents find NO DEVELOPMENTAL DIFFERENCES between
>: the two groups of children in their intelligence, _psychological
>: adjustment_, _social adjustment_, popularity with friends,
>: development of social sex role identity..." -APA.
>Can incestual, polygamal, pedophilial ad infinitum make good parents? Yes.
But that was NOT the question you proposed, Ousey. You are
clutching at straws.
FACT: Gay men and lesbians are just as good parents.
FACT: The parents you described above (incestual, polygamous,
pedophiles) are not *gay* and would be spread through
heterosexuals and homosexuals on an even ratio. All things
considered, like your claim that 1% of people are gay, it would
mean that for every one possible incestual relationship of a gay
person there are 99 heterosexual cases.
Yet another reason to remove heterosexuals from parenting. They
are sick and depraved :) Thank you for providing the
ammunition.
>I know this is hard for many people to understand, but as a society,
>we VALUE motherhood AND fatherhood TOGETHER, and we decry any implicit
>separation that comes with "alternative definitions of the family".
Yes. I value them too.
>If the Supreme Court finds in your favor, then we will amend the Constitution-
>it's that easy.
Why? Marriage has nothing to do with the removal of sex roles in
parenting.
>It would be interesting to watch how many Liberal
>politicians commit political suicide by opposing such an Amendment.
I wonder how many Republicans would hear screams from the states
as you would have to repeal the 10th and basically abolish any
state control of state affairs.
You'd probably find that it would be quite happy and accepted by
most, and your rabble-rousing will not either have any impact on
the case, nor on society.
The fact is still that gay people will still be parents, whether
they are allowed to marry or not. They will still be the same
proportion of parents, and heterosexuals will still have the same
huge proportion of parenthood (namely about 99.9%). Further,
there are pervasive reasons to PERMIT same-sex marriage -- to
protect the interest of the children inside families with gay
parents.
I note in the latest case where this happened, the Bottoms case,
the grandmother now has the child even though the mother, the
biological father and the child, along with the mother's partner,
all want the child to live with the biological mother...
... yet another case of a child being dragged screaming from a
home in which he is loved to be isolated from the parents he
knows by someone who applied for custody and won based on
discrimination which exists in society.
>Dan Quayle was right (Atlnatic Monthly a couple years back) and even
>Clinton and Gore are jumping on the VALUES bandwagon. Gore, only a few
>months ago, was hanging out at a fatherhood empowerment event. If your
>standard is one of "who can make a good parent" then I claim that I can.
>Let me marry my three favorite girlfriends, and we'll all make great parents.
You already have the right to marry any one of them, and knock
them all up. Why don't you get them all pregnant?
I don't think you even have a CLUE about parenthood!
>One of my wives can marry my five brothers, making me their husband by default,
>how far can all this go? Obviously, a pithy thing such as a social moral
>standard is meaningless, right?
Of course, this little bark up the wrong tree is your usual
attempt at escaping from the undeniable conclusion that you are
withholding "a fundamental right which may be exercised by
all ... for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
By denying equal access based on gender discrimination to
marriage, you are denying about 20,000,000 people of "life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
Just where in the hell did you get this mandate of misery?
>: >Homosexuality leading to homosexual activity
>: >leading to a MEDICALLY AFFIRMED high risk of catching death prematurely,
>: >which serves to wreck and terminate relationships regularly.
>: "... or development of sexual orientation" -APA
>: It seems kids are quite healthy and are just as heterosexual from
>: gay or straight parents.
>I thought many teenagers experiment with a same-sex partner.
No.
>Don'y you
>think it would be less stigmatized and therefore less dangerous if
>homosexuality was not presented as the dangerous anomoly that it is?
Didn't you read the bit about sexual orientation being fixed
during or before early childhood?
>: Yes. Change the constitution to deny gay people rights. How
>: noble of you? What do you fear? The legal recognition of gay
>: unions which exist anyway? How wonderfully bigoted of you.
>What I fear:
>The devaluation and disposability of motherhood and fatherhood as well
>as social moral fiber to stand on implicit moral grounds in the face of
>anomolous and dangerous, socially irrelevent BEHAVIOR.
Which is of course not evident by any of the proposals. It will
just take the status quo and legalise one of the current family
structures under the status quo, leaving -- you guessed it --
the status quo.
There is no evidence, nor will there be, of heterosexuals
marrying less or not having children. This is ludicrous, as gays
already exist in society.
Is the true fear gay visibility, and hence the eventual end to
the discrimination you treat them to? Do you fear that society
tolerating gay and lesbian people and treating them equally will
mean you will have no religious enemy?
>: BTW, since marriage is a state-reserved right, a Federal
>: Constitutional amendment would not work, as it would require
>: revokation of the 10th, and the states WILL not like that.
>We just may see.
>Again, political suicide, for those politicians who resist.
Political suicide for the 10th amendment revokation. It's the
amendment which state rights are based. I don't think you'll get
a pass of a constitutional amendment in 3/4 of the houses :)
>T'will be fun to watch - like last November.
Sure. The fact is that there is no case of appeal above Hawaii,
and it's got you shitscared -- like that for once gay and lesbian
people will have to be treated to certain rights that
heterosexuals take for granted. Immigration, probate law, home
ownership, next-of-kin...
Very basic stuff. But since the heterosexual majority has
treated gay and lesbian people so discriminately for so long I
suppose it was the only option left to us...
... if you had considered giving us immigration rights, and
probate law rights, and living wills, and the other things our
relationships NEED to keep them going, then we'd never need to
demand what we need.
>:>Those who would support such an Amendment simply believe that a child
>:>IDEALLY is raised by a mother AND a father.
>: Which is completely debunked. Kids are just as well raised by
>: gay or straight parents -- and the only level of good parenting
>: is the ability to be a good parent (and not sexual orientation).
>Ideally, children are not separated from their natural parents. Ideally,
>we work toward such a society where every child is loved and wanted
>by mature responsible mothers and fathers who are married. Ideals like
>these are what our country is founded on, and it is simply what people
>want and VALUE.
The world is not ideal. Reality states that there are children
already in single parent homes. Reality states that gay people
parent children now.
The reality is that same-sex marriage will not change any of
that, in any particular group's favour.
If you claim the ideal world is so great -- why is it not
working? Why is heterosexual marriage failing in society? It's
had the monopoly on rights and benefits...
... The fact is that there are so many other family structures
which are EQUALLY valid and EQUALLY good, and provide EQUAL role
models and EQUAL development to heterosexual unions of marriage,
yet are not protected in any way by the law.
This is wrong, it needs to be changed.
>Again, a gorilla could make a great parent, your point?
A gorilla cannot make a good parent. Your cheap shot failed.
A lot of heterosexuals cannot make good parents -- does that mean
we should remove ALL heterosexuals from parenting?
I believe parenting should be left up to the parents, not you. I
believe marriage should be left to the participants, not you.
Your controls are needlessly restrictive and abusive of the
freedom of self-determination.
>: Since children of gay or straight parents develop equally as well
>: in sex roles, then this is completely moot, and restricting a gay
>: person's right to be a parent is not necessary....
>Nor three gay parents, and they can marry three friends,
> ... and so on, and so on...
>Or incestuals...
Which has, as usual, nothing to do with two gay people marrying.
This is not a debate about people who are unfit to parent (i.e.
pedophiles, child bashers, etc, etc) nor polygamous
relationships.
In fact, the whole debate is not about parenting, but about
marriage rights, which has NOTHING to do with parenting.
>I favor your right to be a parent, I just don't favor a social ENDORSEMENT
>of that potential via a marriage contract.
Duh. How many times do I have to tell you that PERMISSION is not
ENDORSEMENT. Are you completely devoid of a brain, Ousey?
But let's say it did permit it, and it might *endorse* it.
Here's one gay marriage to 200-300 straight marriages. Which one
is doing more *endorsing*? Which one is powerful and persuasive?
Aren't gay marriages endorsing themselves now without legal
union? I think so! They still exist! Just more of how YOUR
pointless arguments fail.
>Such a contract would serve
>as a proclaimation of the irrelevence of motherhood,
No. It would serve as a proclamation of a marriage between two
people.
>Our society values motherhood - not a relationship
>centered around socially irrelevent, anomolous behavior.
Since there will be no children in my relationship, there will be
no *degradation* of motherhood. Neither would there be if I had
a child, as I could have it in or outside wedlock.
Don't you see? It's not the marriage that is the bit that is
important here, but that if there is any "motherlessness
promotion" it is because there is no mother in the parent
structure.
If I had a child now, it would have no mother. I am not offered
legal union. Offering me legal union does not change the
motherlessness.
Why can't you see that your father/motherlessness arguments are
not only irrelevant, non-correlatable and foolish, but also not
true anyway?
Gay people provide BOTH SEX ROLE MODELS just as well as
heterosexuals AND single parents.
Children aren't isolated from adults until age 18 you know. They
do meet literally thousands of male and female adults over their
formative years and learn from them.
Your father/motherlessness argument is moot.
>:>It acknowledges that since there are TWO sexes
>:>involved, then the restriction of marriage to TWO people is not arbitrary.
>: ... and hence *YOUR* arbitrary decision to limit marriage to whom
>: you think deserves them (based on religion, not objective fact),
>: is also debunked completely.
>Why do you always go off on religion?
Because that is what you base this bullshit on. It's certainly
not based on sciences like psychology and sociology which prove
you wrong.
>I am not a Bible thumper, but use sound political reasoning.
There is no *political* reasoning to your argument. If it was
anything it would be *social* reasoning. But there is no social
reasoning either.
What about "personal beliefs".
>Political resaoning encompasses our society's value system.
No it does not. There are many things in this society's "value"
system that are based not on political reasoning, but bias,
prejudice and ignorance -- take the past examples of slavery,
miscegnation laws, etc, etc. Current examples include consensual
sodomy laws, etc.
>I might also add that, contrary to popular belief, atheism
>is not the offical State religious viewpoint in America.
No religion is. BTW, my religion supports my marriage. Should I
claim religious discrimination by being denied the right to be
legally married??
>The State is separate from ALL religious viewpoints.
Nope. The state is OBLIGATED to treat all people equally before
the law, including protecting their religion aka First Amendment.
>And finally, morality can be found neatly tucked in any good psych text.
Nor can it be found in your head. Do you claim gay people
marrying is inherently immoral. Please show your deductive logic
to determine so, and which tenets of immorality it would break.
>My "arbitrary" limits involve ideals, which imply social relevence and
>consistency with our society's value system.
You admit that they are arbitrary. Yet you cannot justify this
arbitrariness when they are challenged. In defense of challenges
you claim "but it's always been this way". You never care to
investigate or even try to see if an alternative works. This is
called dogmatic behaviour, and is an antithesis to improving
things. Society will not have any chance of improving itself
while you dogmatically cling on to outdated principles and ideals
which are unattainable and unrealistic.
>: Polygamy is not part of this debate. I note that being denied
>: the right to be married to more than one person does not deny the
>: right to be married to any one of the people.
>: Being denied the right to marry someone of the same sex is not
>: only inhumane, but removes the right to marry that person
>: completely, and there is no way to marry that person.
>Why can't it be part of the debate?
Because we are dealing with, specifically, the sex-discrimination
of marriage, c.f. a man can marry a woman, but a woman cannot
marry a woman, and vice versa.
>We are felling moral standards and
>stigmas against sexual peculiarities before our might scythe of equality,
>aren't we?
No. We are not talking about SEXUAL ACTS at all! We are talking
about human relationships equivalent to a two-person heterosexual
relationship.
>Why stop at non-related, over the age of consent, pair-bonders?
Because we are not examining donkeys marrying horses, idiot.
We are comparing similarities, not differences. If tomorrow we
allowed any three heterosexuals to marry each other, then I'd
start an equivalent debate of equal opportunity for ANY three
people to marry.
>Do they or do they not have the same right you want?
They do not. I have explained this. They already have the right
to enter into a pairbonded marriage if they so wish -- unless
they want to marry someone of the same gender...
If they wish to challenge the rules of law, let them -- it is
there requirement to prove the laws are discriminatory and remove
their rights to marry. I do not believe this is demonstrable for
them, but it is certainly demonstrable for any man wanting to
do that which a woman can but he cannot -- marry another man.
>Hypocrisy.
Yes, you are. Red herrings will no longer work in this debate.
We are evaluating, SOLELY, the sex-discrimination in the marriage
choice of adults. We are not talking about bestiality, or
polygamy, or incest, or anything else but REMOVING the SEX
CLASSIFICATION of marriage.
>: Because sex-discrimination is not an arbitrary decision, nor
>: arbitrarily justifiable, as I have shown.
>But number discrimination is OK? Tsk, tsk.
We are not talking about numeric discrimination. That is another
argument with completely different arguments. We are talking
specifically about the arbitrariness of a sex-discrimination --
one that seems to have no justification under the law (and has
been found in one state to be discriminatory under the law).
>A very selective revolutionary. Not enough studies done yet?
>I've argued with many a homosexual in love with more than one,
>and they'll be happy to disagree with you.
We are talking changing the sex-discrimination status of the
existing marriage laws. Please continue to stay on the topic.
Red herrings will no longer work, Ousey.
>: >Yes. But many homosexuals have integrated very deeply their sexuality
>: >into their whole identity.
>: So? That's normally a good thing.
>Versus, the Greeks who simply took boys on the side and never made a
>big stink.
You are clearly inept at reasoning. I stated quite clearly the
APA passage which states that sexual identity is formed early in
life, and is not changeable -- I also outlined that criticism of
that identity is a harmful thing.
I don't see how you get "sex with boys" out of a comment about
accepting one's sexual identity. Or do you mean that a gay sexual
encounter will make a boy or girl gay?
Well I'll repeat from my last post: "Is sexual orientation a
choice? No. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early
adolescence WITHOUT ANY PRIOR SEXUAL EXPERIENCE."
I will have you note, if you had done your research, that Papua
New Guinean tribes make their boys between age 12 and 19 ingest
semen each day -- they believe it will turn them into men. Even
after this considerably rituallistic homosexuality, the usual x%
turn out to be gay after 19 years of age. [Source PFLAG
brochure on why people are gay].
>: Good for you. I do not define it that way. The APA doesn't
>: agree with you.
>Free will have any role? Maybe just a little teeny weeny bit?
Nope. Sexual identity is an innate thing. It is not learned,
and it not changeable by free will. Sexual activity might be
able to be controlled and directed into "untrue" acts to the
person's innate self.
>: But I want to marry on the basis of my relationship, not on the
>: basis of sex. And who is this *we* you refer to? The
>: heterosexual majority?
>That part of society (the majority) who strongly VALUE motherhood AND
>fatherhood TOGETHER.
What right do you have to dictate such restrictions to my and my
partner's inalienable rights?
>And your desire to marry is still based around
>an anomous lifestyle condidtion.
No it is not. It is not a "lifestyle condition". It is who I
am, and it is UNCHANGEABLE. I am not going to go through life
having YOUR type of buffoon dictate to me that I cannot live with
my partner or have ANY of my rights recognised because I love
someone who is of the same gender.
I am not going to allow you to sit and spit on me from high on
the basis that I have the EXACT same love as you do, and I WILL
get exactly the same RIGHTS granted to me FROM SOCIETY.
I refuse to sit down and be a second-class citizen, or a subject
in a crude social experiment with my life that you propose to
perform in the name of "parenting".
>Not ideal and socially irrelevent.
It is IDEAL for me.
It is not IRRELEVANT to me, and millions of others.
Have you any evidence that it is irrelevant? What is your
solution to these irrelevant lives? Extermination?
The fact is that homosexuality is relevant socially.
>: >Homosexual behavior yields no benefit to soiety, UNLIKE heterosexual
>: >activity, which generally leads to society.
>: This is of course debunked because ALL human LIFE is VALUABLE to
>: society. Not just the procreative sides of it.
>Subject of my sentence was "behavior" not "life".
Yes. I agree. Homosexuals work. Since that is not beneficial
to society, you will not miss my taxes when I *DON'T* pay them.
Are you claiming that society grants me no equality? If so, I owe you
nothing in return.
>: >We oppose presenting this MEDICALLY AFFIRMED dangerous
>: >behavioral component as a "natural alternative" to our children in the
>: >school system.
>: Medically-affirmed dangerous behavioural component?
>: You are claiming it is medical science which has categorised it
>: as:
>: 1) dangerous?
>: 2) behavioural?
>: In response to both we see that the only thing that is dangerous to
>: homosexual people is the type of intolerance you are spreading.
>: "Psychologists, psychiatrists and other
>: mental health professionals agree that
>: homosexuality is not an illness, mental
>: disorder or emotional problem. Much
>: objective scientific research over the past
>: 35 years shows us that homosexual orientation,
>: in and of itself, is not associated with
>: emotional or social problems." -APA.
>Subject of my sentence:"behavior component of homosexuality".
There is nothing wrong with homosexual behaviour either, idiot.
You have yet to prove anything. All the ramifications of the
activity show no social impact whatsoever on families, the
individuals concerned, etc.
>Subject of above paragraph "homosexuality".
There is nothing wrong with homosexuality. When are you going to
start applying facts to your "ideal" world?
>Am I imagining things then when I hear "high risk group" and "high
>risk sexual behavior" but a scant few breaths from "homosexual behavior"?
Sexual activity has nothing to do with marriage rights of course.
I want to marry my partner because I love him, not because I
sleep with him.
Of course, marriage will promote less promiscuity and hence less
disease spread. Isn't that a good thing? Or do you want even
more of your tax dollars going to pay for hospital beds?
>: > Skin, eye color, or left-handedness does not have a such a dangerous
>: > behavioral component as does homosexuality.
>: Neither does homosexuality, it would seem. Why don't you go and
>: concentrate on real societal problems like crime and stuff like
>: that, rather than wanting to be everyone's bedroom police?
>I could care less what you do in your bedroom.
Yes you do. You care about it so much that you would stop me
from exercising my choice to marry my partner.
>Just keep your bedroom away from the first grade and the
>Justice of the Peace, and we'll be fine.
Fuck off. Denying me the right to marry will NOT stop my
relationship existing, but it will provide hardship for it. I
already laugh in your face knowing that I already have a greater
relationship based on GREATER trust and GREATER responsibility
and STRONGER foundations and GREATER hardship and GREATER effort
than you ever will have, you pathetic little breeder.
>: >Does any of the above sound kooky, Bible-thumping, or homophobic?
>: Yes. Completely. You really need to get the facts on
>: homosexuality. The APA publishes a brochure called "Answers to
>: Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality".
>: I have reprinted it elsewhere.
>Question:
>Are you more likely to die earlier if you are a male homosexual
>than not?
No. You will not die earlier. You have been listening to Paul
Cameron again.
>Whatever your answer is, just stay away from the schools and the JP and
>we'll be OK.
No. I will not. I will seek to make the next generation
tolerant so that they do not kill gay people. I will see to
marrying my partner in defiance of your statist desires to deny
me my rights as a human.
>: But of course, you would never treat gay people as anything but a
>: product of what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms, and be
>: damned with whether they are good people or not.
>I love the sinner and hate the sin.
Strange, Ousey, I wonder if you have ever considered the meaning
of hatred -- all I see from you is hatred for who I am, and no
love.
Do you stop to consider that? Have you ever stopped to listen?
Or do you just claim to do things out of love when there is no
love there, or the love is not love towards me, but what you
think is love?
>: >The behavioral component of
>: >homosexuality often implies that an individual embraces (of their own free
>: >will) certain behaviors.
>: Free will? You mean there is a choice in homosexuality? You
>: are yet again WRONG.
>: "Is sexual orientation a choice? No. Sexual orientation
>: emerges for most people in early adolescence without
> ^^^^
>: any prior sexual experience. And some people report
> ^^^^
>: trying very hard over many years to change their
>: sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual with
>: no success. For these reasons, psychologists do not
>: consider sexual orientation for most people to be a
> ^^^^
>: conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed."
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>OK, I'm sorry that you have no free sexual will. I'll just defer my
>comment to bisexuals as they seem able to demonstrate free will
>sexually.
I have no free will to change my innate homosexuality. That
sexual orientation is "different from sexual BEHAVIOUR because it
refers to FEELINGS and SELF-CONCEPT".
I have no way of changing my feelings or who I am. I can curb my
sexual behaviour (I am celibate for 11 months a year). It
doesn't make me a nonsexual though.
Can you honestly say that you have the free will to self-identify
and feel towards men -- and I'm not talking *sexually*?
You will see now it is impossible to change sexual orientation.
Further, since you have admitted that I am unable to change my
sexual orientation, then it is an innate thing -- and I should not
be penalised or discriminated on the basis of it.
I will hope that you will support equal rights for gay people
now, considering it is not a choice nor under the exercise of
free will.
>: The question that ponders is where all those heterosexuals are
>: who have also been trying to change their sexual orientation for
>: years without success... Oh, that's right, heterosexuality is
>: claimed to be *normal* and homosexuality is *sick*.
>Homosexual behavior is sick, homosexuality is an anomoly (mostly natural
>as I've never refuted -there being many natural anomolies).
It is not sick. It is natural, and is a natural extension of the
sexual orientation of homosexuality. The point I was making is
that it is only the STRAIGHT society that pressures homosexuals
to change to heterosexuals...
Of course, you claim gays recruit straight children -- which is
why I asked where all the straight teens were that were having
all the problems trying to change into a gay person...
>: Now you can see why spreading such lies as "homosexuality is not
>: natural and is sick" hurts gay people -- leading to suicide for
>: a lot of teens who are told intolerant and hateful things.
>A) I've always said homosexuality was largely a natural anomoly
Anomaly is a biased word, and you are using it with a negative
connotation to mean unnatural. If it is a naturall occurence
(which it is) then there is nothing wrong with the occurence if
it occurs in accordance with other morals -- namely that it is
done with consent of all participants and the act of homosexual
sex is performed only between the consenting partners.
>B) I'm not sure whether that suicide rate is better or worse than
> the increased chance of dying from homosexual behavior.
That is a sick thing to say. It is THIS society -- the one you
call ideal -- that is killing gay kids. Your ideal society
supports suppressing information about gay people, and
characterising it as something which is not wanted. I suppose if
society were to change to be more like you want it, more gay kids
would die from the intolerance in it -- especially from their
parents. The same parents you glowingly glorify as PERFECT.
>: >Employers should be FREE to make such judgements.
>: Employers should have no right to ask information about one's
>: personal life. The only thing that employers should consider is
>: if a person can and does their job.
>Don't ask, don't tell works for me.
It didn't for me. Someone started a rumour and pried into my
personal life by contacting friends and past employers of mine.
I was terminated. I believed in the same principle. I suppose
this is another one of those IDEAL outcomes in your IDEAL world?
>: That is the judgement they are allowed to make -- to employ or
>: not based on rational job-related criteria.
>: I claim that employers have no right to meddle in my personal
>: life!
>As they should have the right to employ or not based on character judgements.
No. They should not. This is patently unfair. You do not know
of the discrimination this can lead to. I was terminated solely
on the basis of someone finding out -- even though I kept from
disclosing from my own ethical position of a no-need-to-know
position.
>: No, maybe we should sue for discrimination based on political
>: affiliation?
>Then I'll create Nose Pickers of America, pick my nose in front of my
>boss and sue should he respond appropriately. Silly politicization
>of socially irrelevent BEHAVIOR.
Wrong. How would one know you picked your nose at home? If you
picked your nose at work there might be a case. Of course, so
would there if you were having ANY sexual relationships at the
workplace -- heterosexual or homosexual.
Your argument supports me. Protections from discrimination based
on non-office related activities is required and is MORAL.
Or doesn't that morality have a place in your ideal world -- like
when it works against your anti-gay position?
>: >If I were an employer, I would personally not care what people do
>: >in the privacy of their bedrooms.
>: Well, that makes me feel very secure!!! NOT!
>: >Exceptions for me include the military
>: >and teaching - any institution that includes character as its keystone.
>: Are you saying gay people are totally devoid of character? But
>: my dear Ousey, you can clearly see that nothing above supports
>: this line. Homosexuality has been in the military and gay
>: teachers have always been in the classroom. It didn't affect the
>: world last century, when there was no way to spy on someone's
>: bedroom life!
>And things were peaceful when no one was politicizing their
>silly socially irrelevent behavior.
No one is now. Maybe if you had granted everything we asked for
in regards to equal protection, we'd not have to politicise to
get what we need to even survive on a day to day level!
Gay people will be quite content to make no fuss once society
treats us in a humane way.
It's part of the responsibility of the majority, to quote -- "The
best measure of a democracy is how well the majority provides
equality for the minority".
If the majority in this nation had cared to listen when we
challenged that things were not right or that we were being
denied essentially equal rights, then the minority would never
have had to complain.
But as the majority, the minority will complain until it gets its
way. It is all we have left as we are politically powerless in
essence.
>: You have no justification for them being discriminatory now! Gay
>: people are completely equal to heterosexual people in all ways
>: and all manners of public life...
>VALUES, VALUES, VALUES are what justify society and law. We can't turn
>the foundation into sand.
Values vary from person to person. Your values offend mine, and
restrict my values to only being able to work inside yours.
I find that to be offensive. With my choice in marriage, I do
not remove your right to exercise your values in your
relationship.
And that is the nutshell of this, your determination to squash
my freedom to self-determination -- if we had nothing but each
person, there would be no law to stop me living with my partner.
The law obstructs me from my day-to-day life. I consider that to
be a breach of fundamental freedoms and that which I was granted
from the Creator.
>: ... Unless, of course, you wish to subjugate us into second-class
>: citizenship where you have always considered us to belong.
>Your "full-citizenship" as you see it requires a fundamental cultural
>shift in which motherhood and fatherhood become disposable
So you agree that gay and lesbian people are not accorded equal
rights, protections, and "equal citizenship" in this society?
How convenient! Of course, the equalisation of these rights will
not affect existing heterosexual dominance.
>: Yes it does. It is a choice by two people for their own
>: happiness. It was found in Loving v Virginia that marriage was a
>: *pleasure* of life exercised in "life, liberty and the PURSUIT of
>: HAPPINESS".
>Ugh... an unwise finding. Happiness should remain subjective.
Yes. I am not happy. I believe that should be rectified.
>Having federal standards of happiness should have died with Socialism.
This is the sort of bullshit that comes from you, Ousey. There
is no "federal standard" of happiness. It was recognised,
however, that marriage is something that brings happiness, and
that in Loving v Virginia, the denial of the marriage brought
MISERY.
This is exactly what you bring me with your denial of my want to
marry my partner Christopher -- and you claim to love the sinner.
This "sinner" is in complete misery because he cannot even
establish a life with his loved one -- how humane. You offer no
solution to this, why?
Now you can put your money where YOUR mouth is. I challenge you
to see how "socially irrelevant" my relationship is. Come down
to Dallas Fort Worth on June 20/21. You will see about 10 people
be ripped apart and all sent into misery because they do NOT have
a solution to their predicament and that they cannot live
together as a family.
You come down and comfort my partner's mother as she loses her
son again for the THIRD TIME in three years.
Yes. You offer nothing to solve this misery and inhumane
treatment. Your red herrings don't help solve this, do they?
I have a social value to my family, and you help in actively
ripping that apart.
I hope you have a conscience. I challenge you to be there.
I bet you don't have the courage.
>: Marriage is for the pleasure of those who wish to formalise their
>: love. Gay people want that too.
You never even answered this. I suppose love is such a foreign
concept to you that you don't even know what it is anymore.
>: And it will still recognise that, because you are extending
>: marriage to same-sex couples. That does NOT involve the denying
>: or removal of marriage as a right for heterosexual, child-bearing
>: couples.
>Ideals would be sacrificed. That is not what this country is about.
Bullshit. Ideals would remain, as thre will be no change to the
status quo of how relationships are structureed, and only a
slight variation of the legal protections of ONE type relationship.
Your red herring of "ideals" does not work, Ousey.
>: The society values it as ideal, but science shows us that this
>: ideal need not be necessary. Further, as I have already stated,
>: the issue of allowing same-sex couples legal union is irrelevant
>: to the status of children -- heterosexuals will still have
>: children in and outside of marriage, and homosexuals will still
>: also have children. Your proposal would keep these children of
>: gay people outside of a stable legal union, rather than offering
>: a stable legal union.
>: It should be society's responsibility to provide same-sex
>: marriage for gay parents, so that they can exercise the marriage
>: tax break for their kids, and claim other benefits *for the
>: children*.
>Any children in such a situation will come ti understand that since
>society blesses their motherlessness or fatherlessness, then they are
>disposable and irrelevent.
They will not be "disposable and irrelevant" but loved and
cherished by numerous adults during their childhood, from both
genders.
Of course, I don't see you screaming to have single parents
removed of their children because they cannot provide any role
models for their missing spouse!
Further, you are hypocritical to claim that my life and my
partner's and my family's lives are disposable or able to be
filled with misery by your impositions.
>: Please show me how providing equal legal union will diminish the
>: roles of parents?
>Obviously, there is an implicit PREREQUISITE exclusion of a natural parent.
There is an exclusion of TWO natural parents in adoption. What
is your point? Oh you meant sex-role models. Well, as I said,
children learn from ALL adults they meet, not just the parents.
Further, they will meet many thousands of adults who will provide
"male" and "female" role models for them.
I still don't see how this could possibly be related to two gay
people who marry, and have no children?
Why should they be penalised by your system of idealistic
bullshit?
>: Society can PERMIT something while NOT PROMOTING it -- smoking,
>: alcohol, etc, etc.
>Exactly.
>: Society does NOT SOCIALLY VALIDATE alcohol abuse, but permits
>: alcohol consumption. Society should similarly allow same-sex
>: union.
>But the State would VALIDATE it by acting as a legal partner in
>the marriage contract.
No... Not VALIDATE. PERMIT it. When you make a business
contract with another person, the state honors it by
administering the law. They do not VALIDATE the contract, only
permit the framework.
This is the same with the marriage contract, and you damn well
know it, so don't lie and make facetious claims of endorsement,
or validation or the ilk.
Parking permits get endorsed and validated, marriages get
permitted.
>As the State runs the educational system, so too
>does it have a say when choosing between PROMOTING, PRESENTING, and
>CONDEMNING a given issue of social relevence.
But this is not a broad based education, but a contractual
decision between two people. There is no indoctrination or
swaying of minds.
>Quality motherhood and fatherhood within wedlock should be PROMOTED.
Yes. And it can be done without restricting marriage legally.
Of course, considering you are basing this on a completely moral
argument, you could claim that since it is religion's role to
bolster the family values of society that it should be the CHURCH
doing the regulating of HOLY WEDLOCK and the state allowing
anyone to get married before a JP.
That way, the CHURCH is the one promoting the good marriages.
Ooops. You didn't think of that, did you, simpleton.
>: Your argument, as always, is completely shattered and flawed,
>: David. As a gay man, I'm no threat to "motherlessness". I have
>: of course no desire to have children. I do have a great desire
>: to marry my partner for three years so that we can live together.
>As your biological clock begins to tick, tick, tick you may change
>your mind.
Wrong. I am gay, and as my biological clock ticks, I will only
get more infuriated by the fact that you will not grant me what I
want to live my life.
And my bitterness will grow for you. Yes, you claim to love the
sinner -- with torment.
Cal Jacobson
: ou...@mxd120.rh.psu.edu (David Ousey) writes:
: >: Hello OUSEY, remember me? I'm the myth buster :) Prepare to be
: >: busted...
: >Gulp...
: Gulp indeed!
I think Freud would be having a field day with this thread.
--
CJ
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The opinions expressed above are mine and probably not my employer's.
Live with it.
<http://www.mystech.com/~jake>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Lynne Nash
>be...@metronet.com wrote:
>
>: It seems kids are quite healthy and are just as heterosexual from
>: gay or straight parents.
>
>I thought many teenagers experiment with a same-sex partner. Don'y you
>homosexuality was not presented as the dangerous anomoly that it is?
You have yet to provide a convincing argument that homosexuality is either
anomalous or dangerous.
>: >Homosexual behavior yields no benefit to soiety, UNLIKE heterosexual
>: >activity, which generally leads to society.
>
>: This is of course debunked because ALL human LIFE is VALUABLE to
>: society. Not just the procreative sides of it.
>
>Subject of my sentence was "behavior" not "life".
Homosexual behaviour is an expression of love, affection, caring,
understanding, and joining of lives just as heterosexual behaviour is.
These things are not beneficial to society?
>: In response to both we see that the only thing that is dangerous to
>: homosexual people is the type of intolerance you are spreading.
>: "Psychologists, psychiatrists and other
>: mental health professionals agree that
>: homosexuality is not an illness, mental
>: disorder or emotional problem. Much
>: objective scientific research over the past
>: 35 years shows us that homosexual orientation,
>: in and of itself, is not associated with
>: emotional or social problems." -APA.
>
>Subject of my sentence:"behavior component of homosexuality".
>Subject of above paragraph "homosexuality".
>
>Am I imagining things then when I hear "high risk group" and "high
>risk sexual behavior" but a scant few breaths from "homosexual behavior"?
Have you completely missed all of the posts containing numbers here?
The US is the only country being discussed where HIV is split *evenly*
between heterosexuals and homosexuals. In all other countries we've talked
about, the HIV+ count has been HIGHER in striaghts than in gays.
Safe sex is safe sex, whether you're straight or gay. Where's your
reasoning or proof that gay sexual behaviour (or gay behaviour at all) is
inherently dangerous?
>
>: > Skin, eye color, or left-handedness does not have a such a dangerous
>: > behavioral component as does homosexuality.
>
>: Neither does homosexuality, it would seem. Why don't you go and
>: concentrate on real societal problems like crime and stuff like
>: that, rather than wanting to be everyone's bedroom police?
>
>I could care less what you do in your bedroom. Just keep your bedroom
>away from the first grade and the Justice of the Peace, and we'll be
>fine.
Ah, and I could care less what YOU do in YOUR bedroom, but following your
lines of logic, I shouldn't have to see your straight behaviour represented
either.
>Question:
>Are you more likely to die earlier if you are a male homosexual
> than not?
>
>Whatever your answer is, just stay away from the schools and the JP and
>we'll be OK.
In other words, you don't care what the true answer to that question is, you
just want to get your way.
>OK, I'm sorry that you have no free sexual will. I'll just defer my
>comment to bisexuals as they seem able to demonstrate free will
>sexually.
You're twisting words around completely. Being homosexual or heterosexual
or bisexual is not a choice. Sleeping with any particular individual
(excepting cases of rape) is. Bisexuals are attracted to members of both
genders. They, like gays or lesbians or straights, choose which *people*
within their group of 'people I'm attracted to' they wish to become involved
with.
>Homosexual behavior is sick, homosexuality is an anomoly (mostly natural
>as I've never refuted -there being many natural anomolies).
What's *sick* about physical expression of love between two people.
What's sick about physical expression of attraction between two people?
Why the hell does it matter whether the people involved have penises or
vaginas?
>B) I'm not sure whether that suicide rate is better or worse than
> the increased chance of dying from homosexual behavior.
Yet again you display your ignorance of the facts about this issue.
>Don't ask, don't tell works for me.
Okay, then I don't want to have to see you kissing your wife goodbye when
she drops you off at work, or holding hands with her when you walk down the
street, or...
>As they should have the right to employ or not based on character judgements.
So homosexuals are by definition lacking in character? One's sexual
orientation has nothing to do with one's character, sirrah.
>Ideals would be sacrificed. That is not what this country is about.
What is un-ideal about a gay relationship? Lack of children? Mularkey.
You're talking yourself in circles.
>Any children in such a situation will come ti understand that since
>society blesses their motherlessness or fatherlessness, then they are
>disposable and irrelevent.
Where the hell did that come from?
>As your biological clock begins to tick, tick, tick you may change
>your mind.
>
Oh, this is classic. As you get older, you'll change to heterosexual
behaviour so you can become fulfilled. Where did you dig up THAT line
of crap?
Barb -> Straight but not narrow
--
Barb Nash | bn...@galaxy.csc.calpoly.edu | Real Men Don't
English/Comp Sci. | bn...@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu | Fear Gays
Cal Poly, SLO, CA | "Remember the winds and the waves." -E. Sternberg
Conrad Sabatier
ja...@mystech.mystech.com (Cal Jacobson) wrote:
>Rod Swift (be...@fohnix.metronet.com) cleared their throat and cried:
>
>: >: Hello OUSEY, remember me? I'm the myth buster :) Prepare to be
>: >: busted...
>: >Gulp...
>: Gulp indeed!
>
Possibly so.
All I can say is, when articles start reaching nearly a thousand lines
in length, it's time for everyone to take a deep breath and consider
what, if anything, is being accomplished here.
To paraphrase a line from the sleeve of the Mothers of Invention's
"Absolutely Free" album:
THIS THREAD IS UGLY AND IT WANTS TO DIE!
--
Conrad Sabatier -- con...@neosoft.com
Dewey
> Since homosexuals do not reproduce themselves, I imagine by then
> they will be extinct. I think now they are on the endangered species
> lists - what with HIV and stuff like that. PUBLIUS
This is so idiotic. I can't even imagine where people learn to think
like this. It is disgusting to me. It is also VERY disgusting that some
people still think of AIDS as a gay disease, I guess they won't figure
out the truth until they get it, not that I would wish that on anyone.
John
Publius
Rod Swift
>>I thought many teenagers experiment with a same-sex partner. Don'y you
>>think it would be less stigmatized and therefore less dangerous if
>>homosexuality was not presented as the dangerous anomoly that it is?
>You have yet to provide a convincing argument that homosexuality is either
>anomalous or dangerous.
Yes. This is true. Ousey has a hard time separating sexual
activity from sexual orientation, from love, and parenting.
>>: This is of course debunked because ALL human LIFE is VALUABLE to
>>: society. Not just the procreative sides of it.
>>
>>Subject of my sentence was "behavior" not "life".
>Homosexual behaviour is an expression of love, affection, caring,
>understanding, and joining of lives just as heterosexual behaviour is.
>These things are not beneficial to society?
Nope. Ousey believes that the only thing beneficial to society
is a man and a woman parent together -- taxes, murder, thuggery,
rape, charity, hope, role-models, leadership, love, care,
compassion, etc, etc are all irrelevant because parents will save
the day!
[Although it is proven that the status-quo, by his own admission,
of two parent opposing gender households dominate but society is
still going to hell in a handbasket... I wonder why? Maybe it is
all the other really important things that make a good society...]
>>: In response to both we see that the only thing that is dangerous to
>>: homosexual people is the type of intolerance you are spreading.
>>: "Psychologists, psychiatrists and other
>>: mental health professionals agree that
>>: homosexuality is not an illness, mental
>>: disorder or emotional problem. Much
>>: objective scientific research over the past
>>: 35 years shows us that homosexual orientation,
>>: in and of itself, is not associated with
>>: emotional or social problems." -APA.
>>
>>Subject of my sentence:"behavior component of homosexuality".
>>Subject of above paragraph "homosexuality".
>>
>>Am I imagining things then when I hear "high risk group" and "high
>>risk sexual behavior" but a scant few breaths from "homosexual behavior"?
>Have you completely missed all of the posts containing numbers here?
>The US is the only country being discussed where HIV is split *evenly*
>between heterosexuals and homosexuals. In all other countries we've talked
>about, the HIV+ count has been HIGHER in striaghts than in gays.
For some reason, Ousey believes that the sexual behaviour
invalidates homosexuals from being parents (although every
possible gay act can be performed by heterosexuals and often is).
He believes that children will get HIV from parents or some such
bunk. Basically, HIV has nothing to do with the ability to
parent. It does, however, have strong leanings to providing
marriage as an option for same-sex partners. The two fold
benefit is that we can remove domestic partnership laws (which
has allowed heterosexuals to get the unmarried partial benefits
that homosexuals cried out for in the 80s and 90s) and provide
monogamy as a role model for *gay* people.
It means heterosexuals will marry *more* and homosexuals will
also marry more -- this will promote monogamy and fidelity, and
hence less sexually transmissable disease of ALL types.
>Safe sex is safe sex, whether you're straight or gay. Where's your
>reasoning or proof that gay sexual behaviour (or gay behaviour at all) is
>inherently dangerous?
There is none. It's another elaborate red herring. And we all
know sexual activity has no bearing on the ability to parent or
raise children, or even be married which is the REAL question here.
>>I could care less what you do in your bedroom. Just keep your bedroom
>>away from the first grade and the Justice of the Peace, and we'll be
>>fine.
>Ah, and I could care less what YOU do in YOUR bedroom, but following your
>lines of logic, I shouldn't have to see your straight behaviour represented
>either.
Yes. Let's remove heterosexual special rights. Let's destroy
marriage now, then we would not have all this fuss.
Heterosexuals would not be able to live with their foreign
partners, nor file joint income tax returns. Heterosexuals, now
because they are single, shall be subject to custody challenges
from concerned parents. Your partner dies without a will?
Tough, you don't get a red cent. And guess what, if your
"mother-out-of-law" doesn't like you, you can be kicked out of
the hospital room where your partner is dying, or from the
funeral.
Yes. Let's eliminate special rights for straights. They
wouldn't and haven't felt the injustice they cause same-sex
couples... Maybe they should feel that injustice?
>>Question:
>>Are you more likely to die earlier if you are a male homosexual
>> than not?
>>
>>Whatever your answer is, just stay away from the schools and the JP and
>>we'll be OK.
>In other words, you don't care what the true answer to that question is, you
>just want to get your way.
Yes. Ousey's bigotry is easy to get to if you wipe away the thin
layers of partial-civility.
>>OK, I'm sorry that you have no free sexual will. I'll just defer my
>>comment to bisexuals as they seem able to demonstrate free will
>>sexually.
>You're twisting words around completely. Being homosexual or heterosexual
>or bisexual is not a choice.
Yes. Ousey likes the twist game. He claims sexual orientation
is not innate, yet it is clearly proven to be so. He confuses
attractions and self-identity with sexual activity so often.
>>Homosexual behavior is sick, homosexuality is an anomoly (mostly natural
>>as I've never refuted -there being many natural anomolies).
>What's *sick* about physical expression of love between two people.
Nothing.
>What's sick about physical expression of attraction between two people?
Nothing, if it is consentual and between two people of consenting
age.
>Why the hell does it matter whether the people involved have penises or
>vaginas?
Religion, apparently. Remember, Ousey is not only a Catholic,
but a "pretty screwed up one" by his own admission.
>>B) I'm not sure whether that suicide rate is better or worse than
>> the increased chance of dying from homosexual behavior.
>Yet again you display your ignorance of the facts about this issue.
Of course, as facts get in the way of a good axe to grind.
>>Don't ask, don't tell works for me.
>Okay, then I don't want to have to see you kissing your wife goodbye when
>she drops you off at work, or holding hands with her when you walk down the
>street, or...
Alternatively, Ousey won't ask when I get legally married, and I
won't tell him that I am -- only on the proviso that he does the
same, namely, doesn't tell me he is legally married, nor will I
ask him.
>>As they should have the right to employ or not based on character judgements.
>So homosexuals are by definition lacking in character? One's sexual
>orientation has nothing to do with one's character, sirrah.
See, it's easy to pull away the small layer of civility to see
his loaded questions.... :)
>>Ideals would be sacrificed. That is not what this country is about.
>What is un-ideal about a gay relationship? Lack of children? Mularkey.
>You're talking yourself in circles.
Yes. It's all completely circular or fallacious, including the
following fallacies:
1) Marriage is for procreation (reality: for many
reasons, one of which *may be* procreation, as can
be seen by the fact that infirm people or elderly
people marry to comfort each other, and people who
are co-infertile marry, and people who love each
other marry, and the fact that the states have
delinked procreation from marriage, and that the
state has no right to annul a marriage if it turns
out to be between infertile people or one with a
post-menopausal wife).
2) Marriage is a contract with the state (reality:
it is a contract which is assigned benefits by the
state, and has two parties to -- easy assumption to
throw around is that if you marry in Germany, the US
is *NOT* a party to the entering into the contract,
but still assigns benefits to the marriage.)
3) Gay people are unable to be fit parents (reality:
they are fit, and it's provable)
4) Children need mothers and fathers (reality: this
is not the case, and if it were, then gay couples
would be better than single families -- as single
families do not have one gender, and only have one
of the other gender, and gay couples may have the
same absent gender, but has DOUBLE the other gender
and hence is superior to single families -- yet we
completely condone and allow single families to exist).
5) Homosexuality is "sick", "wrong", "unnatural", a
"natural anomaly", etc, etc (reality: homosexuality
is completely naturally occuring, and an innate
part of humanity, and is not anomalous in any way
as part of human conditioning or life).
6) Homosexuality is disease-ridden (reality: HIV
affects one in 100 people in the US, and affects
20,000,000 people worldwide -- about 95+% of
which are heterosexual. Further, sexually trans-
mitted disease have nothing to do with marriage or
parenting, except that they normally reduce the
incidence of disease -- a positive benefit for both
unmarried straights and gays).
>>Any children in such a situation will come ti understand that since
>>society blesses their motherlessness or fatherlessness, then they are
>>disposable and irrelevent.
>Where the hell did that come from?
Yes. Children will be rag-dolls, or so he thinks. The reality
is that the APA has shown that children of gay and lesbian
parents are identical in outcome and development as the
children of heterosexuals -- and they probably are more loving
and tolerant and understanding of diversity rather than closed
minded and insular.
>>As your biological clock begins to tick, tick, tick you may change
>>your mind.
>Oh, this is classic. As you get older, you'll change to heterosexual
>behaviour so you can become fulfilled. Where did you dig up THAT line
>of crap?
If anything, all the gay people who have been hiding in the
straight closet come out at age 40+ and they have a straight
marriage and kids....
I wonder if Ousey has considered the ramifications of a gay
parent in his perfect male-female parenting unit!
What will he do with the parents who are gay who are forced to
hide who they are, and hence have children? Will the children
feel worthless, as he claims children of gays will feel worthless
and "discardable".
Oh yes, Ousey's wonderful social experiment has holes in it!
Rod Swift
>Rod Swift (be...@fohnix.metronet.com) cleared their throat and cried:
>: ou...@mxd120.rh.psu.edu (David Ousey) writes:
>: >: Hello OUSEY, remember me? I'm the myth buster :) Prepare to be
>: >: busted...
>: >Gulp...
>: Gulp indeed!
>I think Freud would be having a field day with this thread.
Yes. But when do mothers gulp?
Russell Stewart
Nash(bn...@galaxy.csc.calpoly.edu) said...
>
>David Ousey <ou...@mxd120.rh.psu.edu> wrote:
>>be...@metronet.com wrote:
>>
>>: >Homosexual behavior yields no benefit to soiety, UNLIKE heterosexual
>>: >activity, which generally leads to society.
>>
>>: This is of course debunked because ALL human LIFE is VALUABLE to
>>: society. Not just the procreative sides of it.
>>
>>Subject of my sentence was "behavior" not "life".
>
>Homosexual behaviour is an expression of love, affection, caring,
>understanding, and joining of lives just as heterosexual behaviour is.
>
>These things are not beneficial to society?
Homosexuality is also helping (even if only minutely) to keep population
down; that is certainly beneficial to society.
--
/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/|
/_____________________________________________________________/ |
| Russell Stewart | Albuquerque | This space for rent | |
| dia...@rt66.com | New Mexico | Rates negotiable | /
|__________________|___________________|______________________|/
If the militias are our defense against the government, what is
our defense against the militias?
David Ousey
: bn...@galaxy.csc.calpoly.edu (Barbara Lynne Nash) writes:
: >You have yet to provide a convincing argument that homosexuality is either
: >anomalous or dangerous.
: Yes. This is true. Ousey has a hard time separating sexual
: activity from sexual orientation, from love, and parenting.
If someone is homosexual, they are more likely to engage in homosexual activity
than someone who is not. As 40% of AIDS cases involve homosexual activity
(that is a lot of deaths), it is not a stretch to say that homosexuality
is dangerous. If there was a natural phenomenon like homosexuality that
involved a genetic predisposition toward IV drug use (accounting for fewer
AIDS deaths in the US, but more globally), then even you would consider
that natural phenomenon a dangerous anomoly.
An anomoly, as I define it, is something that counteracts the intent of
nature. People are sometimes naturally born blind or with a mental illness.
These are natural anomolies. I was born cross-eyed. That was a natural
anomoly. Homosexuality counteracts the natural desire to sexually respond to
members of the opposite sex.
: >>: This is of course debunked because ALL human LIFE is VALUABLE to
: >>: society. Not just the procreative sides of it.
: >> Subject of my sentence was "behavior" not "life".
: >Homosexual behaviour is an expression of love, affection, caring,
: >understanding, and joining of lives just as heterosexual behaviour is.
: >These things are not beneficial to society?
: Nope. Ousey believes that the only thing beneficial to society
: is a man and a woman parent together -- taxes, murder, thuggery,
: rape, charity, hope, role-models, leadership, love, care,
: compassion, etc, etc are all irrelevant because parents will save
: the day!
I would go a long way in helping. Of course I never said hetero- exclusive
parenting was the ONLY ideal the State should advance. Others include:
promoting the general public health, advancing the cause of science,
advancing the exploration of space etc..
: Although it is proven that the status-quo, by his own admission,
: of two parent opposing gender households dominate but society is
: still going to hell in a handbasket... I wonder why? Maybe it is
: all the other really important things that make a good society...]
The divorce rate is at 50%, because of the selfishness and self-gratification
that characterized the baby-boomers who grew up (used loosely) in the late
'60s and 70s. That rate will likely recede, as ideals reemerge,
and cynicism toward marriage (and society in general) wanes.
: >>Am I imagining things then when I hear "high risk group" and "high
: >>risk sexual behavior" but a scant few breaths from "homosexual behavior"?
: >Have you completely missed all of the posts containing numbers here?
: >The US is the only country being discussed where HIV is split *evenly*
: >between heterosexuals and homosexuals. In all other countries we've talked
: >about, the HIV+ count has been HIGHER in striaghts than in gays.
: For some reason, Ousey believes that the sexual behaviour
: invalidates homosexuals from being parents (although every
: possible gay act can be performed by heterosexuals and often is).
We don't politicize our sexuality, though. Nor should that State form
a non-medical opinion on socially irrelevent (ie non-procreative) sexual
acts. I beleive that the implicit exclusion of a natural parent at the
heart of homoseuxal unions should not be validated by society with society's
consent to their marriage contract.
: He believes that children will get HIV from parents or some such
: bunk. Basically, HIV has nothing to do with the ability to
: parent. It does, however, have strong leanings to providing
: marriage as an option for same-sex partners. The two fold
: benefit is that we can remove domestic partnership laws (which
: has allowed heterosexuals to get the unmarried partial benefits
: that homosexuals cried out for in the 80s and 90s) and provide
: monogamy as a role model for *gay* people.
: It means heterosexuals will marry *more* and homosexuals will
: also marry more -- this will promote monogamy and fidelity, and
: hence less sexually transmissable disease of ALL types.
At the expense of claiming motherhood and fatherhood are irrelevent.
We VALUE them both, together. That's why it is not going to happen.
: >> Just keep your bedroom away from the first grade and the Justice
: >> of the Peace, and we'll be fine.
: >Ah, and I could care less what YOU do in YOUR bedroom, but following your
: >lines of logic, I shouldn't have to see your straight behaviour represented
: >either.
It is not anomolous, and is quite necessary for the continuation of our
society. Homosexuality is socially irrelevent except when its characteristic
behavior poses a medical danger to society.
: Yes. Let's remove heterosexual special rights. Let's destroy
: marriage now, then we would not have all this fuss.
: Heterosexuals would not be able to live with their foreign
: partners, nor file joint income tax returns. Heterosexuals, now
: because they are single, shall be subject to custody challenges
: from concerned parents. Your partner dies without a will?
: Tough, you don't get a red cent. And guess what, if your
: "mother-out-of-law" doesn't like you, you can be kicked out of
: the hospital room where your partner is dying, or from the
: funeral.
: Yes. Let's eliminate special rights for straights. They
: wouldn't and haven't felt the injustice they cause same-sex
: couples... Maybe they should feel that injustice?
But heterosexuals are special. We are not anomolous and actually have
something to potentially offer society beyond disease and death. Homosexuality
may yield happiness for some people, but happiness is like religion - the
State allows us to freely pursue and exercise them while not VALIDATING
any one defintion.
: >>Question:
: >>Are you more likely to die earlier if you are a male homosexual
: >> than not?
:>>Whatever your answer is, just stay away from the schools and the JP and
:>>we'll be OK.
:>In other words, you don't care what the true answer to that question is, you
:>just want to get your way.
: Yes. Ousey's bigotry is easy to get to if you wipe away the thin
: layers of partial-civility.
But, of course, the question remains unanswered.
: >>OK, I'm sorry that you have no free sexual will. I'll just defer my
: >>comment to bisexuals as they seem able to demonstrate free will
: >>sexually.
: >You're twisting words around completely. Being homosexual or heterosexual
: >or bisexual is not a choice.
: Yes. Ousey likes the twist game. He claims sexual orientation
: is not innate, yet it is clearly proven to be so. He confuses
: attractions and self-identity with sexual activity so often.
Well, Rod, you ignored bisexuality. What does the APA say about it? DO they
lack free will, too? Should they have the right to marry one member of each
sex, lest they be discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation?
: >>Homosexual behavior is sick, homosexuality is an anomoly (mostly natural
: >>as I've never refuted -there being many natural anomolies).
: >What's *sick* about physical expression of love between two people.
: Nothing.
Generally all of the AVOIDABLE diseases that results, that society has to
pay for.
: >What's sick about physical expression of attraction between two people?
: Nothing, if it is consentual and between two people of consenting
: age.
This definition can include incest (?).
Regardless, I don't care what sick things you do, as long as my kids don't
have to hear about it, nor ideals sacrificed.
: >Why the hell does it matter whether the people involved have penises or
: >vaginas?
: Religion, apparently. Remember, Ousey is not only a Catholic,
: but a "pretty screwed up one" by his own admission.
When they have p's and v's (blush) then the sexual behavior actuallly has
some positive social relevance. Otherwise, why should society form
a non-medical opinion about anything sexual?
There, no religion involved with my answer.
I like to keep my religion and my happiness far above my politics, where
they belong.
: >>B) I'm not sure whether that suicide rate is better or worse than
: >> the increased chance of dying from homosexual behavior.
: >Yet again you display your ignorance of the facts about this issue.
: Of course, as facts get in the way of a good axe to grind.
Do either of you have the facts wrt to my comment?
I am genuinely curious. It would seem to me that the suicide rate palls
in comparison vs. the death rate.
: >>Don't ask, don't tell works for me.
: >Okay, then I don't want to have to see you kissing your wife goodbye when
: >she drops you off at work, or holding hands with her when you walk down the
: >street, or...
Too bad. Freedom of expression. Heterosexual courtship rituals are also
socially relevent :-)
: Alternatively, Ousey won't ask when I get legally married, and I
: won't tell him that I am -- only on the proviso that he does the
: same, namely, doesn't tell me he is legally married, nor will I
: ask him.
Not gonna happen.
The ring might give it away for ME though.
:>>As they should have the right to employ or not based on character
:>>judgements.
: >So homosexuals are by definition lacking in character? One's sexual
: >orientation has nothing to do with one's character, sirrah.
: See, it's easy to pull away the small layer of civility to see
: his loaded questions.... :)
They implicitly are disposed to embrace a particular set of anomolous
behaviors. As long as they don't advertise their socially irrelevent
sexuality, then employers should not act on rumors, probing, or spying.
I, and any Republican worth his credibility, oppose such institutional
power over an individual life.
: >>Ideals would be sacrificed. That is not what this country is about.
: >What is un-ideal about a gay relationship? Lack of children? Mularkey.
: >You're talking yourself in circles.
It is simply anomolous, socially irrelevent, and sexually exclusive.
: Yes. It's all completely circular or fallacious, including the
: following fallacies:
: 1) Marriage is for procreation (reality: for many
: reasons, one of which *may be* procreation, as can
: be seen by the fact that infirm people or elderly
: people marry to comfort each other, and people who
: are co-infertile marry, and people who love each
: other marry, and the fact that the states have
: delinked procreation from marriage, and that the
: state has no right to annul a marriage if it turns
: out to be between infertile people or one with a
: post-menopausal wife).
The most important benefit TO SOCIETY of a marriage is a new member of
society. Ideally, society should work toward having all of its members
originating from the marriage institution with a mother AND a father.
This should not have to be made explicit in any law - it is simply a
VALUE that the majority of society holds.
: 2) Marriage is a contract with the state (reality:
: it is a contract which is assigned benefits by the
: state, and has two parties to -- easy assumption to
: throw around is that if you marry in Germany, the US
: is *NOT* a party to the entering into the contract,
: but still assigns benefits to the marriage.)
The State gets to choose the framework for gaining its consent. These four
standards involve disctrimination based on the age, sex, famial status, and
number of the parties attempting to enter into the marriage contract.
Similarly, business contracts and licenses require the parties to obey
commerce laws.
: 3) Gay people are unable to be fit parents (reality:
: they are fit, and it's provable)
I have never said that gays can't make great parents. Tarzan was raised by
a gorilla (or was it a chimp) and he turned out fine. If you propose a
standard revolving around the ability to parent, then you must be
consistent and acknowledge that incestuals and polygamists can make
swell parents, too.
: 4) Children need mothers and fathers (reality: this
: is not the case, and if it were, then gay couples
: would be better than single families -- as single
: families do not have one gender, and only have one
: of the other gender, and gay couples may have the
: same absent gender, but has DOUBLE the other gender
: and hence is superior to single families -- yet we
: completely condone and allow single families to exist).
I agree that gay couples may have an advantage over single parents, but
the State does not attempt to reward single parents who are not married.
(Welfare may currently subsidize this lifestyle, but that will soon end.)
Regardless, the two sexes are not identical, and the differences usually
relate directly to to reproduction and child raising. Society should not
take a position to spell out gender roles, but society does VALUE this
natural sexual diversity and CONDEMNS the implicit social disposablility
of motherhood and fatherhood that homosexual unions suggest.
: 5) Homosexuality is "sick", "wrong", "unnatural", a
: "natural anomaly", etc, etc (reality: homosexuality
: is completely naturally occuring, and an innate
: part of humanity, and is not anomalous in any way
: as part of human conditioning or life).
I have described homosexuality as "socially irrelevent" and a "natural
anomoly". Disease is also naturally occuring and an innate part of
humanity. Polygamy among males is also natural but is more of a cultural
anomoloy (in Western culture). WE do not have institutionalized polygamy
in our society becuase we VALUE our females equally, even though polygamy
may yield more members for society (ie socially relevent).
I have decribed homosexual behavior as "sick" and "wrong" as easily as I
would with IV drug use, which leads to fewer deaths in the US.
: 6) Homosexuality is disease-ridden (reality: HIV
: affects one in 100 people in the US, and affects
: 20,000,000 people worldwide -- about 95+% of
: which are heterosexual.
It is the most preventable disease. All it takes is an exercise of free will.
: Further, sexually trans-
: mitted disease have nothing to do with marriage or
: parenting, except that they normally reduce the
: incidence of disease -- a positive benefit for both
: unmarried straights and gays).
Ideals, again, would have to be sacrificed for a small gain.
: >>Any children in such a situation will come to understand that since
: >>society blesses their motherlessness or fatherlessness, then they are
: >>disposable and irrelevent.
: >Where the hell did that come from?
: Yes. Children will be rag-dolls, or so he thinks. The reality
: is that the APA has shown that children of gay and lesbian
: parents are identical in outcome and development as the
: children of heterosexuals -- and they probably are more loving
: and tolerant and understanding of diversity rather than closed
: minded and insular.
Again, an ideal would be sacrificed and any quantity,type, or species
of parenting can yield equal results.
: >>As your biological clock begins to tick, tick, tick you may change
: >>your mind.
: >Oh, this is classic. As you get older, you'll change to heterosexual
: >behaviour so you can become fulfilled. Where did you dig up THAT line
: >of crap?
Actually, it referred to Rod's desire to marry and his assurance that
since he currently wanted no children, I should feel reassured about
the non-potential for motherlessness to result.
: If anything, all the gay people who have been hiding in the
: straight closet come out at age 40+ and they have a straight
: marriage and kids....
Socially irrelevent.
: I wonder if Ousey has considered the ramifications of a gay
: parent in his perfect male-female parenting unit!
You mean the implicit exclusion of a natural parent and the lack of a
social guarantee that a role model of each sex has legal responsibility
over the children? Yes, I have noted the ramifications.
: What will he do with the parents who are gay who are forced to
: hide who they are, and hence have children? Will the children
: feel worthless, as he claims children of gays will feel worthless
: and "discardable".
Discardible descibes the excluded sex parent. I have never described
children that way.
: Oh yes, Ousey's wonderful social experiment has holes in it!
Promoting ideals beats out yielding to cynicism.
At least our discussion, or any political discussion, should be about ideals,
not the apparent futility of pursuing them.
That's not the Star Trek spirit.
OOZMAN
Cal Jacobson
: In article <3o3dao$d...@mystech.mystech.com>,
: ja...@mystech.mystech.com (Cal Jacobson) wrote:
: >I think Freud would be having a field day with this thread.
: Possibly so.
: All I can say is, when articles start reaching nearly a thousand lines
: in length, it's time for everyone to take a deep breath and consider
: what, if anything, is being accomplished here.
Little more than venting of steam, I suspect.
: THIS THREAD IS UGLY AND IT WANTS TO DIE!
I agree!
(shocked silence)
Hey, let's end this thing on a positive note! :D
Nathan Hand
: On 1 May 1995, Publius wrote:
: > Since homosexuals do not reproduce themselves, I imagine by then
: > they will be extinct. I think now they are on the endangered species
: > lists - what with HIV and stuff like that. PUBLIUS
: This is so idiotic. I can't even imagine where people learn to think
: like this. It is disgusting to me. It is also VERY disgusting that some
: people still think of AIDS as a gay disease, I guess they won't figure
: out the truth until they get it, not that I would wish that on anyone.
Incredible. Chuckle-Trousers makes *one* post to another
group and already the group realises how stupid he is.
Bravo Pooby. Your idiocy is well recognised by everyone.
Kudos to Dewey for picking it out so quick.
--
When I use a word it means just what I choose it +------------------
to mean - neither more nor less +----------------+ ... logic is only
--------------------------------+ a way of being ignorant by numbers
Rod Swift
> Since homosexuals do not reproduce themselves, I imagine by then
> they will be extinct. I think now they are on the endangered species
> lists - what with HIV and stuff like that. PUBLIUS
Since publius is an ignorant git with no grasp on reality and
seemingly no intelligence, I imagine that he will soon be
extinct. I think now they are on the endangered species list --
what with the inability to open the canned food.
Mike S. Medintz
: Since homosexuals do not reproduce themselves, I imagine by then
: lists - what with HIV and stuff like that. PUBLIUS
1) If homosexuals don't reproduce, then how do they have kids so that
they can continually get screwed in divorce and custody hearings?
2) AIDS isn't a gay disease. A friend of mine, who happens to be
straight, died of AIDS two days ago.
Pull your head out of your ass, sir.
Mike S. Medintz
Rod Swift
>Rod Swift (be...@fohnix.metronet.com) wrote:
>: bn...@galaxy.csc.calpoly.edu (Barbara Lynne Nash) writes:
>: >You have yet to provide a convincing argument that homosexuality is either
>: >anomalous or dangerous.
>: Yes. This is true. Ousey has a hard time separating sexual
>: activity from sexual orientation, from love, and parenting.
>If someone is homosexual, they are more likely to engage in homosexual activity
>than someone who is not.
Whoa!! Ousey manages to make two factual statements this week!
This must be a world first.
>As 40% of AIDS cases involve homosexual activity
>(that is a lot of deaths), it is not a stretch to say that homosexuality
>is dangerous.
No. And it is clear you are blowing this out of proportion. The
number of sex acts per transmission runs in the thousands...
That is, that the number of safe sexual acts are quite numerous
in comparison to the few sex acts that transmit HIV.
Example, using the statistic that there are 4% gay people, and
16% bisexual in the populace (roughly one in 5 people claim to
have experimented or practice homosexual acts on a regular or
semi-regular basis), it means that of the 130 million male people
in this nation, of which 100 million are probably sexually
active would equate to 20 million gay or bisexually active men.
At the rate of 2.1 sex acts per week
(UChicago study found this to be the general average among
sexually active men of all persuasions -- and you have claimed
that homosexuals would probably practice it more often than
this), it would equate to about 20 million men x 100 sex acts per
year divided by two participants to a sex act, or 1 BILLION sex acts
per year between gay or bisexual men.
Remember, this is all conjecture based on averages. I'd say 1
billion would probably be a very conservative estimate, as some
gay people have more sex than the average heterosexual (which is
where the 2.1 statistic comes from).
Ok, now among those 1 billion sex acts, about 30,000
transmissions occur. That's at most, a 3:100,000 or one in
33,333 chance. Of course, if the number of sex acts per annum
of a homosexual nature is greater than 1 billion, then we can
assume that the odds will be even lesser.
Of course, the risk varies on a case-by-case basis. If you are
one to sleep around and be unsafe, then your chances might be
increased dramatically. For me, I have virtually zero chance of getting
HIV from homosexual acts.
>An anomoly, as I define it, is something that counteracts the intent of
>nature. People are sometimes naturally born blind or with a mental illness.
Nope. They are not anomalies, they are disabilities. An alien
being born to two humans would be an anomaly. Anomalies are
OUTCOMES that are NOT POSSIBLE.
>These are natural anomolies. I was born cross-eyed. That was a natural
>anomoly. Homosexuality counteracts the natural desire to sexually respond to
>members of the opposite sex.
Homosexuality is not a disability. Homosexuality is not
anomalous, as it is a predictable and common outcome of sexual
orientation.
>: Although it is proven that the status-quo, by his own admission,
>: of two parent opposing gender households dominate but society is
>: still going to hell in a handbasket... I wonder why? Maybe it is
>: all the other really important things that make a good society...]
>The divorce rate is at 50%, because of the selfishness and self-gratification
>that characterized the baby-boomers who grew up (used loosely) in the late
>'60s and 70s. That rate will likely recede, as ideals reemerge,
>and cynicism toward marriage (and society in general) wanes.
But *GOVERNMENT* has been promoting two-gender households as the
IDEAL during all that time, and social policy has been set to
ONLY recognise and reward two-parent mixed-gender households.
That is, the past 30 years has seen government policy reflect
what *you* want, and it has failed miserably. Why do you expect
a continuation of this heterosexual two-parent bias will reverse
anything or change anything at all?
>: For some reason, Ousey believes that the sexual behaviour
>: invalidates homosexuals from being parents (although every
>: possible gay act can be performed by heterosexuals and often is).
>We don't politicize our sexuality, though.
Yes we do. Society does politicise sexuality -- it chooses to
condemn certain ones to inequal treatment, based on prejudice and
the inability to comprehend it or even fear of it.
>Nor should that State form
>a non-medical opinion on socially irrelevent (ie non-procreative) sexual
>acts.
This is, however, politicising sexuality. If you believed in
non-politicisation of sexuality, you would support the removal of
laws which are biased on sexuality. That would start with
legal unions being equalised (you don't have to call them
marriage, in fact, I'd prefer it if legal union was the new term
for legal marriage, and MARRIAGE was to refer only to the holy
union of marriage) it would seem.
>I beleive that the implicit exclusion of a natural parent at the
>heart of homoseuxal unions should not be validated by society with society's
>consent to their marriage contract.
Which is completely invalidated by your claim that you do not
want to politicise sexuality with law.
>At the expense of claiming motherhood and fatherhood are irrelevent.
>We VALUE them both, together. That's why it is not going to happen.
But you claim you don't want to politicise sexuality. Why do you
seek to in discrimination of the legal standing and recognition
of unions?
>: >Ah, and I could care less what YOU do in YOUR bedroom, but following your
>: >lines of logic, I shouldn't have to see your straight behaviour represented
>: >either.
>It is not anomolous, and is quite necessary for the continuation of our
>society.
I never stated that heterosexuality was anomalous. I just stated
that (as you agree with me) sexuality should not be politicised.
Therefore I do not believe that public expression of your
sexuality is required in this society -- that would be
politicising heterosexuality....
>Homosexuality is socially irrelevent except when its characteristic
>behavior poses a medical danger to society.
Of course, you conveniently exclude the facts that:
1) Heterosexuality is also, by virtue, socially
irrelevant at times because of disease (and hence, it is
not worthy of protecting by society under your
theories).
2) Positive social impacts of homosexuals are
in existence, and you are completely incapable of
even objectively evaluating it.
Would you agree, for example, that society is benefitted socially
by cultural pursuits? Do you think society is socially benefitted
by things like plays, music, prose, poetry, etc?
Surely the be-all and end-all of social worth is not sexual
reproductivity capabilities, but the input each individual has
upon society?
>: Yes. Let's remove heterosexual special rights. Let's destroy
>: marriage now, then we would not have all this fuss.
>: Heterosexuals would not be able to live with their foreign
>: partners, nor file joint income tax returns. Heterosexuals, now
>: because they are single, shall be subject to custody challenges
>: from concerned parents. Your partner dies without a will?
>: Tough, you don't get a red cent. And guess what, if your
>: "mother-out-of-law" doesn't like you, you can be kicked out of
>: the hospital room where your partner is dying, or from the
>: funeral.
>: Yes. Let's eliminate special rights for straights. They
>: wouldn't and haven't felt the injustice they cause same-sex
>: couples... Maybe they should feel that injustice?
>But heterosexuals are special.
No they are not. They are just common.
>We are not anomolous and actually have
>something to potentially offer society beyond disease and death.
So do homosexuals.
>Homosexuality may yield happiness for some people, but happiness is
>like religion - the State allows us to freely pursue and exercise
>them while not VALIDATING any one defintion.
But the state clearly does NOT offer the freedom to pursue any
particular sexual orientation that we might have -- we have
actively invasive laws that are discriminate and attack only
non-heterosexual orientations. If you believe that we have the
freedom to exist without governmental interference and with equal
protections, then you are sadly mistaken.
>: >>Question:
>: >>Are you more likely to die earlier if you are a male homosexual
>: >> than not?
>:>>Whatever your answer is, just stay away from the schools and the JP and
>:>>we'll be OK.
>:>In other words, you don't care what the true answer to that question is, you
>:>just want to get your way.
>: Yes. Ousey's bigotry is easy to get to if you wipe away the thin
>: layers of partial-civility.
>But, of course, the question remains unanswered.
I answered it. The answer was no. Didn't you see my reply? I
even asked you if you had been reading the fallacious works of
Paul Cameron again.
>: >You're twisting words around completely. Being homosexual or heterosexual
>: >or bisexual is not a choice.
>: Yes. Ousey likes the twist game. He claims sexual orientation
>: is not innate, yet it is clearly proven to be so. He confuses
>: attractions and self-identity with sexual activity so often.
>Well, Rod, you ignored bisexuality.
No I didn't. Bisexuality is a sexual orientation, and I have
claimed that discriminations exist against sexual orientations,
including homosexuality. I have claimed that society
discriminates against non-heterosexual sexual orientations (note,
orientations, not behaviours) -- that means
lesbianism/homosexuality and bisexuality.
>What does the APA say about it? DO they lack free will, too?
The APA states that freedom to choose sexual orientation is
beyond nearly all people after early childhood -- be it
heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual.
>Should they have the right to marry one member of each
>sex, lest they be discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation?
This of course, is not the point. They should, however, have the
option to marry a person of either gender. You currently limit
them to only being able to marry one gender on the basis of
sex-discriminatory grounds. Thank you for *validating* my
argument. Bisexual people of 50%/50% orientation claim they love
each gender equally, yet society denies them a choice in whom
they can marry too, should they want to marry someone of their
same gender. All other things considered equal that would be
about half of them. That's an awful lot of people to add to the
exclusive gays :)
>: >>Homosexual behavior is sick, homosexuality is an anomoly (mostly natural
>: >>as I've never refuted -there being many natural anomolies).
>: >What's *sick* about physical expression of love between two people.
>: Nothing.
>Generally all of the AVOIDABLE diseases that results, that society has to
>pay for.
But in regards to diseases, all sexualities have the possibility
of disease spreading. Further, sexually-transmissable diseases
have nothing to do with whether two people love each other or
want to marry each other.
Yes, kids, it's another Ousey Red Herring (tm).
>: >What's sick about physical expression of attraction between two people?
>: Nothing, if it is consentual and between two people of consenting
>: age.
>This definition can include incest (?).
It might. I personally do not support incestuous relationships,
but I do not claim to be the bedroom police either. It is you
that were claiming that title.
>Regardless, I don't care what sick things you do, as long as my kids don't
>have to hear about it, nor ideals sacrificed.
But ideals are already unable to be achieved with your idea of
how society should reward certain relationships anyway!
Which comes back to the point that allowing people of the
same-gender to seek legal rights for their union has no
relationship or bearing to the rights and responsibilities and
parental choices of existing heterosexual parents.
>: >Why the hell does it matter whether the people involved have penises or
>: >vaginas?
>: Religion, apparently. Remember, Ousey is not only a Catholic,
>: but a "pretty screwed up one" by his own admission.
>When they have p's and v's (blush) then the sexual behavior actuallly has
>some positive social relevance. Otherwise, why should society form
>a non-medical opinion about anything sexual?
Exactly! Let's get government out of the business of regulating
bedrooms, relationships and rights associated with unions.
>There, no religion involved with my answer.
And there has been none in mine :)
>I like to keep my religion and my happiness far above my politics, where
>they belong.
But you would rather politicise sexuality, well, more precisely
the sexuality of non-heterosexuals?
>: Of course, as facts get in the way of a good axe to grind.
>Do either of you have the facts wrt to my comment?
>I am genuinely curious. It would seem to me that the suicide rate palls
>in comparison vs. the death rate.
No. It does not. The rate of HIV deaths is about 3-4 times
lower than the suicide rate for gay and lesbian people.
I note, however, that HIV deaths are now the MOST prevalent
killers among heterosexual men aged 25-(something) and second or
third for women in the same age bracket.
It would seem that, for disease control reasons, society should
ideally not validate heterosexuals and their orientation, should
they Ousey? It might spread the disease even more, eh? After
all, it is what you state as a reason for not allowing homosexual
people equal access to legal unions for their relationships.
>: >Okay, then I don't want to have to see you kissing your wife goodbye when
>: >she drops you off at work, or holding hands with her when you walk down the
>: >street, or...
>Too bad. Freedom of expression. Heterosexual courtship rituals are also
>socially relevent :-)
I actually didn't write that :) Can you please state how public
displays of courtship improve society's social nature? I believe
that the serve no purpose as a public display. Why bother with
it?
>: Alternatively, Ousey won't ask when I get legally married, and I
>: won't tell him that I am -- only on the proviso that he does the
>: same, namely, doesn't tell me he is legally married, nor will I
>: ask him.
>Not gonna happen. The ring might give it away for ME though.
Yes. Well, I have a wedding ring too. You see, you don't have
the right to dictate what a wedding is, or what a marriage is,
or what a union is. I have a valid and public union too, and
society has no power to stop me from promoting that -- unless
you propose active restrictions to my "free expression" too?
You see, legal recognition of unions does not have any bearing to
their existence or promotion. The participants are the
proponents of promotion, not the permission of the state.
>: >So homosexuals are by definition lacking in character? One's sexual
>: >orientation has nothing to do with one's character, sirrah.
>: See, it's easy to pull away the small layer of civility to see
>: his loaded questions.... :)
>They implicitly are disposed to embrace a particular set of anomolous
>behaviors.
Anomalous behaviours? But you claimed that only homosexuals were
anomalous *occurences* in society.
Even if you claim that the acts and people are anomalous, it has
no bearing on their job performance -- similarly, a person who is
blind or deaf and who is capable of performing a task as well as
someone not hindered by these disabilities should not be
discriminated against in the work place.
Or do you propose that these "so-called anomalies" are
justification for not hiring people with disabilities to
positions which they are equally able to do as visioned or
hearing-unimpaired people?
The reality is that "anomaly or not" your argument does not stand
up when applied to other "anomalies" you claim exist.
Job discrimination is not justifiable when the factor by which
you are choosing to discriminate is not affecting job performance
whatsoever. Private sexual acts have no effect on job
performance.
>As long as they don't advertise their socially irrelevent
>sexuality, then employers should not act on rumors, probing, or spying.
But we have the freedom of expression you claim to have? Or do
you claim that we have no right to wear a wedding ring as you do?
>I, and any Republican worth his credibility, oppose such institutional
>power over an individual life.
Yet you support invidious controls and stand-over tactics in the
lives of gay and lesbian people. If you really were honest to
this belief you wouldn't be making such authoritarian demands and
controls on people's lives which you claim are "anomalous".
Republicans claim that the right to choose, and fundamental
freedoms and equalities are the basis of their tenets of belief.
If that is the case, then you hardly live up to the freedoms
espoused by your party's founders (have you read them) nor your
claimed political beliefs.
>: 1) Marriage is for procreation (reality: for many
>: reasons, one of which *may be* procreation, as can
>: be seen by the fact that infirm people or elderly
>: people marry to comfort each other, and people who
>: are co-infertile marry, and people who love each
>: other marry, and the fact that the states have
>: delinked procreation from marriage, and that the
>: state has no right to annul a marriage if it turns
>: out to be between infertile people or one with a
>: post-menopausal wife).
>The most important benefit TO SOCIETY of a marriage is a new member of
>society.
Yes, but it is not the only benefit, nor is it the only reason for
people choosing to marry. Society clearly endorses marriages
which do not benefit society at all already. They endorse them
on the basis of the freedom of two people to choose to marry.
If you were honest about this belief, you should follow up your
beliefs by removing all access to marriage to all infertile
people and to post-reproductive people. Further, you should
automatically have the state annul marriages should two people
not have children by the time they are post-reproductive, or if
they do have children, to the time that they are post-reproductive
or until their youngest child reaches maturity at age 18,
whichever is the latter (that way people who reach
post-reproductive point yet still are caring for children will
still have marriage until their youngest child is free of parental
control at 18). Further, should two people who are heterosexual adopt,
they shall be granted a marriage which shall expire after the
last child they have turns 18 years of age.
This is the only IDEAL social construct of marriage under your
system, as it eliminates all non-socially-beneficial marriages.
This is only fair, under your system. Further, it will be
protecting MOTHER and FATHERHOOD, as it is clear that those who
have been granted marriages and abuse them by not parenting
children should not be granted marriage rights, as they are
clearly promoting motherlessness and fatherlessness (i.e., that
it's beneficial to not be a mother or a father at all!)
>This should not have to be made explicit in any law - it is simply a
>VALUE that the majority of society holds.
Wait, didn't you just say that marriages should be validated if
they can prove to be socially beneficial? Now you are claiming
that it is not that at all, but majoritarianism!
>: 2) Marriage is a contract with the state (reality:
>: it is a contract which is assigned benefits by the
>: state, and has two parties to -- easy assumption to
>: throw around is that if you marry in Germany, the US
>: is *NOT* a party to the entering into the contract,
>: but still assigns benefits to the marriage.)
>The State gets to choose the framework for gaining its consent.
No it doesn't. I thought you did...
>These four standards involve disctrimination based on the age, sex, famial
>status, and number of the parties attempting to enter into the
>marriage contract.
Only three of the abovementioned are clearly justifiable. Do you
not understand your basic constitutional interpretations that
there must be compelling state interests to discriminate?
Age discrimination (i.e. a minimum age) is justifiable, as
children are not able to accurately make informed decisions at
young ages, so we set an age limit at which they cannot marry to
reflect this inability to decide rationally or legally. This is
arbitrarily, but fairly, set to follow patterns of maturity.
Familial status (i.e. existing direct relations with a family
member) is also justifiable, as there are serious scientific
concerns about genetic defects and the risks of such, and the
factor that the people are already in a close union of the family
bond and the protections already provided to that relationship by
family law.
The number of parties (i.e. the restriction to two people) is
also somewhat justifiable, on the basis that the right to marry x
person is not a denial of the right to marry at all, as one may
still exercise the right to marry one person, and that is not
discrimination into the entry into the institution of marriage
per se.
Sex discrimination (i.e. deliberately removing half of the
population by default of their gender) is not justifiable. In
the other examples, there have been solid reasons to justify the
state's imposition into the case as two are not genetic-based
factors, and the third (familial relationship) is genetically
based and already protected by the fact of lineage. Given that
sex is an unchangeable and immutable characteristic like race or
any other genetically-determined factor, it would seem that
denying a person the opportunity to enter into a union solely
based on their sex is sex discrimination. That is, if someone
loves a man, then if that person is a woman she is given the
right to marry that man, but if that person is a man then he is
denied that same right. This is pervasive discrimination based
not upon the validity of the love of the relationship, or even
the sexual orientation of the people, but of the respective
genders. This is akin to similar discriminations of the past.
If someone loved a person who was negroid, then if that person
was negroid they would be allowed to marry them, but if they were
white, they were not allowed. Even though the love was the same,
and the desire to marry and choice to marry was the same, one was
denied the chance to marry based solely on the race of one being
denied the right to marry a different race under public policy.
This is the argument found in the case of Baehr v Lewin.
>Similarly, business contracts and licenses require the parties to obey
>commerce laws.
But commercial laws are not sex discriminate or family
discriminate or numerically discriminated. There is an age
discrimination of course, based on the same reason. In one fell
swoop, you have again validated *freedom* to choose in marriage,
rather than the state's ability to pervasively discriminate in
marriage.
>: 3) Gay people are unable to be fit parents (reality:
>: they are fit, and it's provable)
>I have never said that gays can't make great parents.
You have, of course, implied that they are not ideal, which means
that they are somehow *lesser* at parenting. If you truly
thought that they could be good parents, then you would not be
making such benign statements like the fact that they should not
or cannot parent.
>If you propose a standard revolving around the ability to parent,
>then you must be consistent and acknowledge that incestuals and
>polygamists can make swell parents, too.
Polygamy, in the broadest sense, would not affect parenting. The
closest social example of a poly-parent relationship with a child
is one of an extended family, and they work quite well -- where
parents are supplemented by other relatives in the parenting
process. Would that be not *ideal* in your world?
Incestuous relationships directly with the child during custody
are clearly not in the best interest of the child. That was a
very stupid question to ask. A parent having an incestuous
relationship with their child would of course affect their
ability to parent that child -- however, if that parent was
having an affair with his own sister, or her own brother, and that
relationship was unknown to the child and kept out of the
parenting process, then I cannot see how *that* particular case
would affect the ability to parent.
The fact is that parental ability is an individual-by-individual
assessment, and the reality is that any parent-to-child abusive
relationship is not good parenting. The private affairs and
relations of a parent are irrelevant to the ability to parent.
>: 4) Children need mothers and fathers (reality: this
>: is not the case, and if it were, then gay couples
>: would be better than single families -- as single
>: families do not have one gender, and only have one
>: of the other gender, and gay couples may have the
>: same absent gender, but has DOUBLE the other gender
>: and hence is superior to single families -- yet we
>: completely condone and allow single families to exist).
>I agree that gay couples may have an advantage over single parents, but
>the State does not attempt to reward single parents who are not married.
But it does reward single parents with legal protections.
>(Welfare may currently subsidize this lifestyle, but that will soon end.)
I wasn't referring to welfare.
>Regardless, the two sexes are not identical, and the differences usually
>relate directly to to reproduction and child raising. Society should not
>take a position to spell out gender roles, but society does VALUE this
>natural sexual diversity and CONDEMNS the implicit social disposablility
>of motherhood and fatherhood that homosexual unions suggest.
Of course, will you be taking away children from single parents
if a spouse dies? Or will you compel and force a single parent
to remarry in a specific time frame?
>: 5) Homosexuality is "sick", "wrong", "unnatural", a
>: "natural anomaly", etc, etc (reality: homosexuality
>: is completely naturally occuring, and an innate
>: part of humanity, and is not anomalous in any way
>: as part of human conditioning or life).
>I have described homosexuality as "socially irrelevent" and a "natural
>anomoly".
Which it isn't, but I will let you go on.
>Disease is also naturally occuring and an innate part of humanity.
>Polygamy among males is also natural but is more of a cultural
>anomoloy (in Western culture).
You have yet to look at a dictionary to see the definition of
anomaly. Homosexuality is not an anomaly, but a quite regularly
occuring phenomenon.
>WE do not have institutionalized polygamy
>in our society becuase we VALUE our females equally, even though polygamy
>may yield more members for society (ie socially relevent).
But we have institutionalised poly-parenting through extended
families! Or will you be outlawing grandparenthood to stop
extra meddling people who would want to provide parenting input?
>I have decribed homosexual behavior as "sick" and "wrong" as easily as I
>would with IV drug use, which leads to fewer deaths in the US.
Homosexuality leads to fewer deaths than heterosexuality. The
reality is that more heterosexuals die than homosexuals each
year!
>: 6) Homosexuality is disease-ridden (reality: HIV
>: affects one in 100 people in the US, and affects
>: 20,000,000 people worldwide -- about 95+% of
>: which are heterosexual.
>It is the most preventable disease. All it takes is an exercise of free will.
Which free will is that? There is no free and voluntary choice
to change sexual identity which is ingrained from early
childhood, nor does curbing behaviour work nor does aversion to
it, nor does treatment of it as one would with an addiction.
I wish more heterosexuals would realise they are screwing
themselves into oblivion each day, they should stop having sex!
>: Further, sexually trans-
>: mitted disease have nothing to do with marriage or
>: parenting, except that they normally reduce the
>: incidence of disease -- a positive benefit for both
>: unmarried straights and gays).
>Ideals, again, would have to be sacrificed for a small gain.
Small gain? But you claim that HIV is the leading killer of gays
(which is false, anyway). If you claim disease control is so
important, and is SOCIALLY important, then there is social
importance to providing legal and social encouragements to gay
and UNMARRIED heterosexuals.
>: Yes. Children will be rag-dolls, or so he thinks. The reality
>: is that the APA has shown that children of gay and lesbian
>: parents are identical in outcome and development as the
>: children of heterosexuals -- and they probably are more loving
>: and tolerant and understanding of diversity rather than closed
>: minded and insular.
>Again, an ideal would be sacrificed and any quantity,type, or species
>of parenting can yield equal results.
The reality is that ideal or not -- your model is instituting
social restrictions which will not improve society, only limit it
to something even narrower in scope, and narrower in diversity,
than it is today.
>: >>As your biological clock begins to tick, tick, tick you may change
>: >>your mind.
>: >Oh, this is classic. As you get older, you'll change to heterosexual
>: >behaviour so you can become fulfilled. Where did you dig up THAT line
>: >of crap?
>Actually, it referred to Rod's desire to marry and his assurance that
>since he currently wanted no children, I should feel reassured about
>the non-potential for motherlessness to result.
I do not want children. I have made that decision as my partner
does not feel he can parent well enough. There is no
"biological" drive to raise a child on my partner's behalf, and
so we choose not to. Of course, under your system we would not
even have that choice -- it would be made for us under the
totalitarian guise of ideals regulated by the state.
>: If anything, all the gay people who have been hiding in the
>: straight closet come out at age 40+ and they have a straight
>: marriage and kids....
>Socially irrelevent.
You mean them, or the misery they leave the families in because
you force them into heterosexuality in the first place? Isn't
this just evidence of what will happen under your ideal world?
You claimed, above, that there is some biological clock inside of
me that wants children. If you remove a homosexual's right to
parent except in a heterosexual marriage, then guess what --
there is going to be an INFLUX of gays marrying into heterosexual
relationships solely to satisfy this "biological clock" that you
claim ticks in all of us.
That means *MORE* broken homes, broken families, deceived
spouses, and disillusioned children. Further, gay people will
not be accidental straights, as they are now, but quite
deliberate and calculating in their decision to parent to produce
offspring.
I am sure that there will be a large number of
socially-responsible gay people out there (well, what might be
left of social responsibility after you choose to eliminate most
of it), who will marry a gay man to a lesbian so that they may
have their children...
Maybe you had better rethink your theory -- time to add a
proposal to limit self-identifying homosexuals from marrying
people of the OPPOSITE gender too!
>: I wonder if Ousey has considered the ramifications of a gay
>: parent in his perfect male-female parenting unit!
>You mean the implicit exclusion of a natural parent and the lack of a
>social guarantee that a role model of each sex has legal responsibility
>over the children? Yes, I have noted the ramifications.
No, the implication that not all heterosexual unions have
heterosexually oriented people.
>: What will he do with the parents who are gay who are forced to
>: hide who they are, and hence have children? Will the children
>: feel worthless, as he claims children of gays will feel worthless
>: and "discardable".
>Discardible descibes the excluded sex parent. I have never described
>children that way.
But it's not the gay person's problem if his wife or her husband
discovers that she is homosexually or bisexually oriented.
Nor is it the state's right to regulate that, or are you
proposing that too? Are you going to stop gay people from
marrying members of the opposite sex too?
>: Oh yes, Ousey's wonderful social experiment has holes in it!
>Promoting ideals beats out yielding to cynicism.
Cynicism? I am not a cynic, I am a criticism. Promoting ideals
isn't what this is all about. It's enforcing ideals. Current
society promotes ideals already, but recognises that other unions
do exist and are valid in their own rights. You want to change
this to remove the valid existence of the other unions, and
solely promote one type of union -- and you are doing it under
the guise of the fact that it is ideal!
>At least our discussion, or any political discussion, should be about ideals,
>not the apparent futility of pursuing them.
No, political discussions, and discussions about society, should
not be limited to idealism, but be focused on dealing with
reality as society exists now, and meeting the needs of all of
society, not just a select few which you consider to be ideal.
>That's not the Star Trek spirit.
Star Trek encourages diversity. You encourage elimination of
diversity by branding it to be against what is ideal. Most of
the world is not ideal, Ousey.
It is a shame you have not recognised that. Your idealism reminds
me of the type of idealism that a government tries to promote by
passing laws against consentual sex acts -- which do nothing to
reflect reality, but only seek to criminalise what it considers
to be not ideal.
... or the type of government which seeks to legislate speech and
restrict it, because some people do not speak of things that are
ideal for society.
... or the type of government that passes laws limiting the
number of offspring you may have so that the population may be
*ideal*.
These are all futile laws, as they try to enshrine only one
possibility of millions -- in effect removing diversity.
I prefer realism over idealism. Idealism is for ideas, which the
world does not exist in, and realism is for reality, which the
world exists in.
Too bad you have such a narrow and undiverse view of what is
beneficial for society.
Rod Swift
>>mc...@larscom.com (Mike McKee) writes:
>>>I feel it is a choice, and I do not want
>>>my 8 year old told that he has to make a choice to be hetero, homo, or bi
>>>sexual
>>What if you are wrong and it is not a choice? Did you make a
>>choice to be heterosexual?
>no I didn't, it is natural.
How then do you not claim that homosexual orientation -- which I
never made a choice for -- is not natural.
I put it to you that the determination of one's sexual
orientation is out of their control and homosexuality is
completely natural for me, just as heterosexuality is natural for
you (but not for me).
>>Can you tell me how the moral *values* of a heterosexual differ from that
>>of a homosexual? Are you saying homosexual people are not able
>>to be moral and are evil?
>I am saying that heterosexuality vs. Homosexaulity is a value in itself, not
>indicitive of any other values.
Is it? I thought both had value! Why do you assume that only
one is valuable or only able to be the one value?
>>What are these "values" you claim to talk about? I contend that
>>homosexuality or heterosexuality have nothing to do with moral
>>values.
>And I satate again, they are values in themselves.
And why do you assume that one invalidates the other. They are
both moral, when consentual acts. They are both immoral when
they are not (rape, incest, pedophilia, etc).
It would seem that they have identical values, and people of each
can have identical values. Maybe we should look at values on an
individual by individual basis. I know some Christians *and*
gays who have neither, and I know people of both groups have
values too!
>>It's just like the lie about the "gay lifestyle". The gay
>>lifestyle is IDENTICAL except that gay people can love anyone of
>>any gender and aren't limited by the fear of the same sex that
>>heterosexuals have.
>I have never said anything about the gay lifestyle, only about gay sex.
There is no intrinsic morality value difference in consentual
sexual relations.
>>I believe that society has an interest in teaching children that
>>it is NOT ok to hate gay people or discriminate against gay
>>people -- that way less gay people will be murdered for who they
>>are.
>I agree with you 100%. You assume that anyone that does not feel being gay is
>natural automatically hate all gays. Stop being so bigoted.
No. I never said that, either. I did *not* say all people who
do not believe homosexuality is right will bash gay people, but
that some gay people are bashed.
This bashing is wrong, if it is motivated by ignorance or hate.
We can stop it by not educating whether homosexuality is good or
bad, but not teaching any moral value or implication -- and
instead teaching the good values of *not* assaulting or killing
any person at all!
>>Didn't you realise that there were thousands of hatecrimes
>>against gays last year? YOUR children are committing these
>>crimes, and I have a right to be protected from them.
>yes, I do know this, but my views do not kill gays.
I never said they did.
>I do not bash them, and I do not terrorize them.
I never said you did.
>Just like I don't kill, bash or terrorize catholics
>for their choice that I also feel is wrong.
I never said you did.
What I *did* say is that bashings do occur, but NOT because
homosexuality is taught as wrong, but because we don't teach
children love and good values and to not hurt others.
It would be irrelevant what we taught about homosexuality or any
other divisive issue -- the issue here is teaching people how to
hold their views and *not* sink to violence, whatever form of
violence that may be.
>>I think that mental health of children is important, and
>>that they should not be indoctrinated in irrational hatred like
>>that you propose to teach to your children about gay people.
>I did not propose that. I have never proposed any hatred.
I know, but maybe you will learn your lesson not to read things into my
posts, and claim I have said things which I have not? Thank you.
>>Most of the episodes are PG in rating for "parental guidance".
>>Your argument is moot. Further, I don't know why you are
>>bitching about this, as YOU HAVE THE CHOICE of what your CHILDREN
>>watch on TV.
>>If you don't like it, then fucking switch it off!!!
>Ah the old this is MY show, and if you don't like it, turn it off.
No. The old "this is what the writers of the show put in this
week's episode, and if you don't like it, turn it off".
>You have the choice of what to watch also.
I never claimed I didn't.
>If you want t see homosexuality on
>TV so much, why don't you choose another show.
I do choose other shows. I prefer realistic characters and
realistic reflections of the construction of society on TV. You
get bored after seeing 99.9% of WASPS ;)
>You are the one lobbing for change.
Not change, realism, a reflection on reality. I don't care if it
does not come about.
>>People who are objective -- and that means Christians are
>>automatically ruled out.
>You frighten me. This is the same rational used for the slaughter in WWII.
>Nice attitude.
Alas, I'm only using your logic ;) You, after all, proposed that
gay people are automatically invalidated from being active in
society's decisions on how it should educate children. :)
>>>Raising children is not a place the government should superceed the parent
>>>except in extreme situations.
>>The murder of gay people is serious. You'd have us believe
>>otherwise.
>You are right it is wrong. I never said otherwise, as you seem to think.
Yet you seem to not support teaching traditional values of
objective morality -- theft, murder, assault, rape, robbery, etc
-- as being appropriate in schools either!
I'm for tackling the guns-in-schoolkids'-hands problem.
>>I had no choice to be gay. I deserve protection.
>Great. So what ? everyone has the right to be protected. Now do you have
>the right to force your ideals on others. This is the question.
No. The question was whether the majority has the right to
impose restriction of freedom on minorities.
I have never proposed forcing anything on anyone.
>>>On the otherhand, when a person makes a lifestyle choice ( as I believe
>>>Homosexaulity is, although it has not been proven either way ) it is
>>>different.
>>Even if I *did* choose, I should have the same rights of
>>protection as a minority. I note that RELIGION is chosen, and
>>protected under anti-discrimination laws.
>adn once again I agree. You should be protected. Not prefered, nor given
>special treatment, but protected.
Alas, gay people are currently not protected equally before the
law, which has been the entire point of *my* argument. I have
not advocated teaching schoolchildren anything but the fact that
all violence is wrong, not just anti-gay violence.
>>I note also, that people who are given the CHOICE to have a limb
>>amputated are covered under anti-discrimination laws after they
>>have had an amputation and become differently-abled...
>so what ?
You claimed in an earlier post that people who *choose* to be who
they are deserve no protection. I gather you have retracted that
position now. See above, you wrote that homosexual people
(because you *think* they choose to be gay) deserve to be treated
differently in assigning protection for them.
>>Anyway, can't black people bleach their skin, and Asians get
>>plastic surgery to look more "European"? Wouldn't that solve
>>their discrimination (modification of how they look)?
>your begining to ramble. this is not even related to the discussion.
It was, considering you were proposing that the ability to choose
to conform to the majority was a reason to not give equality to
certain groups of people.
I was making the assumption that we could start revoking race and
gender protections, as it is clear that people can choose a
different gender and different race, and hence it's *their fault*
(as you were proposing) as they can choose to rectify their
minority status.
But it seems you have come full circle and now agree that all
people should be treated equally, no matter who they are, and no
person should suffer at the hands of discrimination based on any
of their characteristics. This is an *admirable* position to hold.
>>That is *EXACTLY* what you suggest when you tell gay people to
>>not act upon their innateness. I'm sorry, but I can't change who
>>I am. I never chose to be gay. I will stand by that, and so
>>will science.
>Science does not stand by that statement. If you think it does, could you
>show me one link to genetics. Just one.
I never claimed that it was genetic. I claimed that it was
innate. Do you know what innate means?
>I have also never said you should not act on your feelings. I just don't want
>you TELLING me what my child will or will not be tought in school.
I have never fucking proposed to teach your children anything.
Sheesh! Are you thick or something?
>I think it is really sad that you preach tolerance, but are completely
>intolerant to my opinions.
Considering I believe you have the right to hold opinions of any
persuasion, and express your views, I cannot see what you claim
to be as intolerance...
>I don't think what you are doing is natural. You
>are free to do it, and I will even fight for your right to do it. But you
>refuse to tolerate my opinion that it is still wrong.
I have not refused to tolerate your opinion. You have assumed
that I do, as for some strange reason you think I want to educate
your children that homosexuality is good -- something I have not
stated nor do I agree with educating your children in that manner.
I believe homosexuality and heterosexuality should not be in the
public school system at all!
>You are the intolerant one, not me.
Excuse me, but you are making accusations based on no premise nor
evidence. I will hope that you will correct your errors during
your reply next time.
rod
Rod Swift
>Oh give me a break. That is why we follow posts, so that we don't have to
>rewrite the entire persons comments. Learn to read the whole thing, and not
>only what you want to falme.
Take a leaf out of your own book. Since you refuse to read my
comments, and since you refuse to believe I have made no such
claims of a desire to educate your children, and because I have
consistently refuted your claims that I have, you should take a
leaf out of your own book and learn to READ a post and understand
it before making silly assumptions about it.
You are currently arguing with me about interpretations of posts,
claiming that I am flaming you by correcting YOUR errors of
interpreting MY posts!
>>Science, which psychology is a branch of, shows that
>>homosexuality is not a mental disorder. Mental disorders are
>>treatable with reparative-style therapies -- all of which have
>>failed in the treatment of gay and lesbian people.
>So have all medical attempts to find a genetic link.
But medical attempts are on-going. You are the one that brought
genetics into this, not I. I stated, quite correctly, that
science does not have a firm conclusion to why sexual orientation
develops. I stated, quite clearly, that science does show us the
innate feelings that we call sexual orientation are present and
fixed in most people by the end of early childhood.
I made no confirmed statement of how sexual orientation occurs.
I made a statement that the APA speculates a combination of a
large number of small and indeterminable factors including
*possibly* biological, sociological, psychological and hormonal
factors.
I have stayed as close as I can to the scientific realities of
this day. You have made brash claims that "It's a choice" (you
don't even make this statement with the words *It is my belief
that it is a choice* but you make it to sound as a statement of
scientific fact).
>Just because something is not found does not mean it is not there.
>Just because Psychology has not been able to treat it does not mean it is
>genetic. That is not a very scientific argument.
But I didn't say that it was *GENETIC* because it could not be
treated. I said it was *INNATE* and *UNCHANGEABLE* which are
scientific facts. I have said it is not a *BEHAVIOURAL* problem
or an *EMOTIONAL* problem or a *MENTAL DISORDER*, which it is
clearly not.
I never advocated that a lack of these means that it is wholly
biological or even wholly genetic or even partly genetic.
I stated, quite correctly, that science has ruled out
homosexuality (and heterosexuality) from being mental disorders,
emotional problems or psychoses, and from them being
conscientious choices to feel that way, and from them being able
to be readily and voluntarily changed. This is the APA, AMA and
ASA stance. Their stance does not include one that states that
it *IS CONFIRMED* genetic. Neither does my stance contain that.
Of course, you have made this whole shebang out of my claim that
"I didn't choose to be gay". That is a statement of fact -- I
didn't. I did not, however, make any statement of *FACT* that it
was biological or genetic.
My exact thoughts were -- "I *believe* that I was either born gay,
or that it developed early in my life before conscious thought
and choice. I have no evidence to validate my beliefs, and I
await the results of ongoing research. Either way, genetics is
irrelevant, as I never made an active choice -- which is the most
important point to sexual orientation."
If you have misunderstood these, then it is not *my* fault you
failed to comprehend them. I clearly stated what my beliefs
were, what is scientifically valid at the moment, and what is
under investigation. None of that included a statement that "it
was confirmed that it was genetic in nature". I said that
ongoing research will determine if there are any biological links
and that I awaited the outcome of the research.
>>Further, the case that homosexuality is an "addiction" is not
>>validated, as all reparative or treatment programs to curb
>>homosexuality in gay people does not work.
>I did not call it an addiction. But you are not correct. Heron addicts have
>not been treated sucessfully yet either ( except in the *vast* minority
>of cases )
Actually, addictions can be treated with 12 step programs and
weaning programs. Of course, heroin addiction is not a
psychological dependency, but one of chemical dependency. The
chemical dependency can be broken.
A better addiction to study would be, say, pyromania. The
addictive and repetitive desire to burn things. Either way, you
are correct, homosexuality is not a psychological dependency or
addiction.
>>No. They reversed their statement based on the principles that
>>there is *NO* evidence to say that it is mental. You are
>>claiming they have no proof it is mental. They do have proof
>>that it being a mental condition has been invalidated.
>BS. There is no proof. I repeat, no studies have been done to prove it is
>not psychological.
There is evidence to disprove that it is mental. I have stated,
and will state again, that your beef is with the APA.
If it were psychological, it would be treatable with current
curing methods for psychological problems. The fact is that
homosexuality is not at all affected by any treatments known to
psychologists. This would suggest that homosexuality -- if a
disease or sickness at all -- is not one of the mind.
They are the facts, jack. Don't whine to me that they don't fit
into the psychological sphere. The reason why homosexuality is
no longer considered psychologically-impaired is because the
industry itself was biased and only conducted studies among gay
people *already in therapy*.
Mind you, the APA's problem was never that homosexuality was a
psychological problem -- but the isolation, and prejudice, and
intolerance that gays once faced which manifested themselves in
depression and suicidal thoughts -- of course, we now know that
this depression etc is not a product of the homosexuality itself,
but of the person's own feelings based on their rejection from
society. Homosexuality was removed as the cause of the problems
of depression, etc, in gay people in 1971. Instead, it was
replaced with statements that gay people should be helped through
depression and such other psychological problems borne of
society's intolerance.
>>>If they prove it, of course I will. Until then, my opinion is just as valid
>>>as yours. SHall we turn the tables though,
>>>Will you give up YOUR religion when it is not shown to have genetic links ?
>>I have the fortunate case that I can claim that discrimination
>>against gay people is wrong -- genetic or not. If it is genetic
>>then it is just like other non-chosen behaviours or human
>>conditions. If it is NOT genetic, then it's just like religion.
>If it just like religion, it is learned, and as psychology advances, a
>treatment will be found. ( or preventative treatment ).
No. I claimed that either way, you are wrong. Religion is not
innate, but sexuality is. Religion is chosen by a rational
decision (I hear all the time about people "being born again" and
"choosing to accept jesus in their lives") where sexuality is
not. People can voluntarily change their religion and their
religious identity with free will and volition, whereas sexuality
and sexual identity is virtually impossible to change.
>I have also never said discrimination is right. It is your stereotype of me
>that claims this.
I have never claimed that you think discrimination is right. I
have claimed that some of your illogical readings of my posts are
wrong -- like the fact that you *THINK* I have said homosexuality
is genetic, where I have not at all!
>>>>Christianity is a mental impairment which can be cured with time
>>>>and education.
>>>I would like to think so, but history proves you wrong :-)
>>Maybe you should adapt your argument and look at homosexuality.
>>:) You will then see the trap I set, and how you fell straight
>>into it.
>Not at all. They are both learned behavior.
Religion is learned by an active choice to pursue religious
feelings, whereas sexuality may be a function of learning and is
certainly not a conscious and active choice.
Religion is able to be unlearned or changed or relearned.
Sexuality is not characterised by this.
Religion is not innate, but changeable. Sexuality is innate, and
is virtually static.
>>>Why thank you for clairifying my thoughts for me. I don't know what I was
>>>thinking to express myself without consulting you first.
>>Well, isn't it always the case of straight people knowing best
>>for gays? Again, you stepped right into the trap. I notice
>>*you* don't like being told how you think.
>I have never told you how to think.
No, but I was claiming that you think you know what I believe better than
I do -- you *claim* I think homosexuality is genetic and you
claim that I have said that the genetic nature of homosexuality
has already been proven.
I have, of course, made no such statements.
>It is you that are telling me that I must accept you as normal.
No. I have been telling you that you must accept me as HUMAN.
>You may believe anything you like, and until
>we have proof, we will just not know.
I have been the one to admit that we do not know the reasons for
homosexuality. You, on the other hand, are constantly presenting
your *BELIEFS* worded as if they were facts.
You have made the claim, for example, that gay people choose to
be gay. Now you have just made the claim that we do not know the
reasons for homosexuality. Which one is your belief and which
one is fact?
>You are further telling me what my child will be taught.
I have never made ANY such statements.
>At home you can teach anything you like. At school, they should
>be taught what the majority of society feels is right.
This is fallacious in itself. They should be taught fact and
fact only. You know, things like mathematics. :)
Of course, there are horrendous examples of school boards that
have been taken over by Christians -- who then espouse that your
child will learn about creation. Did you know that? Or how
about it if society suddenly begins to think that America is the
only real good nation on Earth -- in Florida, a school district
adopted an America-supremacist curricula.
It's sad that agendas are introduced by so many groups into our
education system. Considering I have not been a proponent of
anything but removing controversial or divisive issues from
curricula completely (that is, sexuality will not be discussed at
all).
I have certainly not advocated to teach your children that
homosexuality is ok. There is no basis of fact in that.
However, there is possible basis of fact for teaching that
violence against minorities is wrong, and that all violence is
wrong anyway. I have advocated the latter. I have also
advocated the teaching of truth -- that homosexuality is, for
now, an unknown in many circles, and that it is best examined by
each person rather than taught on bloc as curricula.
>I can turn tables here, and tell you that your entire argument here is that
>you want to change the current status and portray your opinion to us confused
>heterosexuals.
No I do not. That is also ludicrous. I have made no claims to
want to add anything or remove anything or change anything in
schools -- except, possibly, to remove sexuality completely from
school curricula so these petty arguments don't come up and so
that parents have the freedom to choose how their children are
educated.
Have you yet understood my position? Are you *STILL* claiming
that I seek to indoctrinate your children when it is clear that I
want to make it so that *no* indoctrination is done, and all
sexuality discussions are left to the parents? Isn't *that what
you want* -- the right to teach your children about sexuality
without interference from the school system?
Why do you make up lies and misrepresent my position?
>>Why do you expect me to think any different of your assumption
>>that "gays chose to be the way they are" when I know I made no
>>such choice.
>Can you point to many parts of your personality that you can show a direct
>cause for ? No. Can I think that I made a chopice to be heterosexaul ? no.
Then you admit that sexuality is not a chosen thing?
>>>No, I mean exactly what I said. I don't want my children to be Catholic
>>>either, but I don't them to discriminate against Catholics. Get a real
>>>argument instead of telling me what I think, but have of yet not written.
>>Take a leaf out of your own book, hypocrite. Don't presume to know what it
>>is like to live life as a gay person -- or to presume what they
>>want or need.
>Try a lucid responce to my comments next time.
Try a realistic reading of my post next time, and see you are
claiming that I believe certain things and I do not, and then
you are *ATTACKING* me on the basis that you claim I hold those
beliefs! I do not hold them, and therefore your attacks are
beginning to look stupid and foolish.
>>Have you ever asked your gay friends what they think of the way
>>you want to oppress their rights to exist?
>Yes actually I have. But I spoke with him not about his right to exist ( as
>you seem to be arguing ), but on his normalicy. He wishes he was strait, but
>just is not. There is nothing he can do about it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Again, you admit that sexuality is no active and conscious
choice. Does this contradict your claim that it is a choice, and
changeable?
>>What if I told you I could not live with my partner, and that we
>>live apart for 11 months a year. Would that be inhumane?
>sounds like a typical LDR. I had one for two years.
But heterosexual long distance relationships have the option of
solving them. I have no option, as society denies me that right.
>>>I'm still not sure how you living with your partner is forcing it on me.
>>>Maybe you can clairify this?
>>Maybe if you cared to read my posting, instead of assuming that I
>>have written something, you will see that I asked YOU how MY
>>relationship is forcing things on you, and how they exactly
>>impact on your day to day life.
>I said it didn't. I am not even sure why you asked the question. It is
>irrevelant because we are not discussing how your relationship even affects me.
But we are discussing how society affects gay people. I have
never made a claim that I want to affect how you believe, think of
act towards gay people. I have made the claim, however, that
regardless of your beliefs or values or opinions, the fact is
that gay people are not treated to equal rights in society.
Note, I did *NOT* claim that you have removed their rights, just
that they are not treated equally under current laws. I believe
you to be a fair person, and you have indicated that you would
like to see this inequality remedied.
>>>>I can tell you that forcing us to live in separate countries,
>>>>forcing our love to be criminal, forcing our lives to be
>>>>interrupted at the most fundamental level, forcing us to hide who
>>>>we are in our jobs, forcing us to be unemployed at the whims of
>>>>employers, forcing us to be left destitute as we cannot leave our
>>>>partners our assets after we die, forcing us to give up our
>>>>children to other people's custody, forcing...
>>>>... I think you get the idea.
>>>Yes I do, and I stated that all the above is wrong ( you must have
>>>missed that
>>>part of the post in your haste to flame me )
>>You have never stated any condemnation of these unconscionable
>>acts, nor have you proposed any ways or means to remove these
>>injustices. Maybe if you were honest enough, you might suggest
>>methods to solve the inequality.
>Get a clue dude.
>I am not sure what you want me to say.
Just that you believe them to be wrong would be a good start, and
stating that you support the cause to remove the inequalities
would be a fine solution. Of course, you have the right to not
do anything...
>I have already said that gays should
>have equal rights ( on several occasions ), and I have said intolerance in
>unacceptable ( on several occasions ). Possibly, you should get a dictionary
>and learn their meaning.
But you stated, also, that I am *not* denied the right to live
with my partner. You stated this earlier in the thread. I
gather, now you know the facts of my relationship, that you agree
that I *am* denied the right to live with my partner?
>I am also not trying to solve the problem on injustice toward gays.
Why not? Isn't it important to stop suffering and injustice? So
you really are only giving lipservice to the issue -- saying that
gay people are mistreated -- but you offer no solution or
commitment to remedy it?
>>I gather you are admitting that gay people are unfairly and
>>unjustly treated in this society, and that they are indeed
>>second-class citizens?
>AS with lots of people. Society is basically unfair. Learn to live in the
>real world. I don't think the method you choose will work to balance the
>scales.
The method I propose is called equal protection.
>The same method has been used in race relations for years, and they
>still don't seem to be working.
That was both equal protection and quotas. Quotas do not work,
and hence I don't seek them.
>>>I have always been an advocate of equal rights. Gay or otherwise. Not
>>>special treatment, just equal chances.
>>But yet you have no solutions, nor do you support any other
>>solutions offered -- solely because they get in the way of your
>>beliefs, even if they will not be imposed upon your beliefs.
>You have ony proposed one solution. To have science make a determination,
>based on no proof.
My solution is not based on science, but the remedy of social
injustice. The reasons for sexuality being what it is is
irrelevant to solving social justice issues.
>This also means that you feel that you know better than anyone else what I
>should believe, and what my child should be taught. The US was founded on
>different principles. I am sorry you disagree with them, but that is what
>this country was founded for. The freedom to form our own opinions and
>beliefs.
I never claimed that I knew what your child should be taught.
Where the hell did you get this idea from? I never made such a
bloody statement and you know it. I have mentioned DOZENS of
times that I do NOT want to involve myself in your child's
education, nor your beliefs.
>>>I force nothing. But since most of society is strait, I would think that
>>>being strait is what society should present.
>>I don't care if you even respect my relationship, or want to see
>>it, or even agree with it.
>>I do care that you want to *DENY* my rights to marry my partner
>>and live with them. That DOES impact on my life.
>Hell, I don't care if you marry your partner. This is not the debate.
Yes it was! This is what I've been talking about. For some
silly reason, you claim I'm debating you over the education of
your child!
>If you want to discuss Gays on ST then do so.
And as I stated, I believe that Star Trek should present a world
as close to reality as we have here -- gay people exist here, gay
people should exist there (note, I didn't say *promote* or
*endorse* or *encourage* or even *legitimise* gay people -- but
just present them as being present).
Also, I believe that any presentation should not be overt, but a
coincidental mention. I do not believe that homosexual public
displays of affection are suitable, as they just perpetuate the
stereotypical myths about gay people anyway.
>>I have never made such a statement. Please retract that lie.
>You said it very directly.
I have never made any statement about educating your child to
accept gays. Please retract the lie.
>>>It is you ( the minority ) that are forcing your beliefs on me.
>>No I am not. I have never and will never. However, I will force
>>onto you the fact that I do have rights, and should be able to
>>freely exercise them. You do not have to agree with the outcomes
>>of them, but that is my right. You don't even have to accept
>>them, but you have no right to stop me based solely on your
>>beliefs.
>Again, I could care less what you do. This is not the topic we are discussing.
No. You claim the topic we are discussing is "the minority
forcing beliefs onto you". I have never made such a threat, nor
have I wanted to. I don't see why you are claiming that I have,
or want to.
>>>I could not care less what you do, but you do not want to be
>>>accepted, you want everyone to believe what you are doing is good.
>>What the *FUCK* are you talking about. All I want to do is live
>>with my partner. Is that too much to ask, or is it
>>"indoctrinating your children from 12,000 miles away because a
>>queer lives with another queer"?
>Get a life.
>This is NOT THE TOPIC !!!!!
>If that is all you want to do. Great go do it, and leave this thread. This
>is specifically about GAYS ON ST.
You have seemed to consider that "indoctrinating your children"
or "indoctrinating you" are my motives. I have stated time and
time again that these are not my views. Why do you CONTINUE to
claim that they are?
>either address the topic, or take your babling to the appropriate group.
Either own up to the fact that you have been misrepresenting me
and my views, and then you have attacked those
misrepresentations, or shut the FUCK up.
>I am not a gay basher, nor do I allow it. I hope this is clear enough for you.
I never FUCKING said you were!!! I have, however, STATED that
you are MISREPRESENTING and stating things as if they are my
beliefs when they are NOT.
Are you going to keep perpetuating the lies? How would you like
it if I perpetuated the MYTH that you want to kill gays? How
would you like a LIE like that repeated over and over again.
Your statement that I want to indoctrinate you and your child are
LIES. They are MYTHS, and you keep repeating them. Please cease
claiming that they are my positions or beliefs. They ARE NOT!
Jeez... Sometimes it's really hard talking to people who do not
want to hear what you say, but instead claim that you said
somehting you never did, and then attack you for those false
claims!
Rod
Mats Andtbacka
>mc...@larscom.com (Mike McKee) writes:
[note followups BTW!]
>>>What are these "values" you claim to talk about? I contend that
>>>homosexuality or heterosexuality have nothing to do with moral
>>>values.
>>And I satate again, they are values in themselves.
>And why do you assume that one invalidates the other. They are
>both moral, when consentual acts. They are both immoral when
>they are not (rape, incest, pedophilia, etc).
With all due respect, I think you're both bound to get nowhere talking
about the morality of sexuality until you define what moral system(s)
you're using to make these value judgements in.
But then again, I'm an idiot.
--
" i hurt myself today / to see if i still feel
i focus on the pain / the only thing that's real " -- NIN
David Ousey
: ou...@mxd120.rh.psu.edu (David Ousey) writes:
:>If someone is homosexual, they are more likely to engage in homosexual
:>activity than someone who is not.
: Whoa!! Ousey manages to make two factual statements this week!
: This must be a world first.
: >As 40% of AIDS cases involve homosexual activity
: >(that is a lot of deaths), it is not a stretch to say that homosexuality
: >is dangerous.
: No. And it is clear you are blowing this out of proportion. The
: number of sex acts per transmission runs in the thousands...
: That is, that the number of safe sexual acts are quite numerous
: in comparison to the few sex acts that transmit HIV.
<statistical conjecture snipped>
You make it sound that there isn't much to worry about, unlike the
mainstream media hysterics. However, I think that rates and percentages
are irrelevent in comparison to the sheer quantity of avoidable deaths
that result from homosexual activity, IV drug use, or acting stupid.
None of the above deserves to be rationalized or defended as a result.
: Of course, the risk varies on a case-by-case basis. If you are
: one to sleep around and be unsafe, then your chances might be
: increased dramatically. For me, I have virtually zero chance of getting
: HIV from homosexual acts.
Congratulations. Note that this is at an individual level.
: >An anomaly, as I define it, is something that counteracts the intent of
: >nature. People are sometimes naturally born blind or with a mental illness.
: Nope. They are not anomalies, they are disabilities. An alien
: being born to two humans would be an anomaly. Anomalies are
: OUTCOMES that are NOT POSSIBLE.
Webster's College:
anomaly - 1. a deviation from the common type, rule, arrangement, or form;
irregularity; abnormality;
2. someone or something anomalous
Not your definition at all.
All disabilities are anomalies, but not all anomalies are disabilities.
I reiterate with all conviction and logic that homosexuality is an anomaly,
as it represents a deviation form the common human biological form that
an individual sexually responds to members of the opposite sex
: Homosexuality is not a disability. Homosexuality is not
: anomalous, as it is a predictable and common outcome of sexual
: orientation.
Homosexuality is not a disability, but it is anomalous as only one sexual
orientation is not. Left-handedness is anomolous, too, and not a disablility
but left-handed people don't seek to compromise social standards and ideals.
:>The divorce rate is at 50%, because of the selfishness and self-gratification
:>that characterized the baby-boomers who grew up (used loosely) in the late
:>'60s and 70s. That rate will likely recede, as ideals reemerge,
:>and cynicism toward marriage (and society in general) wanes.
: But *GOVERNMENT* has been promoting two-gender households as the
: IDEAL during all that time, and social policy has been set to
: ONLY recognise and reward two-parent mixed-gender households.
: That is, the past 30 years has seen government policy reflect
: what *you* want, and it has failed miserably. Why do you expect
: a continuation of this heterosexual two-parent bias will reverse
: anything or change anything at all?
Our culture does not revolve around the government as much as Liberals
would like. What happened to our culture in the 60s and 70s (some good, most
bad) should not be compounded by a surrender to cynicism, but reversed with
conviction in ideals.
: >: For some reason, Ousey believes that the sexual behaviour
: >: invalidates homosexuals from being parents (although every
: >: possible gay act can be performed by heterosexuals and often is).
: >We don't politicize our sexuality, though.
: Yes we do. Society does politicise sexuality -- it chooses to
: condemn certain ones to inequal treatment, based on prejudice and
: the inability to comprehend it or even fear of it.
It is not politicization. It is simply that procreative sex bears somes
positive relevence to society. Nothing two or more gay people together
has any such benefit. Procreation is a fundamental element of society,
not a political one. Heterosexuals do not politcize our sexuality,
especially non-procreative sex. The other socially valid sexual view
besides fundamental is medical - descibing the potential harm of a given
sex act.
:>Nor should that State form a non-medical opinion on socially irrelevent
:>(ie non-procreative) sexual acts.
: This is, however, politicising sexuality. If you believed in
: non-politicisation of sexuality, you would support the removal of
: laws which are biased on sexuality. That would start with
: legal unions being equalised (you don't have to call them
: marriage, in fact, I'd prefer it if legal union was the new term
: for legal marriage, and MARRIAGE was to refer only to the holy
: union of marriage) it would seem.
It ignores the FUNDAMENTAL fact that society requires procreative
heterosexual activity, but not anything else.
:>I beleive that the implicit exclusion of a natural parent at the
:>heart of homoseuxal unions should not be validated by society with society's
:>consent to their marriage contract.
: Which is completely invalidated by your claim that you do not
: want to politicise sexuality with law.
No. It serves to affirm the fundamental importance of social continuance.
:>:>Ah, and I could care less what YOU do in YOUR bedroom, but following your
:>:>lines of logic, I shouldn't have to see your straight behaviour
:>:>represented either.
: >It is not anomolous, and is quite necessary for the continuation of our
: >society.
: I never stated that heterosexuality was anomalous. I just stated
: that (as you agree with me) sexuality should not be politicised.
: Therefore I do not believe that public expression of your
: sexuality is required in this society -- that would be
: politicising heterosexuality....
Heterosexual courtship rituals are part of the process of affirming
social continuance - ergo their predominance. Again, not political,
fundamental.
: >Homosexuality is socially irrelevent except when its characteristic
: >behavior poses a medical danger to society.
: Of course, you conveniently exclude the facts that:
: 1) Heterosexuality is also, by virtue, socially
: irrelevant at times because of disease (and hence, it is
: not worthy of protecting by society under your
: theories).
Heterosexuality that results in diseae is medically (ergo socially) relevent.
Non procreative sex is socially irrelevent in general. But since heterosexual
activity CAN yueld a new member for society it should remain affirmed
as socially fundamental.
: 2) Positive social impacts of homosexuals are
: in existence, and you are completely incapable of
: even objectively evaluating it.
Happiness again?
: Would you agree, for example, that society is benefitted socially
: by cultural pursuits? Do you think society is socially benefitted
: by things like plays, music, prose, poetry, etc?
Homosexuality is like art? (Snicker)
: Surely the be-all and end-all of social worth is not sexual
: reproductivity capabilities, but the input each individual has
: upon society?
A homosexual person can be a great political leader, but not, I
believe, BECAUSE he is a homosexual. The input of homosexuality itself on
society is still quite irrelevent. What you are getting at here is called
character. That is what describes an individual's worth to him/herself
and society.
: >But heterosexuals are special.
: No they are not. They are just common.
And fundamentally important to society - that's the difference.
: >We are not anomolous and actually have
: >something to potentially offer society beyond disease and death.
: So do homosexuals.
In terms of sexuality, no you don't. What you do offer society is not
a function of your sexuality.
: >Homosexuality may yield happiness for some people, but happiness is
: >like religion - the State allows us to freely pursue and exercise
: >them while not VALIDATING any one defintion.
: But the state clearly does NOT offer the freedom to pursue any
: particular sexual orientation that we might have -- we have
: actively invasive laws that are discriminate and attack only
: non-heterosexual orientations. If you believe that we have the
: freedom to exist without governmental interference and with equal
: protections, then you are sadly mistaken.
And I agree with Newt that such invasive laws should be abolished.
: >: >>Question:
: >: >>Are you more likely to die earlier if you are a male homosexual
: >: >> than not?
: >But, of course, the question remains unanswered.
: I answered it. The answer was no. Didn't you see my reply? I
: even asked you if you had been reading the fallacious works of
: Paul Cameron again.
Sorry. So why the 40% figure then in the US?
I also noticed that you ignored a separate comment. If their was a natural
phenomenon or orientation that impeded free will, that is characterized by
a predisposition toward IV drug use, would you consider that phenomenon
a dangerous anomoly?
:>:>You're twisting words around completely. Being homosexual or heterosexual
:>:>or bisexual is not a choice.
: >: Yes. Ousey likes the twist game. He claims sexual orientation
: >: is not innate, yet it is clearly proven to be so. He confuses
: >: attractions and self-identity with sexual activity so often.
: >Well, Rod, you ignored bisexuality.
: No I didn't. Bisexuality is a sexual orientation, and I have
: claimed that discriminations exist against sexual orientations,
: including homosexuality. I have claimed that society
: discriminates against non-heterosexual sexual orientations (note,
: orientations, not behaviours) -- that means
: lesbianism/homosexuality and bisexuality.
: >What does the APA say about it? DO they lack free will, too?
: The APA states that freedom to choose sexual orientation is
: beyond nearly all people after early childhood -- be it
: heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual.
: >Should they have the right to marry one member of each
: >sex, lest they be discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation?
: This of course, is not the point.
Of course not.
: They should, however, have the option to marry a person of either gender.
: You currently limit them to only being able to marry one gender on the
: basis of sex-discriminatory grounds. Thank you for *validating* my
: argument. Bisexual people of 50%/50% orientation claim they love
: each gender equally, yet society denies them a choice in whom
: they can marry too, should they want to marry someone of their
: same gender. All other things considered equal that would be
: about half of them. That's an awful lot of people to add to the
: exclusive gays :)
Well I was playing devil's advocate with you. The sexual discrimination
is justified as only heterosexuality is the only fundamentally necessary
and therefore only socially relevent oreiention. But thanks for responding.
:>:>What's *sick* about physical expression of love between two people.
:>: Nothing.
: >Generally all of the AVOIDABLE diseases that results, that society has to
: >pay for.
: But in regards to diseases, all sexualities have the possibility
: of disease spreading. Further, sexually-transmissable diseases
: have nothing to do with whether two people love each other or
: want to marry each other.
: Yes, kids, it's another Ousey Red Herring (tm).
You call the avoidable 40% homosexual AIDS DEATH rate a herring? It's still
a lot of deaths.
:>:>What's sick about physical expression of attraction between two people?
:>: Nothing, if it is consentual and between two people of consenting
:>: age.
: >This definition can include incest (?).
: It might. I personally do not support incestuous relationships,
: but I do not claim to be the bedroom police either. It is you
: that were claiming that title.
Incestuals, under my wacky theories, are socially irrelevent too except
when het incestuals pose a genetic danger - then it's a medical issue.
: >Regardless, I don't care what sick things you do, as long as my kids don't
: >have to hear about it, nor ideals sacrificed.
: But ideals are already unable to be achieved with your idea of
: how society should reward certain relationships anyway!
Huh? Is this the 60s thing again? See above.
: Which comes back to the point that allowing people of the
: same-gender to seek legal rights for their union has no
: relationship or bearing to the rights and responsibilities and
: parental choices of existing heterosexual parents.
No matter if only one homosexual legal union were allowed, then that
one would serve as a social proclaimation the motherhood and fatherhood
are disposable.
:>: >Why the hell does it matter whether the people involved have penises or
:>: >vaginas?
: >: Religion, apparently. Remember, Ousey is not only a Catholic,
: >: but a "pretty screwed up one" by his own admission.
: >When they have p's and v's (blush) then the sexual behavior actuallly has
: >some positive social relevance. Otherwise, why should society form
: >a non-medical opinion about anything sexual?
: Exactly! Let's get government out of the business of regulating
: bedrooms, relationships and rights associated with unions.
Right on A and B, but not C.
: >There, no religion involved with my answer.
: And there has been none in mine :)
So you'll stop trying to dredge my religion down into this debate?
: >I like to keep my religion and my happiness far above my politics, where
: >they belong.
: But you would rather politicise sexuality, well, more precisely
: the sexuality of non-heterosexuals?
Only if the sexuality bares social relevence, see above.
: >: Of course, as facts get in the way of a good axe to grind.
: >Do either of you have the facts wrt to my comment?
: The rate of HIV deaths is about 3-4 times
: lower than the suicide rate for gay and lesbian people.
Rates are rates. I need discrete quantities, please.
: I note, however, that HIV deaths are now the MOST prevalent
: killers among heterosexual men aged 25-(something) and second or
: third for women in the same age bracket.
How so? Avoidable IV drug use? It is pretty hard to get AIDS if you're
a het man, unless your penis has open sores.
: It would seem that, for disease control reasons, society should
: ideally not validate heterosexuals and their orientation, should
: they Ousey? It might spread the disease even more, eh? After
: all, it is what you state as a reason for not allowing homosexual
: people equal access to legal unions for their relationships.
That would all be true if it were not fundamentally important to society.
:>:>Okay, then I don't want to have to see you kissing your wife goodbye when
:>:>she drops you off at work, or holding hands with her when you walk down the
:>:>street, or...
: >Too bad. Freedom of expression. Heterosexual courtship rituals are also
: >socially relevent :-)
: I actually didn't write that :) Can you please state how public
: displays of courtship improve society's social nature? I believe
: that the serve no purpose as a public display. Why bother with
: it?
It reaffirms a valid, potentially socially relevent pair bond that may
seek or have already sought to engage in a valid legal union, and serves
as a model of proper monogamous behavior for young people. There are
extreme examples of public display of course.
: >: Alternatively, Ousey won't ask when I get legally married, and I
: >: won't tell him that I am -- only on the proviso that he does the
: >: same, namely, doesn't tell me he is legally married, nor will I
: >: ask him.
: >Not gonna happen. The ring might give it away for ME though.
: Yes. Well, I have a wedding ring too. You see, you don't have
: the right to dictate what a wedding is, or what a marriage is,
: or what a union is. I have a valid and public union too, and
: society has no power to stop me from promoting that -- unless
: you propose active restrictions to my "free expression" too?
Nope. Don't care. As long as my kids don't have to hear about it.
: You see, legal recognition of unions does not have any bearing to
: their existence or promotion. The participants are the
: proponents of promotion, not the permission of the state.
Current legal marriage framework work against promoting same-sex unions,
incestual, polygamal, and pedophilial unions. Removal of one or more
of those restrictions would serve as an endorsement of what was restricted.
: >: >So homosexuals are by definition lacking in character? One's sexual
: >: >orientation has nothing to do with one's character, sirrah.
: >: See, it's easy to pull away the small layer of civility to see
: >: his loaded questions.... :)
: >They implicitly are disposed to embrace a particular set of anomolous
: >behaviors.
: Anomalous behaviours? But you claimed that only homosexuals were
: anomalous *occurences* in society.
Nope. I said that cross-eyed people were anomolous and that I was
born one of them. Got it fixed, surgically.
: Even if you claim that the acts and people are anomalous, it has
: no bearing on their job performance -- similarly, a person who is
: blind or deaf and who is capable of performing a task as well as
: someone not hindered by these disabilities should not be
: discriminated against in the work place.
: Or do you propose that these "so-called anomalies" are
: justification for not hiring people with disabilities to
: positions which they are equally able to do as visioned or
: hearing-unimpaired people?
Nope.
: The reality is that "anomaly or not" your argument does not stand
: up when applied to other "anomalies" you claim exist.
The homosexual anomaly is behavior related and is reflectie of free will.
As long as you do not CHOOSE to mention your homosexuality in the
workplace, you should not be probed, spied on, whatever...
: Job discrimination is not justifiable when the factor by which
: you are choosing to discriminate is not affecting job performance
: whatsoever. Private sexual acts have no effect on job
: performance.
Amen. Your question?
: >As long as they don't advertise their socially irrelevent
: >sexuality, then employers should not act on rumors, probing, or spying.
: But we have the freedom of expression you claim to have? Or do
: you claim that we have no right to wear a wedding ring as you do?
You do. You can also bring an Alcoholics Anonymous pin to work - same
effect.
: >I, and any Republican worth his credibility, oppose such institutional
: >power over an individual life.
: Yet you support invidious controls and stand-over tactics in the
: lives of gay and lesbian people. If you really were honest to
: this belief you wouldn't be making such authoritarian demands and
: controls on people's lives which you claim are "anomalous".
Demands? I think you even recognize by now that I don't care what
homosexuals do, and that I am only intersted in upholding ideals
as I see them. If society at large disagrees with me then that's OK.
I am simply making myself heard.
: Republicans claim that the right to choose, and fundamental
: freedoms and equalities are the basis of their tenets of belief.
: If that is the case, then you hardly live up to the freedoms
: espoused by your party's founders (have you read them) nor your
: claimed political beliefs.
We also believe that ideals need not be needlessly sacrificed to make
people happy. We all equally have the same freedom to marry only one other
non-related adult of the opposite sex. That's equality - it's just not
making you happy.
: >The most important benefit TO SOCIETY of a marriage is a new member of
: >society.
: Yes, but it is not the only benefit, nor is it the only reason for
: people choosing to marry. Society clearly endorses marriages
: which do not benefit society at all already. They endorse them
: on the basis of the freedom of two people to choose to marry.
True.
: If you were honest about this belief, you should follow up your
: beliefs by removing all access to marriage to all infertile
: people and to post-reproductive people. Further, you should
: automatically have the state annul marriages should two people
: not have children by the time they are post-reproductive, or if
: they do have children, to the time that they are post-reproductive
: or until their youngest child reaches maturity at age 18,
: whichever is the latter (that way people who reach
: post-reproductive point yet still are caring for children will
: still have marriage until their youngest child is free of parental
: control at 18). Further, should two people who are heterosexual adopt,
: they shall be granted a marriage which shall expire after the
: last child they have turns 18 years of age.
: This is the only IDEAL social construct of marriage under your
: system, as it eliminates all non-socially-beneficial marriages.
: This is only fair, under your system. Further, it will be
: protecting MOTHER and FATHERHOOD, as it is clear that those who
: have been granted marriages and abuse them by not parenting
: children should not be granted marriage rights, as they are
: clearly promoting motherlessness and fatherlessness (i.e., that
: it's beneficial to not be a mother or a father at all!)
I did not say procreation was the most important element of marriage,
I said that a new member of society was the most important potential
element of State marriage. That takes care of the infertility BS as
couples may adopt. As for expiring marriage licences (grin), I also
did not say reproduction was the ONLY benefit to society, as you
point out. Having a will, naming next of kin, acting as a legal unit, etc
is good too, even after the lat child turns 18. It is just not worth the
sacrifice of ideals to do this for homosexual unions for reasons stated
previously.
: >This should not have to be made explicit in any law - it is simply a
: >VALUE that the majority of society holds.
: Wait, didn't you just say that marriages should be validated if
: they can prove to be socially beneficial? Now you are claiming
: that it is not that at all, but majoritarianism!
NO, not PROVEN socially beneficial. Hets are implicitly socially
beneficial. Homs are not. Again, homs could benefit society with
a legal union but this gain is not worth the sacrifice of ideals.
: >: 2) Marriage is a contract with the state (reality:
: >: it is a contract which is assigned benefits by the
: >: state, and has two parties to -- easy assumption to
: >: throw around is that if you marry in Germany, the US
: >: is *NOT* a party to the entering into the contract,
: >: but still assigns benefits to the marriage.)
: >The State gets to choose the framework for gaining its consent.
: >These four standards involve disctrimination based on the age, sex, famial
: >status, and number of the parties attempting to enter into the
: >marriage contract.
: Only three of the abovementioned are clearly justifiable. Do you
: not understand your basic constitutional interpretations that
: there must be compelling state interests to discriminate?
: Age discrimination (i.e. a minimum age) is justifiable, as
: children are not able to accurately make informed decisions at
: young ages, so we set an age limit at which they cannot marry to
: reflect this inability to decide rationally or legally. This is
: arbitrarily, but fairly, set to follow patterns of maturity.
Agreed. The arbitrariness is also only justified if an equal amount
of rights and responsibilities are traded off.
: Familial status (i.e. existing direct relations with a family
: member) is also justifiable, as there are serious scientific
: concerns about genetic defects and the risks of such,
Not with homosexuals.
: and the factor that the people are already in a close union of the family
: bond and the protections already provided to that relationship by
: family law.
Sounds more like a silly legal technicality that should prevent two brothers
or 8 sisters who real love each other from being discriminated against (?)
: The number of parties (i.e. the restriction to two people) is
: also somewhat justifiable, on the basis that the right to marry x
: persons is not a denial of the right to marry at all, as one may
: still exercise the right to marry one person, and that is not
: discrimination into the entry into the institution of marriage
: per se.
Huh? I can claim, using the same logic, that you do have the right to
marry, as long as its with a member of the opposite sex.
: Sex discrimination (i.e. deliberately removing half of the
: population by default of their gender) is not justifiable. In
: the other examples, there have been solid reasons to justify the
: state's imposition into the case as two are not genetic-based
: factors, and the third (familial relationship) is genetically
: based and already protected by the fact of lineage. Given that
: sex is an unchangeable and immutable characteristic like race or
: any other genetically-determined factor, it would seem that
: denying a person the opportunity to enter into a union solely
: based on their sex is sex discrimination.
True.
: That is, if someone loves a man, then if that person is a woman she is
: given the right to marry that man, but if that person is a man then he is
: denied that same right. This is pervasive discrimination based
: not upon the validity of the love of the relationship, or even
: the sexual orientation of the people, but of the respective
: genders.
True.
: This is akin to similar discriminations of the past.
: If someone loved a person who was negroid, then if that person
: was negroid they would be allowed to marry them, but if they were
: white, they were not allowed. Even though the love was the same,
: and the desire to marry and choice to marry was the same, one was
: denied the chance to marry based solely on the race of one being
: denied the right to marry a different race under public policy.
False. Sexual diversity is fundamental to social continuance, race is not.
: This is the argument found in the case of Baehr v Lewin.
(If this refers to homosexuality) They were wrong.
: >Similarly, business contracts and licenses require the parties to obey
: >commerce laws.
: But commercial laws are not sex discriminate or family
: discriminate or numerically discriminated. There is an age
: discrimination of course, based on the same reason. In one fell
: swoop, you have again validated *freedom* to choose in marriage,
: rather than the state's ability to pervasively discriminate in
: marriage.
By the same token, you also think I've validated incest and polygamy
in the same swoop - that is EXACTLY the reason why I don't see only homo-
and heterosexual non-related couples being allowed to marry while others
are fairly excluded. Obviously the marriage contract is different and
more special than a business contract as the marriage institution represents
the building blocks of society - AKA familes, paying special attention to
the fundamental impotance of sexual diversity in this situation.
: >: 3) Gay people are unable to be fit parents (reality:
: >: they are fit, and it's provable)
: >I have never said that gays can't make great parents.
: You have, of course, implied that they are not ideal, which means
: that they are somehow *lesser* at parenting.
They are unideal, and am sorry if I conveyed that they were lesser
parents.
: If you trulythought that they could be good parents, then you would not be
: making such benign statements like the fact that they should not
: or cannot parent.
They should not parent with society's endorsement of a legal same-sex union.
I believe that the exclusiveness of a natural parent is also worthy of
valid criticism - even though the kids may turn out great.
: >If you propose a standard revolving around the ability to parent,
: >then you must be consistent and acknowledge that incestuals and
: >polygamists can make swell parents, too.
: Polygamy, in the broadest sense, would not affect parenting. The
: closest social example of a poly-parent relationship with a child
: is one of an extended family, and they work quite well -- where
: parents are supplemented by other relatives in the parenting
: process. Would that be not *ideal* in your world?
Yes. It of course is not polygamy, but a free choice among related nuclear
families to cohabit. So you admit they can be good parents, too. Thanks.
: Incestuous relationships directly with the child during custody
: are clearly not in the best interest of the child. That was a
: very stupid question to ask. A parent having an incestuous
: relationship with their child would of course affect their
: ability to parent that child -- however, if that parent was
: having an affair with his own sister, or her own brother, and that
: relationship was unknown to the child and kept out of the
: parenting process, then I cannot see how *that* particular case
: would affect the ability to parent.
So you admit that they can be good parents, too. Thanks.
: The fact is that parental ability is an individual-by-individual
: assessment, and the reality is that any parent-to-child abusive
: relationship is not good parenting. The private affairs and
: relations of a parent are irrelevant to the ability to parent.
Thanks. So can we stop arguing about parental ability?
: >: 4) Children need mothers and fathers (reality: this
: >: is not the case, and if it were, then gay couples
: >: would be better than single families -- as single
: >: families do not have one gender, and only have one
: >: of the other gender, and gay couples may have the
: >: same absent gender, but has DOUBLE the other gender
: >: and hence is superior to single families -- yet we
: >: completely condone and allow single families to exist).
: >I agree that gay couples may have an advantage over single parents, but
: >the State does not attempt to reward single parents who are not married.
: But it does reward single parents with legal protections.
I don't consider protections as rewards. Do you have specific protections
in mind?
: >(Welfare may currently subsidize this lifestyle, but that will soon end.)
: I wasn't referring to welfare.
: >Regardless, the two sexes are not identical, and the differences usually
: >relate directly to to reproduction and child raising. Society should not
: >take a position to spell out gender roles, but society does VALUE this
: >natural sexual diversity and CONDEMNS the implicit social disposablility
: >of motherhood and fatherhood that homosexual unions suggest.
: Of course, will you be taking away children from single parents
: if a spouse dies? Or will you compel and force a single parent
: to remarry in a specific time frame?
Nope. Single parenting is allowable, but not endorsable. Dan Quayle
was right to criticize those who choose that "lifestyle".
: >: 5) Homosexuality is "sick", "wrong", "unnatural", a
: >: "natural anomaly", etc, etc (reality: homosexuality
: >: is completely naturally occuring, and an innate
: >: part of humanity, and is not anomalous in any way
: >: as part of human conditioning or life).
: >I have described homosexuality as "socially irrelevent" and a "natural
: >anomoly".
: Which it isn't, but I will let you go on.
: >Disease is also naturally occuring and an innate part of humanity.
: >Polygamy among males is also natural but is more of a cultural
: >anomoloy (in Western culture).
: You have yet to look at a dictionary to see the definition of
: anomaly. Homosexuality is not an anomaly, but a quite regularly
: occuring phenomenon.
Looked it up. What does your dictionary say?
: >WE do not have institutionalized polygamy
: >in our society becuase we VALUE our females equally, even though polygamy
: >may yield more members for society (ie socially relevent).
: But we have institutionalised poly-parenting through extended
: families! Or will you be outlawing grandparenthood to stop
: extra meddling people who would want to provide parenting input?
Already addressed. Extended families = related nuclear families choosing to
cohabit.
: >I have decribed homosexual behavior as "sick" and "wrong" as easily as I
: >would with IV drug use, which leads to fewer deaths in the US.
: Homosexuality leads to fewer deaths than heterosexuality. The
: reality is that more heterosexuals die than homosexuals each
: year!
THat's because there are more of us. :*>
: >: 6) Homosexuality is disease-ridden (reality: HIV
: >: affects one in 100 people in the US, and affects
: >: 20,000,000 people worldwide -- about 95+% of
: >: which are heterosexual.
:>It is the most preventable disease. All it takes is an exercise of
:>free will.
: Which free will is that? There is no free and voluntary choice
: to change sexual identity which is ingrained from early
: childhood, nor does curbing behaviour work nor does aversion to
: it, nor does treatment of it as one would with an addiction.
: I wish more heterosexuals would realise they are screwing
: themselves into oblivion each day, they should stop having sex!
The free will I am referring to consists of IV users to not put a
needle into their arm, heterosexuals to not have sex when they have
sores on there genitalia, and males or females to not bend over for
an anally bound penis.
If all of the above happened, wouldn't there be a lot less suffering?
: >: Further, sexually trans-
: >: mitted disease have nothing to do with marriage or
: >: parenting, except that they normally reduce the
: >: incidence of disease -- a positive benefit for both
: >: unmarried straights and gays).
: >Ideals, again, would have to be sacrificed for a small gain.
: Small gain? But you claim that HIV is the leading killer of gays
: (which is false, anyway).
When did I say that?
: If you claim disease control is so important, and is SOCIALLY important,
: then there is social importance to providing legal and social
: encouragements to gay and UNMARRIED heterosexuals.
That would serve as a surrender of ideals, like giving clean hypos
to IV drug users. No thanks. Society should simply advance my free will
speech as above. It's cheaper than surrendering ideals.
: >: Yes. Children will be rag-dolls, or so he thinks. The reality
: >: is that the APA has shown that children of gay and lesbian
: >: parents are identical in outcome and development as the
: >: children of heterosexuals -- and they probably are more loving
: >: and tolerant and understanding of diversity rather than closed
: >: minded and insular.
: >Again, an ideal would be sacrificed and any quantity,type, or species
: >of parenting can yield equal results.
: The reality is that ideal or not -- your model is instituting
: social restrictions which will not improve society, only limit it
: to something even narrower in scope, and narrower in diversity,
: than it is today.
By eliminating the current sexual diversity inherent in marriage that
is fundamentally important to society?
: >: If anything, all the gay people who have been hiding in the
: >: straight closet come out at age 40+ and they have a straight
: >: marriage and kids....
: >Socially irrelevent.
: You mean them, or the misery they leave the families in because
: you force them into heterosexuality in the first place? Isn't
: this just evidence of what will happen under your ideal world?
Force them into heterosexuality? (grin)
: You claimed that there is some biological clock inside of
: me that wants children. If you remove a homosexual's right to
: parent except in a heterosexual marriage, then guess what --
: there is going to be an INFLUX of gays marrying into heterosexual
: relationships solely to satisfy this "biological clock" that you
: claim ticks in all of us.
: That means *MORE* broken homes, broken families, deceived
: spouses, and disillusioned children. Further, gay people will
: not be accidental straights, as they are now, but quite
: deliberate and calculating in their decision to parent to produce
: offspring.
Then the issue does not become one of marriage but of quality of
parenting, which I believe we have successfully separated.
: I am sure that there will be a large number of
: socially-responsible gay people out there (well, what might be
: left of social responsibility after you choose to eliminate most
: of it), who will marry a gay man to a lesbian so that they may
: have their children...
Whatever blows your dress up...
: Maybe you had better rethink your theory -- time to add a
: proposal to limit self-identifying homosexuals from marrying
: people of the OPPOSITE gender too!
Don't care. You and your partner can marry two lesbians legally, and never
see them again for all I care, while you line happily ever after with your
partner. The lesbians can go off and have kids, too. I will feel rest assured
because you or your partner are legally responsible for those kids.
: >: I wonder if Ousey has considered the ramifications of a gay
: >: parent in his perfect male-female parenting unit!
: >You mean the implicit exclusion of a natural parent and the lack of a
: >social guarantee that a role model of each sex has legal responsibility
: >over the children? Yes, I have noted the ramifications.
: No, the implication that not all heterosexual unions have
: heterosexually oriented people.
Don't care.
: >: What will he do with the parents who are gay who are forced to
: >: hide who they are, and hence have children? Will the children
: >: feel worthless, as he claims children of gays will feel worthless
: >: and "discardable".
: >Discardible descibes the excluded sex parent. I have never described
: >children that way.
: But it's not the gay person's problem if his wife or her husband
: discovers that she is homosexually or bisexually oriented.
: Nor is it the state's right to regulate that, or are you
: proposing that too? Are you going to stop gay people from
: marrying members of the opposite sex too?
Nope.
: >: Oh yes, Ousey's wonderful social experiment has holes in it!
: >Promoting ideals beats out yielding to cynicism.
: Cynicism? I am not a cynic, I am a critic. Promoting ideals
: isn't what this is all about. It's enforcing ideals. Current
: society promotes ideals already, but recognises that other unions
: do exist and are valid in their own rights. You want to change
: this to remove the valid existence of the other unions, and
: solely promote one type of union -- and you are doing it under
: the guise of the fact that it is ideal!
As you are wanting to solely promote only two types of unions.
Isn't that hypocritical, or do you deny that there is an anti-
incestual ideal that the STate should enforce.
:>At least our discussion, or any political discussion, should be about ideals,
:>not the apparent futility of pursuing them.
: No, political discussions, and discussions about society, should
: not be limited to idealism, but be focused on dealing with
: reality as society exists now, and meeting the needs of all of
: society, not just a select few which you consider to be ideal.
You have no NEED to marry a man LEGALLY, you simply WANT it to
make you happy.
: >That's not the Star Trek spirit.
: Star Trek encourages diversity. You encourage elimination of
: diversity by branding it to be against what is ideal. Most of
: the world is not ideal, Ousey.
But, don't we want to shape a better world for future generations?
(Eegads, we're almost starting to actually talk about Star Trek)
: It is a shame you have not recognised that. Your idealism reminds
: me of the type of idealism that a government tries to promote by
: passing laws against consentual sex acts -- which do nothing to
: reflect reality, but only seek to criminalise what it considers
: to be not ideal.
One ideal that I share is that the State have no opinion on socially
irrelevnet behavior. This would include ost consentual sex acts. See,
that was an ideal. I just think that many of the things you
believe are your ideals. Political debate should be about the sharing
of ideals and deciding on which ideals advance the cause of society
the best. I really don't think we disagree, here - just that you seem
turned of to the word "ideal".
: ... or the type of government which seeks to legislate speech and
: restrict it, because some people do not speak of things that are
: ideal for society.
Another ideal is the First Amendment.
: ... or the type of government that passes laws limiting the
: number of offspring you may have so that the population may be
: *ideal*.
Restricting freedoms is not ideal.
: These are all futile laws, as they try to enshrine only one
: possibility of millions -- in effect removing diversity.
Diversity is ideal. Enclaving and self-segregation based on group identity
(characterizing the current multicultural craze) is not. Sexual diversity
within legal marriage is.
: I prefer realism over idealism. Idealism is for ideas, which the
: world does not exist in, and realism is for reality, which the
: world exists in.
I'm not sure that was the rallying cry of the American Revolution. :->
Or of Martin Luther King etc...
: Too bad you have such a narrow and undiverse view of what is
: beneficial for society.
If you say so...
Next time, I'm going to start chopping some of the deadwood. (Parenting
ability etc...) as this is getting far too long.
OOZMAN
Lisa Smith
> Rod Swift (be...@fohnix.metronet.com) wrote:
> : bn...@galaxy.csc.calpoly.edu (Barbara Lynne Nash) writes:
>
> : >You have yet to provide a convincing argument that homosexuality is either
> : >anomalous or dangerous.
>
> : Yes. This is true. Ousey has a hard time separating sexual
> : activity from sexual orientation, from love, and parenting.
>
> If someone is homosexual, they are more likely to engage in homosexual
> activity than someone who is not. As 40% of AIDS cases involve homosexual
> activity (that is a lot of deaths), it is not a stretch to say that
> homosexuality is dangerous.
I suppose you *COULD* say that about male homosexuality (note I AM NOT
agreeing with your assumption), but what about female homosexuality?
Do tell me the breakdown in AIDS cases involving MALE homosexuality
versus FEMALE homosexuality? You cannot then say that overall,
homosexuality is dangerous. If you are going to use percentages to
support your claims, you need to consider ALL the percentages, not just
the ones you can twist to support your generalizations.
For that matter, what accounts for the other 60% of AIDS cases?
And what diseases result from my love for my significant other, who is
also female?
> : >What's sick about physical expression of attraction between two people?
>
> : Nothing, if it is consentual and between two people of consenting
> : age.
>
> This definition can include incest (?).
>
> Regardless, I don't care what sick things you do, as long as my kids don't
> have to hear about it, nor ideals sacrificed.
>
> : >Why the hell does it matter whether the people involved have penises or
> : >vaginas?
>
> : Religion, apparently. Remember, Ousey is not only a Catholic,
> : but a "pretty screwed up one" by his own admission.
>
> When they have p's and v's (blush) then the sexual behavior actuallly has
> some positive social relevance. Otherwise, why should society form
> a non-medical opinion about anything sexual?
>
So are you saying that the only positive social relevance is when
conception occurs or has the potential to occur as a result of heterosexual
sex? Would you say then that sexual behavior that does NOT lead to
conception, or does not have the potential for conception is not
considered to have "some positive social relevance"?
> : >Okay, then I don't want to have to see you kissing your wife goodbye when
> : >she drops you off at work, or holding hands with her when you walk down the
> : >street, or...
>
> Too bad. Freedom of expression. Heterosexual courtship rituals are also
> socially relevent :-)
Heterosexual courtship rituals are as socially relevant as homosexual
courtship rituals. Freedom of Expression.
> The most important benefit TO SOCIETY of a marriage is a new member of
> society. Ideally, society should work toward having all of its members
> originating from the marriage institution with a mother AND a father.
>
> This should not have to be made explicit in any law - it is simply a
> VALUE that the majority of society holds.
No problem. My partner and I have every intention of having children,
and the childrens Father or a father figure will provide the children
with that role model that society deems necessary.
>
> : 2) Marriage is a contract with the state (reality:
> : it is a contract which is assigned benefits by the
> : state, and has two parties to -- easy assumption to
> : throw around is that if you marry in Germany, the US
> : is *NOT* a party to the entering into the contract,
> : but still assigns benefits to the marriage.)
>
> The State gets to choose the framework for gaining its consent. These four
> standards involve disctrimination based on the age, sex, famial status, and
> number of the parties attempting to enter into the marriage contract.
> Similarly, business contracts and licenses require the parties to obey
> commerce laws.
>
So the state in its services discriminates based on gender? Hmmmmm...
> : 6) Homosexuality is disease-ridden (reality: HIV
> : affects one in 100 people in the US, and affects
> : 20,000,000 people worldwide -- about 95+% of
> : which are heterosexual.
>
> It is the most preventable disease. All it takes is an exercise of free will.
What has that to do with homosexuality?
And what does all this have to do with startrek?
Lisa
David Ousey
: In article <3o5ptf$c...@hearst.cac.psu.edu>
: ou...@mxd120.rh.psu.edu (David Ousey) writes:
:
: >But heterosexuals are special. We are not anomolous and actually have
: >something to potentially offer society beyond disease and death.
: population.
Yawn. Are your going to offer a population control proposal then or just
complain about how third world government lack the effecient resource
distribution systems found in countries like America?
: As for your implication that homosexuals can only offer disease and
: death to society, it simply isn't true. I have gay friends who offer
: just as much to society as anyone else I know. They're normal, decent
: people that you might even like... imagine that.
I have liked many homosexuals in my brief life so far, but not BECAUSE
they were homosexual. What homosexuals do offer to society is not a
function of their anomalous sexuality.
: Read some of _The Coming Plague_ or _And the Band Played On_ and you'll
: see that there is no medical basis for the uniquely American myth that
: AIDS is a "gay disease" -- and you'll also realize that thousands of
: people have died needlessly because too many Americans believed the same
: lies you've been told.
The blood crisis in the 80s of course was a big mistake, nut those people
had no control over whether or not they got AIDS. Now that the blood supply
is relatively safe, we have to focus on the peopl who do control whether
or not they get AIDS. It is not a gay disease, but it is LARGELY a gay disease
lest homosexual special interest groups would not use this medical issue
for political exploit. Why do they do so?
: Gays haven't brought death to us. Lies and fear and hatred have.
Irresponsibility in general has brought the death.
: Gina
OOZMAN
John A. Kilpatrick
>You make it sound that there isn't much to worry about, unlike the
>mainstream media hysterics. However, I think that rates and percentages
>are irrelevent in comparison to the sheer quantity of avoidable deaths
>that result from homosexual activity, IV drug use, or acting stupid.
>None of the above deserves to be rationalized or defended as a result.
The point is that your insistence that AIDS is a gay disease is just plain
wrong! You keep on refering to the 'medial consequences' of homosexuality
and yet those same consequences can come from heterosexual sex. Even worse,
heterosexual sex can produce diseased children.
>I reiterate with all conviction and logic that homosexuality is an anomaly,
>as it represents a deviation form the common human biological form that
>an individual sexually responds to members of the opposite sex
Again, I ask you to do something that you seem to be unable to do: PROVE IT!
PROVE that the common norm is only opposite-sex attraction. PROVE that it is
an anomaly.
>Homosexuality is not a disability, but it is anomalous as only one sexual
>orientation is not. Left-handedness is anomolous, too, and not a disablility
>but left-handed people don't seek to compromise social standards and ideals.
Now are you suggesting that left-handed people are morally wrong if they use
their left hands and give in to their left-handed tendencies? :-)
>It is not politicization. It is simply that procreative sex bears somes
>positive relevence to society. Nothing two or more gay people together
>has any such benefit.
Hey, remember, as I've said before, even the Church says that procreation isn't
the ONLY purpose of sex anymore.
Also, what about two people that get married and decide not to have kids?
>It ignores the FUNDAMENTAL fact that society requires procreative
>heterosexual activity, but not anything else.
And yet time and time again it's been proved that there is more to sex than
just procreation.
>Heterosexuality that results in diseae is medically (ergo socially) relevent.
>Non procreative sex is socially irrelevent in general. But since heterosexual
>activity CAN yueld a new member for society it should remain affirmed
>as socially fundamental.
I can't believe that you are simply limiting human sexuality to making babies.
Are you truly that dense?
>You call the avoidable 40% homosexual AIDS DEATH rate a herring? It's still
>a lot of deaths.
Again, what about the other 60%. And if you wanna shoot stats around, then
just look at the way things are going. Homosexuals will soon be a pretty
small percentage...
> No matter if only one homosexual legal union were allowed, then that
>one would serve as a social proclaimation the motherhood and fatherhood
>are disposable.
Hardly. You seem to think that once you make this proclaimation that all the
heterosexual couples would become homosexuals. There will always be procreative
sex. But by affirming the idea that two people can love each other, regardless
of sex, you help to increase diversity.
>Rates are rates. I need discrete quantities, please.
You, Mr. 40% want discrete rates.
>How so? Avoidable IV drug use? It is pretty hard to get AIDS if you're
>a het man, unless your penis has open sores.
Tell that to Magic.
>Nope. Don't care. As long as my kids don't have to hear about it.
If your kids are not intelligent enough to form their own opinions when given
guidence (and true guidence, not teaching on how to be a homobasher) then
I guess they're pretty stupid.
>Nope. I said that cross-eyed people were anomolous and that I was
>born one of them. Got it fixed, surgically.
Can't wait to see that left-handed surgery.
>The homosexual anomaly is behavior related and is reflectie of free will.
>As long as you do not CHOOSE to mention your homosexuality in the
>workplace, you should not be probed, spied on, whatever...
Then the same rules should apply to heterosexuals. I don't wanna hear about
your girlfriend, you kids, your wedding plans, or what you think of that chick
by the water cooler.
>The free will I am referring to consists of IV users to not put a
>needle into their arm, heterosexuals to not have sex when they have
>sores on there genitalia, and males or females to not bend over for
>an anally bound penis.
And homosexuals have the free will to not have sex with someone who is infected,
hasn't been tested, and/or won't use a condom. Your point?
>But, don't we want to shape a better world for future generations?
>(Eegads, we're almost starting to actually talk about Star Trek)
Yes, but since your views aren't going to make the world a better place, it's
kinda irrelevant.
--
******************************John A. Kilpatrick*******************************
* "Tsuki ni kawatte...oshiokiyo!" | I do not speak for ACS, UC Davis, or *
* Bishoujo Senshi Sailor Moon | anyone else. You have been warned. *
***************************jaki...@engr.ucdavis.edu***************************
Gina Goff
>something to potentially offer society beyond disease and death.
population.
death to society, it simply isn't true. I have gay friends who offer
just as much to society as anyone else I know. They're normal, decent
people that you might even like... imagine that.
AIDS is a "gay disease" -- and you'll also realize that thousands of
people have died needlessly because too many Americans believed the same
lies you've been told.
Andrew Hall
Publius> Since homosexuals do not reproduce themselves, I imagine
Publius> by then they will be extinct. I think now they are on the
Publius> endangered species lists - what with HIV and stuff like
Publius> that. PUBLIUS
Here is a hint --- gays are born to hets. They
will never die out.
ah
=======================================================================
You don't make money in politics. Or, I should say --- you
shouldn't.
-- Marilyn Quayle.
Len Freedman
: Since homosexuals do not reproduce themselves, I imagine by then
: they will be extinct.
There is a _huge_ hole in this logic! If they were going to go extinct
because they didn't reproduce, they would have done so thousands of years
ago!
: I think now they are on the endangered species
: lists - what with HIV and stuff like that. PUBLIUS
AIDS is bad enough, but if you take the long view, the number of gays
killed by AIDS is insignificant compared to the number killed by
intolerant bigots. Frankly, I feel safer surrounded by HIV-positive gays
than by pseudo-Christian moralists. HIV is deadly, but at least I know
how to protect myself from it!
--
--
Len Freedman (le...@netcom.com)
Andy Bates
med...@falcon.cc.ukans.edu (Mike S. Medintz) wrote:
> 2) AIDS isn't a gay disease. A friend of mine, who happens to be
> straight, died of AIDS two days ago.
One quick question: of all the people you have heard about in the media
who have died of AIDS, what percentage of them were gay?
Thank you.
Andy Bates.
Conrad Sabatier
Groovy Lizard
: lists - what with HIV and stuff like that. PUBLIUS
Aahhhh, more conservatoid fact denial. How in the frick did current
homosexuals get here? I know that those genetical engineering companies
are pretty amazing to the layperson, but I don't think they can grow
humans them from a petri dish (yet).
I'll bet they came from hetero parents. Gee, biology is soooo sofistikated.
-Gary
Chairman Mao
Sir, I contend that certain people, such as the person to whom you have just
refered, actually _like_ having their heads jammed up their asses. It makes
them feel secure, it reminds them of the whom, perhaps. Maybe they like the
smell.
--
* Bill and Opus for President in '96 * Cuz we NEED a dead cat and a penguin *
*:::::::::::: Moloko Synthmesc Plus... It does a body good! ::::::::::::::::*
* Boycott Pizza Hut: ! Get real kind ! Go stick your *
* Who likes burned cardboard ! and... ! Head in a *
* and catsup anyways? ! =============> ! Pig *
John A. Kilpatrick
>: The point is that your insistence that AIDS is a gay disease is just plain
>: wrong! You keep on refering to the 'medial consequences' of homosexuality
>: and yet those same consequences can come from heterosexual sex.
>Much rarlier.
Not really. Go lood at CDC HIV stats and get a clue.
>: Again, I ask you to do something that you seem to be unable to do: PROVE IT!
>: PROVE that the common norm is only opposite-sex attraction. PROVE that it is
>: an anomaly.
>The defintion of anomaly (available in any dictionary) conforms to what I
>am saying. Even Rod says heterosexuality is COMMON. I ask you, why do
>humans have gentalia and reproductive organs if it is not for reproductive
>purposes? Homosexuality interferes with the naturally intended sexual response
>to members of the opposite sex. You do understand why humans and animals in
>general are meant to respond to members of the opposite sex, don't you?
Hmmm...I thoght that we had evolved beyong animals. Some may not have. I
will admit that sex does have a procreative aspect, but given then nature of
sentience, humans have taken it beyond that.
>: Now are you suggesting that left-handed people are morally wrong if they use
>: their left hands and give in to their left-handed tendencies? :-)
>The issue in general is IRRESPONSIBLE activity, whether
>it refers to IV drug use, homosexual/bisexual acitivity, or stupid heterosexual
>actvity with high risk partners.
Interesting...you make ALL homosexual/bisexual acts irresponsible. How so?
If your definition of anomaly is a deviation from a statistical norm, then
fine. My father often jokes that tenors are 'deviants' in that we have a
voice box that is substantially different from the 'average' man. I guess you
could call that an anomaly.
>I concur. Sex with an animal can yield great contentment and pleasure.
>My point was that such HAPPINESS has nothing to do with society as society
>gives us the freedom to pursue our own defintition of happiness - the
>same way with religion.
Ah. I get it. Happiness is futile. You will be assimilated.
>: Also, what about two people that get married and decide not to have kids?
>The potential is always there for them to change their minds and/or
>adopt. My point was that since the potential for children to result was the
>most important facet of marrige (which Rod also seems to agree with) then
>it is fundamental that a MOTHER AND a FATHER be PRESENT to GUARANTEE the
>presence of legally responsible gender role models who are legally responsible.
>Any other arrangement implies a social condonement of an exclusion or a
>lack of immediacy on the part of a natural parent or parents.
Again, what about a marriage that does not produce children? In other words,
you're saying that only marriages that produce offspring are socially valueable.
>: Again, what about the other 60%. And if you wanna shoot stats around, then
>: just look at the way things are going. Homosexuals will soon be a pretty
>: small percentage...
>When? Homosexual alarmists have been saying that for the last 10 years.
>The ultimate cause of AIDS is irresponsible behavior in almost 100% of the
>cases.
True. The HIV virus doesn't care who you're sleeping with. So as soon as
you disabuse yourself of the notion that it's a homosexual disease, and realize
that ANYONE can get it, then you'll be better off.
>: Hardly. You seem to think that once you make this proclaimation that all the
>: heterosexual couples would become homosexuals.
>Have I said that? You have said you believe in logic. Why, then attempt to
>caricature everything that challeneges your accepted logic? Society makes
>an implicit statement in everything it does - whether it involves
>defending rights or promoting the general welfare.
And you seem to fear that allowing homosexual unions would promote people
abandoning the traditional family...something that is happening already.
>: There will always be procreative sex. But by affirming the idea that
>: two people can love each other, regardless of sex, you help to increase
>: diversity.
>Diversity, scmiversity. The implicit fundamental sexual diverstiy in the
>current marriage schema would be eliminated solely in favor of making
>homosexuals happy. The anomalous diversity that you would promote
>would have to be at the expense of ideals. Not going to happen.
Explain to me how allowing homosexuals to get married would prevent
heterosexuals from doing the same? In fact, it might promote stable
relationships by having homosexuals move away from one night stands and towards
more traditional structures.
And you say that I 'caricature everything that challenges your accepted logic'?
>Connie Chung did. 'You know it is pretty rare for heterosexual men to
>receive AIDS' He maintained that that was what happened. It's still
>rare, no matter how popular it is with the Liberal media. More people still
>die from the flu, but we don't shove cameras into the faces of flu
>victims. Must be the avoibalbility factor.
Agreed. But you seem to indicate that this avoidibility factor is different
for homoesexuals than it is for heterosexuals. It isn't. Safer Sex =
use a condom (or dam or whatever) Safest Sex = no Sex.
>:And homosexuals have the free will to not have sex with someone who is
>:infected, hasn't been tested, and/or won't use a condom. Your point?
>Then why isn't that the MAINSTREAM media message? Why are homosexuals
>responsible for 40% of AIDS deaths?
That IS the mainstream media safe-sex message. What rock have you been under?
>You will freely offer your views. And I will offer my ideals fairly in the
>arena of public discourse. If they are rejected then that is fine. I still
>don't see how homosexual genetic scanning will be avoidable, though.
>Maybe most anomolies will be gone by the 24th Century, No one will miss them
>and the galaxy will be a happier place.
Dream On Tampon. You're talking about something like in Demolition Man, not
Star Trek.
Barbara Lynne Nash
>Rod Swift (be...@fohnix.metronet.com) wrote:
>: ou...@mxd120.rh.psu.edu (David Ousey) writes:
>
>
>You make it sound that there isn't much to worry about, unlike the
>mainstream media hysterics. However, I think that rates and percentages
>are irrelevent in comparison to the sheer quantity of avoidable deaths
>that result from homosexual activity, IV drug use, or acting stupid.
>None of the above deserves to be rationalized or defended as a result.
You fail to point out that heterosexual sex results in more cases of HIV
than homosexual sex. What about the sheer quantity of avoidable deaths
that result from heterosexual activity?
>Homosexuality is not a disability, but it is anomalous as only one sexual
>orientation is not. Left-handedness is anomolous, too, and not a disablility
>but left-handed people don't seek to compromise social standards and ideals.
Let's see, extrapolating from the above... only one variation of an activity
can be considered non-anomalous.
Left-handed people are no longer discriminated against. They were in the
past. People got smart and realized how stupid they'd been acting regarding
left-handedness.
>It ignores the FUNDAMENTAL fact that society requires procreative
>heterosexual activity, but not anything else.
This is bull. Society needs a helluva lot more than procreation, bud.
> But since heterosexual
>activity CAN yueld a new member for society it should remain affirmed
>as socially fundamental.
Yes, but not the ONLY socially fundamental function of intimate relations.
>A homosexual person can be a great political leader, but not, I
>believe, BECAUSE he is a homosexual. The input of homosexuality itself on
>society is still quite irrelevent. What you are getting at here is called
>character. That is what describes an individual's worth to him/herself
>and society.
And therefore, homosexuals can be just as socially productive as hets,
because they, too, have character.
>: >But heterosexuals are special.
>: No they are not. They are just common.
>And fundamentally important to society - that's the difference.
For the record, are you claiming that reproduction is the only way one
can be socially necessary?
>: >We are not anomolous and actually have
>: >something to potentially offer society beyond disease and death.
>: So do homosexuals.
>In terms of sexuality, no you don't. What you do offer society is not
>a function of your sexuality.
No, it's not. Therefore, one's sexuality has nothing to do with how
socially relevant one is.
Therefore, homosexuals are not by definition socially irrelevant.
>is justified as only heterosexuality is the only fundamentally necessary
>and therefore only socially relevent oreiention. But thanks for responding.
But Ousey, you just said up there that one's contributions to society have
nothing to do with one's sexuality. How can only hets be socially relevant
if social relevance has nothing to do with sexuality?
>You call the avoidable 40% homosexual AIDS DEATH rate a herring? It's still
>a lot of deaths.
How about the 60% of HIV cases that result from non-homosexual activity?
Should we also abolish het sex, which accounts for a large portion of
that 60%?
> No matter if only one homosexual legal union were allowed, then that
>one would serve as a social proclaimation the motherhood and fatherhood
>are disposable.
No, it would serve as a social proclamation that marriage != traditional
parenthood.
>: The rate of HIV deaths is about 3-4 times
>: lower than the suicide rate for gay and lesbian people.
>
>Rates are rates. I need discrete quantities, please.
Rates are indicative of quantities, fella. If 3-4 times more homosexuals
die from AIDS related disease than commit suicide, that means the number
of AIDS related deaths among homosexuals is 3-4 times larger than the number
of suicides among homosexuals.
>How so? Avoidable IV drug use? It is pretty hard to get AIDS if you're
>a het man, unless your penis has open sores.
And even harder to get HIV through lesbian relations. So gay relations
are wrong but lesbian relations aren't?
>It reaffirms a valid, potentially socially relevent pair bond that may
>seek or have already sought to engage in a valid legal union, and serves
>as a model of proper monogamous behavior for young people. There are
>extreme examples of public display of course.
Monogamy exists in same-sex couple just as much as in opposite-sex couples.
Again, what difference is there other than the issue of procreation?
>Nope. Don't care. As long as my kids don't have to hear about it.
I don't care if you're married either, long as my children don't have
to hear your het-only views.
>The homosexual anomaly is behavior related and is reflectie of free will.
>As long as you do not CHOOSE to mention your homosexuality in the
>workplace, you should not be probed, spied on, whatever...
In other words, stay in the closet?
If a homosexual cannot mention his sexuality, than neither should you make
yours obvious. Better get rid of the pictures of your wedding day on your
desk, and make sure nobody sees you kissing your wife.
>: Job discrimination is not justifiable when the factor by which
>: you are choosing to discriminate is not affecting job performance
>: whatsoever. Private sexual acts have no effect on job
>: performance.
>
>Amen. Your question?
His point is that one should not have to hide one's sexuality on the job
in fear of discrimination.
>I did not say procreation was the most important element of marriage,
>I said that a new member of society was the most important potential
>element of State marriage. That takes care of the infertility BS as
I disagree.
>: Homosexuality leads to fewer deaths than heterosexuality. The
>: reality is that more heterosexuals die than homosexuals each
>: year!
>
>THat's because there are more of us. :*>
This fact does not in any way show that homosexual activity puts one more
at risk for disease than heterosexual activity. Unsafe sex is unsafe sex,
regardless of the gender or one's partner.
>The free will I am referring to consists of IV users to not put a
>needle into their arm, heterosexuals to not have sex when they have
>sores on there genitalia, and males or females to not bend over for
>an anally bound penis.
You're implying that anal sex in inherently dangerous. No more so than any
other sexual behaviour.
>: No, the implication that not all heterosexual unions have
>: heterosexually oriented people.
>
>Don't care.
Oh, I see, homosexuals involved in straight marriages in order to conform
to society's 'norm' are okay, even though they are sufferring from the
inability to enter into a marriage that will fulfill them?
>You have no NEED to marry a man LEGALLY, you simply WANT it to
>make you happy.
Well hey, straight couples have no NEED to legally marry, but they do
it anyway.
>But, don't we want to shape a better world for future generations?
>(Eegads, we're almost starting to actually talk about Star Trek)
A better world does not mean elimination of a huge segment of the population
of the world (namely homosexuals). A better world does not necessarily
mean a world according to Ousey's standards(tm).
Barb -> Straight but not narrow
--
Barb Nash | bn...@galaxy.csc.calpoly.edu | Real Men Don't
English/Comp Sci. | bn...@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu | Fear Gays
Cal Poly, SLO, CA | "Remember the winds and the waves." -E. Sternberg
Barbara Lynne Nash
>: wrong! You keep on refering to the 'medial consequences' of homosexuality
>
False. (rarlier?)
>: Even worse, heterosexual sex can produce diseased children.
>
>That should not devalue these children, RIGHT?
Right.
>Research should therefore continue into eliminating the harmful factors in
>socially relevent sex.
Absolutely. Research on eliminating HIV/AIDS should continue full force.
This has no bearing on the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality,
since HIV/AIDS has nothing to do with the gender of one's partner.
>The potential is always there for them to change their minds and/or
>adopt. My point was that since the potential for children to result was the
>most important facet of marrige (which Rod also seems to agree with) then
I disagree. The most important facet of marriage is the bond of love,
partnership, and all around sharing between two people.
(Psst! Notice there's no gender mentioned in that definition.)
>: >It ignores the FUNDAMENTAL fact that society requires procreative
>: >heterosexual activity, but not anything else.
>
>: And yet time and time again it's been proved that there is more to sex than
>: just procreation.
And time and time again, it's been pointed out that society requires a
helluva lot more than procreation.
>: >You call the avoidable 40% homosexual AIDS DEATH rate a herring? It's still
>: >a lot of deaths.
>
>: Again, what about the other 60%. And if you wanna shoot stats around, then
>: just look at the way things are going. Homosexuals will soon be a pretty
>: small percentage...
>
>When? Homosexual alarmists have been saying that for the last 10 years.
>The ultimate cause of AIDS is irresponsible behavior in almost 100% of the
>cases.
Yes, and irresponsible behaviour is absolutely NOT limited to homosexuals.
The number of new HIV/AIDS cases in the US is split evenly between
gays and straights. The number outside of the US is higher for straights
than for gays.
>Connie Chung did. 'You know it is pretty rare for heterosexual men to
>receive AIDS' He maintained that that was what happened. It's still
>rare, no matter how popular it is with the Liberal media. More people still
>die from the flu, but we don't shove cameras into the faces of flu
>victims. Must be the avoibalbility factor.
It's even more rare for lesbians to contract HIV/AIDS. Does this mean
het sex is somehow less than lesbian sex? You seem to be saying that
homosexual sex is less than het sex because it's easier to get HIV/AIDS
from homosexual sex. (And what about the straight WOMEN that contract
the disease?)
>I think that even you would agree that first graders should not
>be subjected to "Heather Has Two Moomies" and "Daddy's Roommate" as they
>are not prepared to fully enter into the debate of the ramifications of
>what Daddy is doing with his "Roommate". 40%, 40% 40%.
Why not? They're able to deal with the ramifications of what same-sex
couples do... nobody said anything about teaching first graders about
sex (though that's also a debatable point)... homosexual love does not
mean the same thing as homosexual sex. Homosexual relationships exist
and are just as valid as het relationships. Why should children be
taught about het relationships but not homosexual relationships?
>: >Nope. I said that cross-eyed people were anomolous and that I was
>: >born one of them. Got it fixed, surgically.
>
>: Can't wait to see that left-handed surgery.
>
>Not a disability.
Neither is homosexuality.
>Again, heterosexuality and heterosexual courtships rituals have a fundamental
>relevence to society as they collectively help to ensure social continuance
>and serve to promote to the younger members of society the proper conduct
>between two heterosexuals (ie monogamy and commitment)
Bull. Your public displays of affection have absolutely no bearing on
someone else's choice to procreate.
>Then why isn't that the MAINSTREAM media message? Why are homosexuals
>responsible for 40% of AIDS deaths?
Why are hets and IV drug users responsible for most of the other 60%
>Maybe most anomolies will be gone by the 24th Century, No one will miss them
>and the galaxy will be a happier place.
And maybe people as narrow-minded as you will also be gone, and the universe
will certainly be a happier place.
Barb -> Straight but not narrow.
Barbara Lynne Nash
>In article <3noba2$o...@fohnix.metronet.com> be...@fohnix.metronet.com (Rod Swift) writes:
>
>>What if I told you I could not live with my partner, and that we
>>live apart for 11 months a year. Would that be inhumane?
>
>sounds like a typical LDR. I had one for two years.
You're missing the point here completely. He is *forced* by *law* to live
away from his partner for 11 months out of the year *because* of their
sexual orientation.
This is *very* different from the typical LDR.
Barb -> Straight but not narrow
(No relation to Mike's .sig)
Rod Swift
>On 2 May 1995, David Ousey wrote:
>> Rod Swift (be...@fohnix.metronet.com) wrote:
>> : bn...@galaxy.csc.calpoly.edu (Barbara Lynne Nash) writes:
>>
>> If someone is homosexual, they are more likely to engage in homosexual
>> activity than someone who is not. As 40% of AIDS cases involve homosexual
>> activity (that is a lot of deaths), it is not a stretch to say that
>> homosexuality is dangerous.
>I suppose you *COULD* say that about male homosexuality (note I AM NOT
>agreeing with your assumption), but what about female homosexuality?
>Do tell me the breakdown in AIDS cases involving MALE homosexuality
>versus FEMALE homosexuality? You cannot then say that overall,
>homosexuality is dangerous. If you are going to use percentages to
>support your claims, you need to consider ALL the percentages, not just
>the ones you can twist to support your generalizations.
The fact is, that since HIV is transmitted not based on your
sexual orientation, but the level of risk you expose yourself to,
then it is not right to classify *all* gay people or *all*
heterosexuals as being "at risk".
Surely, we should be determining the at-risk behaviours.
When we classify HIV transmissions, we see "gay men and
bisexuals" and "blood transfusion" and "HIV drug use".
I note two are describing behavioural factors, and one describes
a who subgroup of people as being the *reason* for HIV spread.
The fact is that the classifiers should reflect the risky
behaviours. The fact is that HIV is not prevalent in gay men.
It is prevalent in "men who have had sex with other men
unsafely".
The fact is, we should be breaking statistics up into "unsafe
homosexual intercourse", "unsafe heterosexual intercourse",
"injecting drug-users", "blood transfusions", "mother-to-baby
transmission" and "other".
This way, we don't get silly statements by Ousey that "gay men
are dangerous". The overwhelming facts state that they are not.
The ones that are a danger to their own health are the
irresponsible ones.
I note we don't classify heterosexuals as being HIV carriers, as
we describe them as gaining HIV through "unprotected heterosexual
intercourse".
Heterosexuals don't get HIV because they are heterosexual, but
because they are safe, and it is unfair to call all heterosexuals
"a risk group", when it is the behaviour of a few that is the
problem.
*SIMILARLY*
Homosexuals don't get HIV because they are homosexual, but
because they are safe, and it is unfair to call all homosexuals
"a risk group", when it is the behaviour of a few that is the
problem.
IV drug-users don't get HIV because they are IV drug-users, but
because they are safe, and it is unfair to call all IV drug-users
"a risk group", when it is the behaviour of a few that is the
problem.
I note that, on a related example, some racial groups have higher
rates of perpetrators of crimes, for example -- but that does not
give us licence to say all <insert race> people are criminals.
Just because gay people currently have a higher rate of *current*
cumulative infection (but a rapidly shrinking number of new
diagnoses on the whole) does not give us licence to claim that
all gay people are immoral, or HIV carriers, or prone to get HIV
or deserving of quarantine (which some propose).
Rod Swift
>It is not a gay disease, but it is LARGELY a gay disease
That's strange. I thought largely it was one of an infectious
disease of behaviour.
It is not a gay disease, it is a disease of people who are stupid
enough not to learn about preventative measures.
The fact is that if it is a disease of behaviour, which it is,
why are you supporting the overt destruction of the said
behaviours in one group (that homosexuals no longer practice gay
sex) but are supportive of curbing the tide with educative
programs on disease control in other groups (that heterosexuals
should not give up straight sex)...?
Surely if you were *so* concerned with freedom *and* disease
control, you would promote the required level of disease control
in both groups through education?
David Ousey
: ou...@mxd120.rh.psu.edu (David Ousey) writes:
: >You make it sound that there isn't much to worry about, unlike the
: >mainstream media hysterics. However, I think that rates and percentages
: >are irrelevent in comparison to the sheer quantity of avoidable deaths
: >that result from homosexual activity, IV drug use, or acting stupid.
: >None of the above deserves to be rationalized or defended as a result.
: The point is that your insistence that AIDS is a gay disease is just plain
: wrong! You keep on refering to the 'medial consequences' of homosexuality
: and yet those same consequences can come from heterosexual sex.
Much rarlier.
: Even worse, heterosexual sex can produce diseased children.
That should not devalue these children, RIGHT?
Research should therefore continue into eliminating the harmful factors in
socially relevent sex.
:>I reiterate with all conviction and logic that homosexuality is an anomaly,
:>as it represents a deviation form the common human biological form that
:>an individual sexually responds to members of the opposite sex
: Again, I ask you to do something that you seem to be unable to do: PROVE IT!
: PROVE that the common norm is only opposite-sex attraction. PROVE that it is
: an anomaly.
The defintion of anomaly (available in any dictionary) conforms to what I
am saying. Even Rod says heterosexuality is COMMON. I ask you, why do
humans have gentalia and reproductive organs if it is not for reproductive
purposes? Homosexuality interferes with the naturally intended sexual response
to members of the opposite sex. You do understand why humans and animals in
general are meant to respond to members of the opposite sex, don't you?
:>Homosexuality is not a disability, but it is anomalous as only one sexual
:>orientation is not. Left-handedness is anomolous, too, and not a disablility
:>but left-handed people don't seek to compromise social standards and ideals.
: Now are you suggesting that left-handed people are morally wrong if they use
: their left hands and give in to their left-handed tendencies? :-)
I did not equate all anomalies as immoral, did I? I even said that I was
born with an anomaly. I would certainly consider an anomaly that genetically
predisposed someone toward IV drug use as a particularly dangerous anomaly,
wouldn't you? Why not with homosexual activity which also leads to so many
avoidable deaths? The issue in general is IRRESPONSIBLE activity, whether
it refers to IV drug use, homosexual/bisexual acitivity, or stupid heterosexual
actvity with high risk partners.
:>It is not politicization. It is simply that procreative sex bears somes
:>positive relevence to society. Nothing two or more gay people together
:>has any such benefit.
: Hey, remember, as I've said before, even the Church says that procreation
: isn't the ONLY purpose of sex anymore.
I concur. Sex with an animal can yield great contentment and pleasure.
My point was that such HAPPINESS has nothing to do with society as society
gives us the freedom to pursue our own defintition of happiness - the
same way with religion.
: Also, what about two people that get married and decide not to have kids?
The potential is always there for them to change their minds and/or
adopt. My point was that since the potential for children to result was the
most important facet of marrige (which Rod also seems to agree with) then
it is fundamental that a MOTHER AND a FATHER be PRESENT to GUARANTEE the
presence of legally responsible gender role models who are legally responsible.
Any other arrangement implies a social condonement of an exclusion or a
lack of immediacy on the part of a natural parent or parents.
: >It ignores the FUNDAMENTAL fact that society requires procreative
: >heterosexual activity, but not anything else.
: And yet time and time again it's been proved that there is more to sex than
: just procreation.
True. But socially irrelevent.
:>Heterosexuality that results in disease is medically (ergo socially)
:>relevent.
:>Non procreative sex is socially irrelevent in general. But since heterosexual
:>activity CAN yield a new member for society it should remain affirmed
:>as socially fundamental.
: I can't believe that you are simply limiting human sexuality to making
: babies. Are you truly that dense?
Again happiness is separate from social/political State defintitions.
That is why Socialism failed. It attempted to evaluate happiness on a
materialistic criteria, stressing redistribution of wealth as the key
to social happiness.
: >You call the avoidable 40% homosexual AIDS DEATH rate a herring? It's still
: >a lot of deaths.
: Again, what about the other 60%. And if you wanna shoot stats around, then
: just look at the way things are going. Homosexuals will soon be a pretty
: small percentage...
When? Homosexual alarmists have been saying that for the last 10 years.
The ultimate cause of AIDS is irresponsible behavior in almost 100% of the
cases.
: > No matter if only one homosexual legal union were allowed, then that
: >one would serve as a social proclaimation the motherhood and fatherhood
: >are disposable.
: Hardly. You seem to think that once you make this proclaimation that all the
: heterosexual couples would become homosexuals.
Have I said that? You have said you believe in logic. Why, then attempt to
caricature everything that challeneges your accepted logic? Society makes
an implicit statement in everything it does - whether it involves
defending rights or promoting the general welfare.
: There will always be procreative sex. But by affirming the idea that
: two people can love each other, regardless of sex, you help to increase
: diversity.
Diversity, scmiversity. The implicit fundamental sexual diverstiy in the
current marriage schema would be eliminated solely in favor of making
homosexuals happy. The anomalous diversity that you would promote
would have to be at the expense of ideals. Not going to happen.
: >Rates are rates. I need discrete quantities, please.
: You, Mr. 40% want discrete rates.
40% of totals deaths is a little clearer than "leading the growth
rate of new cases" especially when they recently expanded the definition
of AIDS cases to deliberately include more people.
: >How so? Avoidable IV drug use? It is pretty hard to get AIDS if you're
: >a het man, unless your penis has open sores.
: Tell that to Magic.
Connie Chung did. 'You know it is pretty rare for heterosexual men to
receive AIDS' He maintained that that was what happened. It's still
rare, no matter how popular it is with the Liberal media. More people still
die from the flu, but we don't shove cameras into the faces of flu
victims. Must be the avoibalbility factor.
Again, the cause of his ADIS was irresponsible BEHAVIOR. Had he not
cheated on his wife, then he would have contracted AIDS.
: >Nope. Don't care. As long as my kids don't have to hear about it.
: If your kids are not intelligent enough to form their own opinions when given
: guidence (and true guidence, not teaching on how to be a homobasher) then
: I guess they're pretty stupid.
I think that even you would agree that first graders should not
be subjected to "Heather Has Two Moomies" and "Daddy's Roommate" as they
are not prepared to fully enter into the debate of the ramifications of
what Daddy is doing with his "Roommate". 40%, 40% 40%.
: >Nope. I said that cross-eyed people were anomolous and that I was
: >born one of them. Got it fixed, surgically.
: Can't wait to see that left-handed surgery.
Not a disability.
:>The homosexual anomaly is behavior related and is reflective of free will.
:>As long as you do not CHOOSE to mention your homosexuality in the
:>workplace, you should not be probed, spied on, whatever...
:Then the same rules should apply to heterosexuals. I don't wanna hear about
:your girlfriend, you kids, your wedding plans, or what you think of that chick
:by the water cooler.
Again, heterosexuality and heterosexual courtships rituals have a fundamental
relevence to society as they collectively help to ensure social continuance
and serve to promote to the younger members of society the proper conduct
between two heterosexuals (ie monogamy and commitment)
: >The free will I am referring to consists of IV users to not put a
: >needle into their arm, heterosexuals to not have sex when they have
: >sores on there genitalia, and males or females to not bend over for
: >an anally bound penis.
:And homosexuals have the free will to not have sex with someone who is
:infected, hasn't been tested, and/or won't use a condom. Your point?
Then why isn't that the MAINSTREAM media message? Why are homosexuals
responsible for 40% of AIDS deaths?
: >But, don't we want to shape a better world for future generations?
: >(Eegads, we're almost starting to actually talk about Star Trek)
: Yes, but since your views aren't going to make the world a better place, it's
: kinda irrelevant.
You will freely offer your views. And I will offer my ideals fairly in the
arena of public discourse. If they are rejected then that is fine. I still
don't see how homosexual genetic scanning will be avoidable, though.
Maybe most anomolies will be gone by the 24th Century, No one will miss them
and the galaxy will be a happier place.
OOZMAN
David Ousey
:>: The point is that your insistence that AIDS is a gay disease is just plain
:>: wrong! You keep on refering to the 'medial consequences' of homosexuality
:>: and yet those same consequences can come from heterosexual sex.
: >Much rarlier.
: Not really. Go lood at CDC HIV stats and get a clue.
My point was that (mostly male) homosexuals make up less than 5% of the
population but cause up to 40% of the AIDS cases (Rod's numbers). After
taking out IV drug users, you have the biswxuals and heterosexuals who
intermingle with the homosexuals and the IV drug users. The activities
involved here probably mostly include anal sex and more rarely, heterosexual
sex with open sores on the genitals and mouth. In terms of sexual activity
(excluding drug use) homosexuals and heterosexuals are hardly even even
though the population ratio is so amazingly off balance. Comment?
:>:Again, I ask you to do something that you seem to be unable to do: PROVE IT!
:>:PROVE that the common norm is only opposite-sex attraction. PROVE that it is
:>:an anomaly.
:>The defintion of anomaly (available in any dictionary) conforms to what I
:>am saying. Even Rod says heterosexuality is COMMON. I ask you, why do
:>humans have gentalia and reproductive organs if it is not for reproductive
:>purposes? Homosexuality interferes with the naturally intended sexual
:>response to members of the opposite sex. You do understand why humans and
:>animals in general are meant to respond to members of the opposite sex,
:>don't you?
: Hmmm...I thoght that we had evolved beyond animals. Some may not have. I
: will admit that sex does have a procreative aspect, but given then nature of
: sentience, humans have taken it beyond that.
Yes, we have taken sex beyond mere procreation. But they are socially/
politically irrelevent as they involve religious definitions or individual
interpretations of happiness. Our society gives the individual the freedom
to pursue individual definitions of happiness and religion freely, while
not adopting a State definition of either. Right?
:>:Now are you suggesting that left-handed people are morally wrong if they use
:>:their left hands and give in to their left-handed tendencies? :-)
:>The issue in general is IRRESPONSIBLE activity, whether it refers to IV drug
:>use, homosexual/bisexual activity, or stupid heterosexual
:>actvity with high risk partners.
: Interesting...you make ALL homosexual/bisexual acts irresponsible. How so?
:If your definition of anomaly is a deviation from a statistical norm, then
:fine. My father often jokes that tenors are 'deviants' in that we have a
:voice box that is substantially different from the 'average' man. I guess you
:could call that an anomaly.
Sure. So are geniuses as others have pointed out. Some anomolies should be
promoted, some should be ignored, some fixed - it all depends on the social
relevence.
:>I concur. Sex with an animal can yield great contentment and pleasure.
:>My point was that such HAPPINESS has nothing to do with society as society
:>gives us the freedom to pursue our own defintition of happiness - the
:>same way with religion.
: Ah. I get it. Happiness is futile. You will be assimilated.
Individual definitions of happiness are independent of the State. I don't
understand what you're getting at, but just pretend that there is a religion
whose God is Happiness, and then ruminate on the Church/State separation
issue from there. Does that help?
: >: Also, what about two people that get married and decide not to have kids?
:>The potential is always there for them to change their minds and/or
:>adopt. My point was that since the potential for children to result was the
:>most important facet of marrige (which Rod also seems to agree with) then
:>it is fundamental that a MOTHER AND a FATHER be PRESENT to GUARANTEE the
:>presence of legally responsible gender role models who are legally
:>responsible.
:>Any other arrangement implies a social condonement of an exclusion or a
:>lack of immediacy on the part of a natural parent or parents.
: Again, what about a marriage that does not produce children? In other words,
: you're saying that only marriages that produce offspring are socially
: valueable.
No. THere are other benefits to society of a marriage. But the sacrifice of
the ideals implicit within marriage now would be too great to allow
homosexual, polygamal or incestual marriages to also benefit society
in their limited way.
:>:Again, what about the other 60%. And if you wanna shoot stats around, then
:>:just look at the way things are going. Homosexuals will soon be a pretty
:>:small percentage...
: >When? Homosexual alarmists have been saying that for the last 10 years.
: >The ultimate cause of AIDS is irresponsible behavior in almost 100% of the
: >cases.
:True. The HIV virus doesn't care who you're sleeping with. So as soon as
:you disabuse yourself of the notion that it's a homosexual disease, and
:realize that ANYONE can get it, then you'll be better off.
Anyone CAN get struck by lightning too... The chances of that happening
are greater than me getting HIV as I am a heterosexual male with high
standards in choosing mates. But still, I will be mindful of AIDS
or any other disease and I'll be sure not to have condomless sex when I
have sores on my genitalia. A very aviodable disease.
:>: Hardly. You seem to think that once you make this proclaimation that all
:>: the heterosexual couples would become homosexuals.
: >Have I said that? You have said you believe in logic. Why, then attempt to
: >caricature everything that challeneges your accepted logic? Society makes
: >an implicit statement in everything it does - whether it involves
: >defending rights or promoting the general welfare.
: And you seem to fear that allowing homosexual unions would promote people
: abandoning the traditional family...something that is happening already.
And society is going to hell as a result - look at the black family in
particular in the US (ie lack of fathers/positive male role models). This
abandonment can no longer be promoted by society (as with some Welfare
programs). By the way Dan Quayle was right (atlantic Monthly provided
the evidence in an issue a couple of years back).
: >: There will always be procreative sex. But by affirming the idea that
: >: two people can love each other, regardless of sex, you help to increase
: >: diversity.
: >Diversity, scmiversity. The implicit fundamental sexual diverstiy in the
: >current marriage schema would be eliminated solely in favor of making
: >homosexuals happy. The anomalous diversity that you would promote
: >would have to be at the expense of ideals. Not going to happen.
: Explain to me how allowing homosexuals to get married would prevent
: heterosexuals from doing the same? In fact, it might promote stable
: relationships by having homosexuals move away from one night stands and
: towards more traditional structures.
Traditional structures that, with society's blessing, proclaim that
motherhood and fatherhood are irrelevent. I did not say that there would be
fewer heterosexual marriages - that was not the point. It's just that
the implicit fundamental ideal of motherless and fatherless together
will be abandoned and children in those same-sex households will think
"I have no father and my mommies have a marriage license. I guess fatherhood
is meaningless to the government." THat's what we wish to
prevent. Do you get it yet?
: >Connie Chung did. 'You know it is pretty rare for heterosexual men to
: >receive AIDS' He maintained that that was what happened. It's still
: >rare, no matter how popular it is with the Liberal media. More people still
: >die from the flu, but we don't shove cameras into the faces of flu
: >victims. Must be the avoidability factor.
: Agreed. But you seem to indicate that this avoidibility factor is different
: for homoesexuals than it is for heterosexuals. It isn't. Safer Sex =
: use a condom (or dam or whatever) Safest Sex = no Sex.
But with anal sex, the anus does not self-lubricate like the vagina. The
inner wall is extremely thin, too and bleeding results much more easily.
THat is why it is much more dangerous than plain sexual intercourse.
: >:And homosexuals have the free will to not have sex with someone who is
: >:infected, hasn't been tested, and/or won't use a condom. Your point?
: >Then why isn't that the MAINSTREAM media message? Why are homosexuals
: >responsible for 40% of AIDS deaths?
:That IS the mainstream media safe-sex message. What rock have you been under?
They aim the message at everyone when a specific 5% of the population is
responsible for most of the sexually transmitted AIDS cases.
They don't explicitly condemn the specific behavior (anal sex) that causes
the most avoidable deaths.
: >You will freely offer your views. And I will offer my ideals fairly in the
: >arena of public discourse. If they are rejected then that is fine. I still
: >don't see how homosexual genetic scanning will be avoidable, though.
: >Maybe most anomolies will be gone by the 24th Century, No one will miss them
: >and the galaxy will be a happier place.
: Dream On Tampon. You're talking about something like in Demolition Man, not
: Star Trek.
Please list then all the socially irrelevent anomalies and/or disabilities that
you would want people to still deal with in the 24th century.
OOZMAN
Barbara Lynne Nash
>John A. Kilpatrick (jaki...@jalisco.engr.ucdavis.edu) wrote:
>: Agreed. But you seem to indicate that this avoidibility factor is different
>: for homoesexuals than it is for heterosexuals. It isn't. Safer Sex =
>: use a condom (or dam or whatever) Safest Sex = no Sex.
>
>But with anal sex, the anus does not self-lubricate like the vagina. The
>inner wall is extremely thin, too and bleeding results much more easily.
>THat is why it is much more dangerous than plain sexual intercourse.
If your lover cares about you, they will make sure you are lubricated
before penetration. Whether that involves liberal use of an artificial
lubricant on their penis (regardless of its destination, as there are also
women out there who do not lubricate enough on their own to make intercourse
comfortable for them), or taking the time to assure that a female partner
is aroused enough to make penetration the wonderfully pleasurable thing
it is makes no difference.
If you care about yourself, you will also take steps to make sure that
you are lubricated before penetration.
Barb -> Straight but not narrow
kevin lyda
(David Ousey) wrote:
~Diversity, scmiversity. The implicit fundamental sexual diverstiy in the
~current marriage schema would be eliminated solely in favor of making
~homosexuals happy. The anomalous diversity that you would promote
~would have to be at the expense of ideals. Not going to happen.
diversity, scmiversity? you who keeps telling us about evolution and
social constructs? just ask the irish about how important diversity
is... look into the potato blight, and see how nature rewards a lack of
diversity.
~40% of totals deaths is a little clearer than "leading the growth
~rate of new cases" especially when they recently expanded the definition
~of AIDS cases to deliberately include more people.
ah, the aids rant. a variation of gay marriage circle argument. let's
see, how does it go? "gays can't get married because they're too
promiscuous. gays are promiscuous because they don't get married." one
aspect of marriage that's not getting discussed here is it's role in
strengthening monogamy. it's a ritual that is supposed to make the couple
a formal couple and is recognized throughout society. while talk shows
concentrate on those who disrespect the role of marriage, a majority of
people do respect it. by denying gay and lesbian couples this ritual, it
can be argued that society is partially responsible for aids deaths in
gays.
another causitive factor is society's growing disrespect for the
institution of marriage (and in turn, monogamy). while a majority of
american's do respect it, it's a smaller group. in all fairness, sexual
promiscuity (of any kind) is a dangerous activity in a society. it
provides diseases a very effective method of transport. i think that's
one reason why societies that provided a method of ritualizing monogamy
survived (of course, child rearing is easier as well)
right now we provide this monogamy ritual for 90% of our society. if
you're really against aids, and you think gay promiscuity spread it, don't
you think that monogamy rituals for all members of our society would be a
*very* good idea?
and as i said, marriage has been getting a bad rap in the states for the
past 20 years. just think of what kind of a moral booster it would be if
about 10 million couples could join the fold?
~You will freely offer your views. And I will offer my ideals fairly in the
~arena of public discourse. If they are rejected then that is fine. I still
~don't see how homosexual genetic scanning will be avoidable, though.
~
~Maybe most anomolies will be gone by the 24th Century, No one will miss them
~and the galaxy will be a happier place.
homosexuality has been around since man first hopped out of the trees.
why would it disappear? just because of your twisted ideas of how the
world works?
kevin
--
kevin lyda ~~ don't take it all so seriously because in the end
ly...@ogunquit.tiac.net ~~ this is just a giant ant farm with beepers.
http://www.tiac.net/users/lyda or ~~ PGPprint = 0F A4 17 6B 52 E9 F7 CB
finger ly...@world.std.com for PGP key ~~ 60 0C 1C FA E5 AF C3 0E
Mike S. Medintz
(Much dialogue and APA pamphlet deleted)
Finally, someone comes up with a remark based in real research! I
never thought that I'd see _THAT_ in USENET.
Mike S. Medintz
David Ousey
: In article <3o9pm8$1b...@hearst.cac.psu.edu>, ou...@mxd120.rh.psu.edu
: (David Ousey) wrote:
: ~Diversity, scmiversity. The implicit fundamental sexual diverstiy in the
: ~current marriage schema would be eliminated solely in favor of making
: ~homosexuals happy. The anomalous diversity that you would promote
: ~would have to be at the expense of ideals. Not going to happen.
: diversity, scmiversity? you who keeps telling us about evolution and
: social constructs? just ask the irish about how important diversity
: is... look into the potato blight, and see how nature rewards a lack of
: diversity.
If you read the previous paragraph, you will see that I am trying to preserve
"sexual diversity" that is currently implicit within marriage. Diversity
is swell as long as it bears social relevence. Sexual diversity bears social
relevence. Racial diversity bears no politcal/social relvence in a society
that values color-blindness, and orientation diversity that you propose society
should condone serve no purpose but to destigmatize inherently dangerous
behaviors. Otherwise heterosexuality is the only orientation that has social
relevence.
: ~40% of totals deaths is a little clearer than "leading the growth
: ~rate of new cases" especially when they recently expanded the definition
: ~of AIDS cases to deliberately include more people.
: ah, the aids rant. a variation of gay marriage circle argument. let's
: see, how does it go? "gays can't get married because they're too
: promiscuous. gays are promiscuous because they don't get married."
Haven't used that argument.
: one aspect of marriage that's not getting discussed here is it's role in
: strengthening monogamy. it's a ritual that is supposed to make the couple
: a formal couple and is recognized throughout society. while talk shows
: concentrate on those who disrespect the role of marriage, a majority of
: people do respect it.
True.
: by denying gay and lesbian couples this ritual, it
: can be argued that society is partially responsible for aids deaths in
: gays.
"OK, it's a fair cop. I did it, but society's to blame."
"Right, We'll arrest them instead." (Monty Python)
Yawn. When will Liberals remeber that wacky Free Will thingy?
Gays need only to not bend over for an anally bound penis. That takes care
of most of sexually transmitted AIDS cases. Am I wrong?
: another causitive factor is society's growing disrespect for the
: institution of marriage (and in turn, monogamy). while a majority of
: american's do respect it, it's a smaller group. in all fairness, sexual
: promiscuity (of any kind) is a dangerous activity in a society. it
: provides diseases a very effective method of transport. i think that's
: one reason why societies that provided a method of ritualizing monogamy
: survived (of course, child rearing is easier as well)
Oh, by the way... child rearing is the primary reason. Primitive and
prehistoric cultures had no idea of the cause effect nature of sex and
disease or sometimes even pregnancy. Thw sex special on TLC covered
this quite well.
: right now we provide this monogamy ritual for 90% of our society. if
: you're really against aids, and you think gay promiscuity spread it, don't
: you think that monogamy rituals for all members of our society would be a
: *very* good idea?
Yes, I do. Go to your favorite institution of faith and participate in a
religious marriage ritual. You have that freedom, right?
: and as i said, marriage has been getting a bad rap in the states for the
: past 20 years. just think of what kind of a moral booster it would be if
: about 10 million couples could join the fold?
State sanctionned marriage would suffer even further as the
motherhood+fatherhood ideal would be scrapped in the process - bad idea.
: ~You will freely offer your views. And I will offer my ideals fairly in the
: ~arena of public discourse. If they are rejected then that is fine. I still
: ~don't see how homosexual genetic scanning will be avoidable, though.
: ~
: ~Maybe most anomolies will be gone by the 24th Century, No one will miss them
: ~and the galaxy will be a happier place.
: homosexuality has been around since man first hopped out of the trees.
: why would it disappear? just because of your twisted ideas of how the
: world works?
Genetic homosexuality would disappear via genetic engineering. Homosexuality
would then have no biological factors (hormone imbalances or whatever).
THat would only leave the environmental and free will homosexuals.
: kevin
OOZMAN
kevin lyda
Ousey) wrote:
~Genetic homosexuality would disappear via genetic engineering. Homosexuality
~would then have no biological factors (hormone imbalances or whatever).
~THat would only leave the environmental and free will homosexuals.
who, out of curiousity will be the final judge of good genes and bad
genes? my dear little goosestepping friend, you're leaving out the fine
print please elaborate...
Christopher William Niemitz
In article <3oblm3$i...@hearst.cac.psu.edu>,
David Ousey <ou...@mxd120.rh.psu.edu> wrote:
>John A. Kilpatrick (jaki...@jalisco.engr.ucdavis.edu) wrote:
>
>My point was that (mostly male) homosexuals make up less than 5% of the
>population but cause up to 40% of the AIDS cases (Rod's numbers). After
>taking out IV drug users, you have the biswxuals and heterosexuals who
>intermingle with the homosexuals and the IV drug users. The activities
>involved here probably mostly include anal sex and more rarely, heterosexual
>sex with open sores on the genitals and mouth. In terms of sexual activity
>(excluding drug use) homosexuals and heterosexuals are hardly even even
>though the population ratio is so amazingly off balance. Comment?
>
I agree completely. And if you take out the heperswxuals and the
tryspecuals and add 40% and 5% you get 45%, the number of
preterosexuals males who prey on school children and give them
herpes. But if you add the number of transaxuals than the number
is even even even and the population ratio comes back into balance.
>Yes, we have taken sex beyond mere procreation. But they are socially/
>politically irrelevent as they involve religious definitions or individual
>interpretations of happiness. Our society gives the individual the freedom
>to pursue individual definitions of happiness and religion freely, while
>not adopting a State definition of either. Right?
>
But we haven't taken the State beyond mere procreation. Therefore the
socially/politically irrelevant definitions become relevant because
of the inherent contradiction between the State and individual
definitions of happiness and religion.
>
>Sure. So are geniuses as others have pointed out. Some anomolies should be
>promoted, some should be ignored, some fixed - it all depends on the social
>relevence.
>
Yes, but other anomalies need to be spayed.
>
>Individual definitions of happiness are independent of the State. I don't
>understand what you're getting at, but just pretend that there is a religion
>whose God is Happiness, and then ruminate on the Church/State separation
>issue from there. Does that help?
>
No, because if you, on the other hand, pretend that your
religion is the state than God's happiness is independent
of the separation of definitions and rumination.
>
>No. THere are other benefits to society of a marriage. But the sacrifice of
>the ideals implicit within marriage now would be too great to allow
>homosexual, polygamal or incestual marriages to also benefit society
>in their limited way.
True. but there are also benefits to a society of nonmonogamy.
Afterall, just because heterosexuals get married it doesn't
mean that they no longer want sex anymore, since having sex
with their family members violates that taboo.
>
>Anyone CAN get struck by lightning too... The chances of that happening
>are greater than me getting HIV as I am a heterosexual male with high
>standards in choosing mates. But still, I will be mindful of AIDS
>or any other disease and I'll be sure not to have condomless sex when I
>have sores on my genitalia. A very aviodable disease.
Good. Just don't use dental dams, since they were made only
for lesbians.
John A. Kilpatrick
>My point was that (mostly male) homosexuals make up less than 5% of the
>population but cause up to 40% of the AIDS cases (Rod's numbers). After
>taking out IV drug users, you have the biswxuals and heterosexuals who
>intermingle with the homosexuals and the IV drug users. The activities
>involved here probably mostly include anal sex and more rarely, heterosexual
>sex with open sores on the genitals and mouth. In terms of sexual activity
>(excluding drug use) homosexuals and heterosexuals are hardly even even
>though the population ratio is so amazingly off balance. Comment?
It definetly started in the homosexual community. But it's pretty much been
through there. It's EXPLODING in the heterosexual community. Most of the
homosexual community is educated about safe sex issues. The heteros just
don't seem to get it.
>Yes, we have taken sex beyond mere procreation. But they are socially/
>politically irrelevent as they involve religious definitions or individual
>interpretations of happiness. Our society gives the individual the freedom
>to pursue individual definitions of happiness and religion freely, while
>not adopting a State definition of either. Right?
True. But happiness is irrelevant. Your need for a social construct seems
to be more important than any individual happiness.
>No. THere are other benefits to society of a marriage. But the sacrifice of
>the ideals implicit within marriage now would be too great to allow
>homosexual, polygamal or incestual marriages to also benefit society
>in their limited way.
Please identify any benefits beyond procreation that heterosexual marriages
provide that homosexual ones do not.
>Anyone CAN get struck by lightning too... The chances of that happening
>are greater than me getting HIV as I am a heterosexual male with high
>standards in choosing mates. But still, I will be mindful of AIDS
>or any other disease and I'll be sure not to have condomless sex when I
>have sores on my genitalia. A very aviodable disease.
True. Even if you are a homosexual. A homosexual with high standards in
choosing mates will be just as safe.
>: Explain to me how allowing homosexuals to get married would prevent
>: heterosexuals from doing the same? In fact, it might promote stable
>: relationships by having homosexuals move away from one night stands and
>: towards more traditional structures.
>Traditional structures that, with society's blessing, proclaim that
>motherhood and fatherhood are irrelevent. I did not say that there would be
>fewer heterosexual marriages - that was not the point. It's just that
>the implicit fundamental ideal of motherless and fatherless together
>will be abandoned and children in those same-sex households will think
>"I have no father and my mommies have a marriage license. I guess fatherhood
>is meaningless to the government." THat's what we wish to
>prevent. Do you get it yet?
No, you don't seem to get it. I reject what you take as a given. I do not
believe that everyone will take the same meaning that you might. I think if
handled properly, a better message is sent: If you truly love someone, then
you stay with them and make a commitment.
>But with anal sex, the anus does not self-lubricate like the vagina. The
>inner wall is extremely thin, too and bleeding results much more easily.
>THat is why it is much more dangerous than plain sexual intercourse.
It requires care. If women would be truly honest, they would agree that men
usually don't care about the state of the vagina that they are inserting their
organ into. The same care that it takes to make sure that the woman is properly
aroused (and therfore lubricated) can be taken with anal sex. You forget,
many heterosexuals enjoy anal sex.
>:That IS the mainstream media safe-sex message. What rock have you been under?
>They aim the message at everyone when a specific 5% of the population is
>responsible for most of the sexually transmitted AIDS cases.
Again, no, they aren't, it isn't a gay disease, get a clue.
>They don't explicitly condemn the specific behavior (anal sex) that causes
>the most avoidable deaths.
Because anal sex with a condom doesn't pass the disease. Get a clue.
>Please list then all the socially irrelevent anomalies and/or disabilities that
>you would want people to still deal with in the 24th century.
Well, considering that your proof of 'socially irrelevant anomalies and/or
disabilities' doesn't apply to homsexuality (you make claims that cannot be
proven and that I cannot just accept on faith, therefore you haven't proved a
thing) so homosexuality covered under that. But hey, blindness is a socially
irrelevant disability that has been covered. Or did you forget about that.
Gina Goff
ou...@mxd120.rh.psu.edu (David Ousey) writes:
>Yawn. When will Liberals remeber that wacky Free Will thingy?
>
>Gays need only to not bend over for an anally bound penis. That takes care
>of most of sexually transmitted AIDS cases. Am I wrong?
women. Do you think lesbians are having anal sex with gay men? Rod
quoted statistics in another post, indicating that of 10,000 women for
whom the source of infection had been identified more than half of those
women got HIV via heterosexual contact.
Once again, AIDS is _not_ a gay disease. Having unprotected sex with
multiple partners is the risk factor, not "gay" vs. "straight". If
gays refraining from anal sex were all it took to eliminate "most" of
the sexually transmitted AIDS cases, then AIDS wouldn't be exploding in
the (heterosexual) brothels of Asia.
Gina
David Ousey
: In article <3oc83k$p...@hearst.cac.psu.edu>
: ou...@mxd120.rh.psu.edu (David Ousey) writes:
:>Yawn. When will Liberals remeber that wacky Free Will thingy?
:>Gays need only to not bend over for an anally bound penis. That takes care
:>of most of sexually transmitted AIDS cases. Am I wrong?
: women. Do you think lesbians are having anal sex with gay men? Rod
: quoted statistics in another post, indicating that of 10,000 women for
: whom the source of infection had been identified more than half of those
: women got HIV via heterosexual contact.
: Once again, AIDS is _not_ a gay disease. Having unprotected sex with
: multiple partners is the risk factor, not "gay" vs. "straight". If
: gays refraining from anal sex were all it took to eliminate "most" of
: the sexually transmitted AIDS cases, then AIDS wouldn't be exploding in
: the (heterosexual) brothels of Asia.
: Gina
I think those women (not just lesbians) are using IVs too or sleeping
(probably engaging in anal sex) with men who are IV drug users or
bisexuals. It is very hard to get AIDS unless either party is bleeding
somehow, right? If you could enlighten me as to how I am confused
by the giving exact behavior (who's sleeping with who) and the number of AIDS
cases that result, I would appreciate it. But there is no justifiable
reason to raise paranoia among the majority of women who don't abuse IVs
and who don't sleep with high risks AIDS men.
OOZMAN
David Ousey
:In article <3oc83k$p...@hearst.cac.psu.edu>, ou...@mxd120.rh.psu.edu (David
:Ousey) wrote:
:~Genetic homosexuality would disappear via genetic engineering. Homosexuality
:~would then have no biological factors (hormone imbalances or whatever).
:~THat would only leave the environmental and free will homosexuals.
: who, out of curiousity will be the final judge of good genes and bad
: genes? my dear little goosestepping friend, you're leaving out the fine
: print please elaborate...
: kevin
The AMA will decide which genes are modifiable and the parents of the zygote
get to choose which of those genes to modify. If the AMA is consistent (though
I doubt that) they will not deliberate greatly over the ethical implications
(playing God) as they currently license abortionists to also play God over
the zygote and fetus. I doubt that benign genetic characteristics
will be modifiable (sex, eye color, etc) but I do think genetic anomolies
that have a medically degrading efect (innate blindness, the possible
hormonal imbalances brought on by genetic homosexuality, mental retardation)
will be on the table. The AMA must be consistent (aka form MEDICAL OPINIONS)
though and not be political.
OOZMAN
Andrew Hall
>>>>> David Ousey writes:
David> Gina Goff (GI...@ricevm1.rice.edu) wrote:
>> In article <3oc83k$p...@hearst.cac.psu.edu>
>> ou...@mxd120.rh.psu.edu (David Ousey) writes:
>>> Yawn. When will Liberals remeber that wacky Free Will thingy?
>>> Gays need only to not bend over for an anally bound penis. That takes care
>>> of most of sexually transmitted AIDS cases. Am I wrong?
>> Yes. Half of the new HIV cases reported in the U.S. last year were
>> women. Do you think lesbians are having anal sex with gay men? Rod
>> quoted statistics in another post, indicating that of 10,000 women for
>> whom the source of infection had been identified more than half of those
>> women got HIV via heterosexual contact.
>> Once again, AIDS is _not_ a gay disease. Having unprotected sex with
>> multiple partners is the risk factor, not "gay" vs. "straight". If
>> gays refraining from anal sex were all it took to eliminate "most" of
>> the sexually transmitted AIDS cases, then AIDS wouldn't be exploding in
>> the (heterosexual) brothels of Asia.
>> Gina
David> I think those women (not just lesbians) are using IVs too or sleeping
Lesbians have the lowest incidence of HIV in this country.
David> (probably engaging in anal sex) with men who are IV drug users or
David> bisexuals. It is very hard to get AIDS unless either party is bleeding
David> somehow, right? If you could enlighten me as to how I am confused
David> by the giving exact behavior (who's sleeping with who) and the number of AIDS
David> cases that result, I would appreciate it. But there is no justifiable
David> reason to raise paranoia among the majority of women who don't abuse IVs
David> and who don't sleep with high risks AIDS men.
If everyone not in a long term monogamous relationship
used condoms during penitrive sex then the problem
would go away.
ah
=======================================================================
I do- I do- I do- I do- what any normal person would do at that age.
You call home. You call home to mother and father and say, "I'd like
to get into the National Guard."
-- Vice President Dan Quayle, 8/19/88
(reported in Esquire, 8/92)
Rod Swift
>ou...@mxd120.rh.psu.edu (David Ousey) writes:
>
>>Yawn. When will Liberals remeber that wacky Free Will thingy?
>>
>>Gays need only to not bend over for an anally bound penis. That takes care
>>of most of sexually transmitted AIDS cases. Am I wrong?
>
>Yes. Half of the new HIV cases reported in the U.S. last year were
>women. Do you think lesbians are having anal sex with gay men? Rod
>quoted statistics in another post, indicating that of 10,000 women for
>whom the source of infection had been identified more than half of those
>women got HIV via heterosexual contact.
>
>Once again, AIDS is _not_ a gay disease. Having unprotected sex with
>multiple partners is the risk factor, not "gay" vs. "straight". If
>gays refraining from anal sex were all it took to eliminate "most" of
>the sexually transmitted AIDS cases, then AIDS wouldn't be exploding in
>the (heterosexual) brothels of Asia.
Since my last factual response (The APA Pamphlet) causes such a
stir, let's see the raw data on women with HIV...
This was diagnosis data for the period ending December 31, 1994,
and released February 9, 1995 (only 3 months ago).
F A C T S H E E T
***************************
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
February 9, 1995
Facts about. . .
Women and HIV/AIDS
Through December 1994, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) received reports of 58,428 cases of acquired
immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) among adult and adolescent (13
years and older) women in the United States. The proportion of
women among cases in adults and adolescents has increased
steadily, from 7 percent in 1985 to 18 percent in 1994.
The 14,081 women reported with AIDS in 1994 represented nearly
one-fourth (24 percent) of the total number of AIDS cases ever
reported among women. Forty-one percent of women reported with
AIDS in 1994 acquired human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) through
injection drug use and 38 percent through heterosexual contact
with at-risk partners. The remaining 21 percent of these women
received contaminated blood or blood products (2 percent) or had
no specific exposure reported (19 percent).
Of the 5,353 women reported with AIDS in 1994 whose HIV
infections were attributed to heterosexual contact, 38 percent
reported sexual contact with a male injection drug user and 53
percent with a partner with HIV/AIDS whose risk was not
specified. The large proportion of women reported with AIDS in
1994 with unreported risk will decrease after investigation by
local/state health departments. After follow-up, most women are
found to have a recognized risk for HIV infection. Heterosexual
contact with an HIV-infected man is the most rapidly increasing
transmission category among women.
AIDS and other illnesses due to HIV infection have been the
fourth leading cause of death since 1992 among U.S. women aged 25
to 44. In this age group, the rank of HIV infection among causes
of death for black women advanced from second in 1992 to first in
1993, and for white women, from sixth in 1992 to fifth in 1993.
(Data for 1993 are provisional.)
Although black and Hispanic women make up 21 percent of all U.S.
women, more than three-fourths (77 percent) of AIDS cases
reported among women in 1994 occurred among blacks and Hispanics.
For adult and adolescent U.S. women, the AIDS case rate per
100,000 population in 1994 was 3.8 for non-Hispanic whites; 62.7
for non-Hispanic blacks; 26.0 for Hispanics; 1.3 for
Asian/Pacific Islanders; and 5.8 for American Indians/Alaska
Natives. The AIDS rate for black and Hispanic U.S. women was
approximately 16 and 7 times greater, respectively, than that for
white U.S. women.
Data from the HIV Survey in Childbearing Women indicated that in
1993 an estimated 7,000 HIV-infected women delivered infants in
the United States. Assuming a perinatal HIV transmission rate of
15 percent to 30 percent, approximately 1,000-2,000 infected
infants were born during 1993.
CDC's Prevention Activities. CDC provides prevention messages
to women through community-based organizations (CBOs),
school-based programs, and public information and education
programs. Through health departments and CBOs, women at risk for
HIV are reached with interventions such as street outreach,
risk-reduction counseling, and prevention case management. CDC~s
programs include a number of activities designed to educate
women, and the public in general, about how HIV is transmitted,
who is at risk of acquiring the infection, and how the infection
can be prevented. These activities include a national media
educational campaign, the CDC National AIDS Hotline, and the CDC
National AIDS Clearinghouse. (See telephone numbers, page 3.)
In collaboration with the National Institutes of Health (NIH),
CDC initiated the HIV Epidemiology Research Study at four U.S.
sites to investigate the natural history of HIV disease in women
and to characterize risk factors for conditions indicative of
AIDS in women. CDC also awarded funds to an additional four
sites to develop, implement, and evaluate programs for the
prevention of HIV infection and AIDS among women and infants.
Also in collaboration with NIH, CDC is evaluating the
effectiveness of the female condom and assessing the determinants
of its consistent and correct use.
Several ongoing HIV evaluation studies are specifically directed
to women and are designed to:
* Evaluate occurrence and response to treatment of several
gynecological conditions, such as cervical dysplasia, pelvic
inflammatory disease, vaginal candidiasis, sexually transmitted
diseases, and menstrual disorders;
* Define rates and risk factors for mother-to-infant HIV
transmission;
* Evaluate behavioral issues, such as occurrence and
determinants of mental illness (e.g., stress, depression) and
methods of coping with life problems;
* Evaluate the relationship between various behaviors,
including cocaine and other drug use, and sexually transmitted
diseases in adolescent women;
* Evaluate the effectiveness of a variety of interventions
on increasing contraceptive use among women who do not wish to
become pregnant and are at high risk for HIV infection or are HIV
infected;
* Develop, implement, and evaluate community interventions
to prevent further transmission of HIV in a community; of seven
community demonstration projects, five are focused on women~s
issues.
* Develop, implement, and evaluate new interventions to
reach women with or at high risk for HIV infection.
Recent CDC Initiatives
Women are among the population groups expected to benefit
from two CDC initiatives that began in early 1994:
The "HIV Prevention Community Planning Initiative"
represents a significant step forward in the planning of
culturally competent and scientifically sound HIV prevention
services that specifically address unique community needs.
Community planning is a process whereby the identification of
high priority prevention needs is shared between the health
department administering HIV prevention funds and representatives
of the communities for whom the services are intended. In
addition, the community planning process embraces the notion that
the behavioral and social sciences must play a critical role in
the development, implementation, and evaluation of HIV prevention
programs within a community.
The Prevention Marketing Initiative (PMI). CDC's PMI is a
large-scale national effort to change behaviors that contribute
to the transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted
diseases (STDs). It represents a shift from previous mass health
communications programs, aimed at increasing general awareness of
HIV/AIDS, to influence behavior changes among people at high risk
for HIV infection or transmission. PMI is an application of
marketing techniques and consumer-oriented communications
technologies based on science and directed, in its first phase,
to the prevention of sexual transmission of HIV and other STDs
among young adults 18-25 years of age. To achieve the PMI
behavioral objectives, CDC will work simultaneously at the
national, state, and local levels through four components: (1)
National Communications, (2) Prevention Collaborative Partners,
(3) Local Demonstration Sites, and (4) Application in HIV
Prevention Community Planning.
For more information:
CDC National AIDS Hotline 1-800-342-AIDS (2347)
Spanish: 1-800-344-SIDA (7432)
Deaf: 1-800-243-7889
CDC National AIDS Clearinghouse
P.O. Box 6003
Rockville, Maryland 20849-6003 1-800-458-5231
Rod Swift
>: who, out of curiousity will be the final judge of good genes and bad
>: genes? my dear little goosestepping friend, you're leaving out the fine
>: print please elaborate...
>The AMA will decide which genes are modifiable and the parents of the zygote
>get to choose which of those genes to modify. If the AMA is consistent (though
>I doubt that) they will not deliberate greatly over the ethical implications
>(playing God) as they currently license abortionists to also play God over
>the zygote and fetus.
The AMA has stated, quite categorically and with sound advice,
that homosexuality is a natural, normal human behaviour, and is
not medically affectable whatsoever, nor does it limit the
livelihood and happiness of any one person who is of homosexual
orientation.
They do not believe it is a disease, and since it is quite normal
they hold the position that it is unethical to change something
that is innate and natural and which should be understood -- not
feared.
>The AMA must be consistent (aka form MEDICAL OPINIONS)
>though and not be political.
Their medical opinion is that it is not a disease, but it is as
normal as any other facet of human life.
If the AMA were the gods, your plan would be not able to be
effected. You'd better start planning to institute new gods, it
would seem.
I also find it highly erroneous that if it were genetic, then you
would seek to abuse your God's creation!
Rod
Rod Swift
>I think those women (not just lesbians) are using IVs too or sleeping
>(probably engaging in anal sex) with men who are IV drug users or
>bisexuals. It is very hard to get AIDS unless either party is bleeding
>somehow, right?
I have provided the actual numbers. The fact is that these women
mostly got it through, either, DIRECT IV drug injection of
theirselves, or from sex with another man.
How that man got it is irrelevant to the fact that he has it and
has spread it. The fact is that there are men out there who have
straight sex with HIV, and are passing it quite successfully.
There are men who have contracted it from other men or other
women. It is irrelevant. They have the disease now.
You can't just keep hoping to traverse the tree back up until you
find some link to IV drug use or blood transfusions or gays. The
fact is that the women who got HIV last year could have STOPPED
it by either not doing drugs dangerously, or not having sex
dangerously.
The people to lay blame on are the participants to the act that
transmitted the disease, not the people who previously
transmitted it to the carrier who transmitted it during the act.
5,353 KNOWN cases of heterosexual transmission *to* women last
year *from* men (I don't have the stats for women *to* men
transmission). That's 15 a day being diagnosed with HIV from
striaght sex. Another 15 women are being diagnosed each day with
HIV from drug use. How many more are going undiagnosed? Why are
we putting them back on the street as THIRTY heterosexuals to
spread the disease? Why don't we educate them? Similarly, about
30-40 men a day are being diagnosed as HIV+ from IV drug use...
That's REALLY BAD. Did you know about 100 men are diagnosed a
day with HIV from homosexual sex? They are not all gay, but that
is the transmission rate. The fact is that we can speculate that
this number will drop in the future as it has been trending
downwards for years as gay people are educated.
Does it have to take to hundreds of heterosexuals being diagnosed
per day for them to start thinking about them curbing *THEIR*
rates of infection?
>But there is no justifiable
>reason to raise paranoia among the majority of women who don't abuse IVs
>and who don't sleep with high risks AIDS men.
How do they know their partner is not an IV drug user? How do
they know that their partner has not got HIV from ANYWHERE, be
that gay sex, IV drug use, or straight sex?
Shouldn't we be targetting all women and men, regardless of
sexual orientation, for education on how NOT to spread the
disease?
Why should heterosexual be getting told that unprotected sex is ok?
I think your priorities are warped, Ousey.
Andrew Hall
>>>>> David Ousey writes:
David> kevin lyda (ly...@ogunquit.tiac.net) wrote:
>> In article <3oc83k$p...@hearst.cac.psu.edu>, ou...@mxd120.rh.psu.edu (David
>> Ousey) wrote:
>> ~Genetic homosexuality would disappear via genetic engineering. Homosexuality
>> ~would then have no biological factors (hormone imbalances or whatever).
>> ~THat would only leave the environmental and free will homosexuals.
>> who, out of curiousity will be the final judge of good genes and bad
>> genes? my dear little goosestepping friend, you're leaving out the fine
>> print please elaborate...
>> kevin
David> The AMA will decide which genes are modifiable and the parents of the zygote
David> get to choose which of those genes to modify. If the AMA is consistent (though
David> I doubt that) they will not deliberate greatly over the ethical implications
David> (playing God) as they currently license abortionists to also play God over
David> the zygote and fetus. I doubt that benign genetic characteristics
David> will be modifiable (sex, eye color, etc) but I do think genetic anomolies
David> that have a medically degrading efect (innate blindness, the possible
David> hormonal imbalances brought on by genetic homosexuality, mental retardation)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Isn't is sad when people just make things up.
David> will be on the table. The AMA must be consistent (aka form MEDICAL OPINIONS)
David> though and not be political.
David> OOZMAN
ah
=======================================================================
When you make as many speeches and you talk as much as I do and you get away
from the text, it's always a possibility to get a few words tangled here and
there
-- Vice President Dan Quayle defending himself
(LA Herald Examiner 10/3/88)
Mike McKee
>From: bn...@galaxy.csc.calpoly.edu (Barbara Lynne Nash)
>Subject: Re: HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE 24TH CENTURY?
>Date: 4 May 1995 00:21:57 -0700
>Mike McKee <mc...@larscom.com> wrote:
>>In article <3noba2$o...@fohnix.metronet.com> be...@fohnix.metronet.com (Rod Swift) writes:
>>
>>>What if I told you I could not live with my partner, and that we
>>>live apart for 11 months a year. Would that be inhumane?
>>
>>sounds like a typical LDR. I had one for two years.
>You're missing the point here completely. He is *forced* by *law* to live
>away from his partner for 11 months out of the year *because* of their
>sexual orientation.
>This is *very* different from the typical LDR.
And I have said time and time again, these laws are wrong, but I am not
arguing todays homosexuality problems, but their existance in the 24th century.
IMHO, any intolerance is unjustified, whether it is toward gays, racism, or
the right to own firearms.
Rod and I are arguing completely different subjects.
>Barb -> Straight but not narrow
Mike
The STrait Man :-)
Rod Swift
>>>What if I told you I could not live with my partner, and that we
>>>live apart for 11 months a year. Would that be inhumane?
>>
>>sounds like a typical LDR. I had one for two years.
>You're missing the point here completely. He is *forced* by *law* to live
>away from his partner for 11 months out of the year *because* of their
>sexual orientation.
>This is *very* different from the typical LDR.
Yes. It is forced exile or repatriation. It is *forced* misery.
It is international punishment.
Gina Goff
ou...@mxd120.rh.psu.edu (David Ousey) writes:
>Gina Goff (GI...@ricevm1.rice.edu) wrote:
>: Once again, AIDS is _not_ a gay disease. Having unprotected sex with
>: multiple partners is the risk factor, not "gay" vs. "straight". If
>: gays refraining from anal sex were all it took to eliminate "most" of
>: the sexually transmitted AIDS cases, then AIDS wouldn't be exploding in
>: the (heterosexual) brothels of Asia.
>(probably engaging in anal sex) with men who are IV drug users or
>bisexuals. It is very hard to get AIDS unless either party is bleeding
>reason to raise paranoia among the majority of women who don't abuse IVs
>and who don't sleep with high risks AIDS men.
against HIV. *That's* how small a skin break (way too small for either
partner to notice) could be and still be life-threatening. The rising
rate of HIV infection among women indicates that avoiding unprotected
sex with multiple partners is prudent, not paranoid. It isn't just
avoiding "high risk AIDS" partners, because you never know if that
person slept with someone who slept with someone who slept with someone
who had HIV. Since HIV develops so slowly, it's possible for one person
to infect many without intentionally doing so and without being incredibly
promiscuous. The notion that avoiding sex with obviously high risk
partners is enough to be "safe" only contributes to the spread of the
disease.
Gina
Ob Trek: was that wee bit of shore leave McCoy helped Scotty recover
from a hangover or an STD? :-)
kevin lyda
Ousey) wrote:
~I think those women (not just lesbians) are using IVs too or sleeping
~(probably engaging in anal sex) with men who are IV drug users or
~bisexuals. It is very hard to get AIDS unless either party is bleeding
~somehow, right? If you could enlighten me as to how I am confused
~by the giving exact behavior (who's sleeping with who) and the number of AIDS
~cases that result, I would appreciate it. But there is no justifiable
~reason to raise paranoia among the majority of women who don't abuse IVs
~and who don't sleep with high risks AIDS men.
denial is not just a river in egypt... it seems to be a way of life for
you. i can just imagine you during the bubonic plauge... "no, it's
caused by people not attending worship every sunday! forget this silly
stuff about rats."
K. Tewson
> I think those women (not just lesbians) are using IVs too or sleeping
> (probably engaging in anal sex) with men who are IV drug users or
> bisexuals. It is very hard to get AIDS unless either party is bleeding
> somehow, right? If you could enlighten me as to how I am confused
> by the giving exact behavior (who's sleeping with who) and the number of AIDS
> cases that result, I would appreciate it. But there is no justifiable
> reason to raise paranoia among the majority of women who don't abuse IVs
> and who don't sleep with high risks AIDS men.
Ok, here's the exact behavior: Straight women who do not use IV drugs
are getting HIV in astounding numbers. Straight men who do not use IV
drugs are getting HIV in smaller, but still frightening numbers.
Therefore, HIV infection is at this point non-correlative with sexual
orientation. As for statistics to back up the above assertions, I don't
have them, but the last time I saw them, Rod had them. Help me out here,
Rod. . . .:-)
--Asharte
A!(JW2.0) YK++ WK+++ DT++" PI+++ BR+++^! HH--- HN+! CO+++ SL++ SK++
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Do not write below this line. For office use only.
kevin lyda
Ousey) wrote:
~kevin lyda (ly...@ogunquit.tiac.net) wrote:
~: by denying gay and lesbian couples this ritual, it
~: can be argued that society is partially responsible for aids deaths in
~: gays.
~
~"OK, it's a fair cop. I did it, but society's to blame."
~"Right, We'll arrest them instead." (Monty Python)
~
~Yawn. When will Liberals remeber that wacky Free Will thingy?
so here you say that 90% of the population (heterosexuals allowed to
marry) will have NO effect on the remaining 10% (homosexuals not allowed
to marry).
~: and as i said, marriage has been getting a bad rap in the states for the
~: past 20 years. just think of what kind of a moral booster it would be if
~: about 10 million couples could join the fold?
~
~State sanctionned marriage would suffer even further as the
~motherhood+fatherhood ideal would be scrapped in the process - bad idea.
and here you say that 10% of the population (homosexuals not allowed to
marry) will HAVE an effect on 90% of the population (heterosexuals allowed
to marry).
one of us slept through math class...
quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz
>It ignores the FUNDAMENTAL fact that society requires procreative
>heterosexual activity, but not anything else.
Society does not require procreative heterosexual activity with regards
a married couple, David.
> No matter if only one homosexual legal union were allowed, then that
>one would serve as a social proclaimation the motherhood and fatherhood
>are disposable.
No, it wouldn't, David, no more than allowing a single mother or father
to keep their children serves as such a proclamation.
Nor is there any legal basis to assert a right to both a mother and a
father, as there is to assert a right to marriage.
>Current legal marriage framework work against promoting same-sex unions,
>incestual, polygamal, and pedophilial unions. Removal of one or more
>of those restrictions would serve as an endorsement of what was restricted.
No, they wouldn't, David. Restricting marriages to mixed-sex couples is
challengable on the grounds of sexual discrimination. On what grounds would
the other restrictions be challenged, David ?
>We also believe that ideals need not be needlessly sacrificed to make
>people happy. We all equally have the same freedom to marry only one other
>non-related adult of the opposite sex. That's equality - it's just not
>making you happy.
It is not equal treatment under the legal sense, David. Cf _Loving vs
Virginia_.
>: This is the argument found in the case of Baehr v Lewin.
>(If this refers to homosexuality) They were wrong.
I suggest you read the case. It can be found on the WWW somewhere in the
Queer Resources Directory.
- Tony Q.
---
Tony Quirke, Journeyman Semiotician At Arms, Wellington, New Zealand
David Ousey
: In article <3oc83k$p...@hearst.cac.psu.edu>, ou...@mxd120.rh.psu.edu (David
: Ousey) wrote:
: ~kevin lyda (ly...@ogunquit.tiac.net) wrote:
: ~: by denying gay and lesbian couples this ritual, it
: ~: can be argued that society is partially responsible for aids deaths in
: ~: gays.
: ~
: ~~OK, it's a fair cop. I did it, but society's to blame."
: ~"Right, We'll arrest them instead." (Monty Python)
: ~
: ~Yawn. When will Liberals remeber that wacky Free Will thingy?
: so here you say that 90% of the population (heterosexuals allowed to
: marry) will have NO effect on the remaining 10% (homosexuals not allowed
: to marry).
: ~: and as i said, marriage has been getting a bad rap in the states for the
: ~: past 20 years. just think of what kind of a moral booster it would be if
: ~: about 10 million couples could join the fold?
: ~State sanctionned marriage would suffer even further as the
: ~motherhood+fatherhood ideal would be scrapped in the process - bad idea.
: and here you say that 10% of the population (homosexuals not allowed to
: marry) will HAVE an effect on 90% of the population (heterosexuals allowed
: to marry).
It is not so much a FUNCTION of what the 10% (more like 4%) does, than
what society does should it act as party to a marriage contract which devalues
the sexual diversity of a woman and a man TOGETHER - which ensures that
any children which may result from this union will be GUARANTEED a LEGALLY
responsible role model of each sex.
: one of us slept through math class...
Tweren't I.
: kevin
OOZMAN
kevin lyda
~ou...@mxd120.rh.psu.edu (David Ousey) writes:
~>Current legal marriage framework work against promoting same-sex unions,
~>incestual, polygamal, and pedophilial unions. Removal of one or more
~>of those restrictions would serve as an endorsement of what was restricted.
~
~ No, they wouldn't, David. Restricting marriages to mixed-sex couples is
~challengable on the grounds of sexual discrimination. On what grounds would
~the other restrictions be challenged, David ?
to help david out, since he probably won't give an answer based on reality...
incestual:
this is based on a questionable interpretation of genetics and old
taboos. as research continues, the scientific reason may become less
valid. then it becomes society imposing its will on the individual... of
course there is a social aspect in that incest promotes an introverted
person (not beneficial to society as a whole). of course, that's a first
glimpse kind of thing that's based on absolutely no facts, and should be
taken accordingly
polygamy:
this arrangement can lead to huge legal hassles. think of divorce between
two people. now think of it between three... four... five... it's
mainly a question of efficiency. perhaps a more complex solution could
alleviate this issue, but the simple answer in the meantime is to not
allow it. one solution, btw, is gender inequality. if women have less
rights than men, and men can have more than one wife, it works better.
just don't give women the right to sue. (i find this solution disgusting,
but present it to explain other societies' success with the paradigm)
pedophille unions:
this is a question of consensuality. at what age can a person give
consent? we as a society have agreed that 18 or 21 is a valid age of
consent.
the above three opinions are just that, opinions. i think that's how the
world works, please fill in any blanks i have... "post to learn, learn to
post," eh?
Andy Henderson
>In article <1995May2.1...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>,
>med...@falcon.cc.ukans.edu (Mike S. Medintz) wrote:
>
>> 2) AIDS isn't a gay disease. A friend of mine, who happens to be
>> straight, died of AIDS two days ago.
>
>One quick question: of all the people you have heard about in the media
>who have died of AIDS, what percentage of them were gay?
>
>Thank you.
>
>
>
>Andy Bates.
Fuck this is a tricky one ... no, dont tell me, dont tell me ...
umm ... err ... well geeze I guess it depends on what you call
*the media*. If you read "The World Weekly News", in between
articles reporting Elvis has been spotted on the moon, and
articles describing a pizza in the form of Danny Kearnes'
asshole, I suppose you might find stats that say 100% of all AIDS
patients are queer. If you listen to Rush Limburger (thankfully
banished from New Zealand TV due to pathetic ratings) you might
hear 100%.
IF you read the NZ Herald you might learn that last year the
number of sexually transmitted HIV infections reported for hets
outnumbered those for homos in NZ (thanx largely to one HIV
positive bloke who managed to convince a number of women that sex
with him without the use of a condom was worth more than their
health).
IF you read "New Scientist", "Nature", CDC reports, "The Straits
Times", or any Thai, Indian or African newspaper you might hear
of the hundreds of thousands of str8s who have an antibody
response to HIV.
But I guess you dont read any of these do you Andy ... you sit
there at the Uni. of Kansas and send out your stupid little
postings totally ignorant of whats really going on. Jesus H.
Christ, if you even read a bloody "Batman" comic you would know
more about HIV and AIDS than you appear to know now!! What the
fuck are you studying at uni ... "Deep Stupidity". You probably
think that when people talk about "violence in central america"
they mean a bashing in Iowa.
It's a big fucking world Andy ... you better remember that when
you shoot you mouth off on the 'Net. Your experience is'nt mine,
your media is'nt mine, your crappy values aren't mine, so piss
off ...
Andi
John Hornbuckle
>multiple partners is the risk factor, not "gay" vs. "straight".
Sadly, this is true. AIDS was, in the past, a "gay" disease. We can thank
them for starting the fire that allowed AIDS to spread so rapidly, but now
we're ALL at risk. Fortunately, AIDS is easier to avoid than many disease, so
I'm not too worried about it...
__________________________
John Hornbuckle
GulfNet Technologies, Inc.
121 South Jefferson Street
Perry, FL 32347
Chris Gouldie
>people still think of AIDS as a gay disease, I guess they won't figure
>out the truth until they get it, not that I would wish that on anyone.
Okay, I'm tired of seeing this media induced crap about AIDS not
a gay disease. Let's see a study or two. I know that the only ones
I've ever read or heard about say that while it's possible for a straight
woman to get HIV from a man, it's either impossible or very near
it for a straight man to get HIV from a woman. However, I have
heard a lot of homosexuals saying the opposite, yet offering nothing
to back it up.
From 20-20 (I don't know the specific day, but I'm sure other
people saw it too):
A french study of 300 Heterosexual couples over the period of several
years, in which one partner had HIV revealed that only one male
contracted the disease from a woman.
Keep in mind, this was not a one time exposure, this was exposure
over a period of _years_. Besides, as far as I know, no tests were
done on the male subject to make sure that he really contracted
it from his partner.
Before we start telling each other to pull our heads out of our asses
(an interesting choice of words, given the title of this thread), let's see
some evidence. I realize mine was flimsy, and you have no way of
telling if I'm just lying, so let's see some truly documented stuff.
Doug Goodridge
: One quick question: of all the people you have heard about in the media
: who have died of AIDS, what percentage of them were gay?
: Thank you.
A very small percentage. Watch one documentary on AIDS in Africa.
AIDS is a human disease.
dougg
quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz
>My point was that (mostly male) homosexuals make up less than 5% of the
>population but cause up to 40% of the AIDS cases (Rod's numbers). After
>taking out IV drug users, you have the biswxuals and heterosexuals who
>intermingle with the homosexuals and the IV drug users. The activities
>involved here probably mostly include anal sex and more rarely, heterosexual
>sex with open sores on the genitals and mouth. In terms of sexual activity
>(excluding drug use) homosexuals and heterosexuals are hardly even even
>though the population ratio is so amazingly off balance. Comment?
The concepts of time, the difference between HIV infection and AIDS, and
the possible exponential growth rate inherent in epidemics are all foreign
to you, aren't they David ?
Christopher William Niemitz
In article <3oet38$c...@hearst.cac.psu.edu>,
David Ousey <ou...@mxd120.rh.psu.edu> wrote:
>
>It is not so much a FUNCTION of what the 10% (more like 4%) does, than
>what society does should it act as party to a marriage contract which devalues
>the sexual diversity of a woman and a man TOGETHER - which ensures that
>any children which may result from this union will be GUARANTEED a LEGALLY
>responsible role model of each sex.
>
Huh?
Why is it that whenever straight boys even hear about gays
they get all flustered and can't make any sense.
>
>OOZMAN
Perhaps you should stop oozing & learn English.
-I have nothing against born-agains, I just object to
them returning as the same person.
Mike S. Medintz
AIDS isn't just spread by sex. I have a friend who died of it, contracted by
a contaminated needle. There's a whole group that's being left out of this
discussion, because their catching AIDS had nothing to do with sex, and for
people of one sexual persuasion to claim that they're dying off the fastest
and another group treating that as flamebait, well, both are extremely
shortsided.
Mike S. Medintz
speaking for himself
Conrad Sabatier
cgou...@mail.utexas.edu (Chris Gouldie) wrote:
>Dewey <gop...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>>people still think of AIDS as a gay disease, I guess they won't figure
>>out the truth until they get it, not that I would wish that on anyone.
>
>Okay, I'm tired of seeing this media induced crap about AIDS not
>a gay disease. Let's see a study or two. I know that the only ones
>I've ever read or heard about say that while it's possible for a straight
>woman to get HIV from a man, it's either impossible or very near
>it for a straight man to get HIV from a woman. However, I have
>heard a lot of homosexuals saying the opposite, yet offering nothing
>to back it up.
>From 20-20 (I don't know the specific day, but I'm sure other
> people saw it too):
>A french study of 300 Heterosexual couples over the period of several
>years, in which one partner had HIV revealed that only one male
> contracted the disease from a woman.
>
>Keep in mind, this was not a one time exposure, this was exposure
>over a period of _years_. Besides, as far as I know, no tests were
>done on the male subject to make sure that he really contracted
>it from his partner.
If they were, as you say, *heterosexual*, doesn't this put the lie to
your argument that AIDS is a gay disease?
>Before we start telling each other to pull our heads out of our asses
>(an interesting choice of words, given the title of this thread), let's see
>some evidence. I realize mine was flimsy, and you have no way of
>telling if I'm just lying, so let's see some truly documented stuff.
No, why bother. If you're still so ignorant/stupid as to believe what
you're claiming, there's no point.
--
Conrad Sabatier -- con...@neosoft.com
Gina Goff
>: Okay, I'm tired of seeing this media induced crap about AIDS not
>: a gay disease. Let's see a study or two. I know that the only ones
>: I've ever read or heard about say that while it's possible for a straight
>: woman to get HIV from a man, it's either impossible or very near
>: it for a straight man to get HIV from a woman. However, I have
>: heard a lot of homosexuals saying the opposite, yet offering nothing
>: to back it up.
it have to be for you to be willing to risk your life for the sake of
having unprotected sex? It doesn't matter whether the odds are 1 in 100
or one in 10,000,000 -- if you're the "1", you're dead.
Gina
quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz
>It is not so much a FUNCTION of what the 10% (more like 4%) does, than
>what society does should it act as party to a marriage contract which devalues
>the sexual diversity of a woman and a man TOGETHER
How does allowing two men or two women to marry "devalue the sexual
diversity" of allowing a man and a woman to marry, David ?
>- which ensures that any children which may result from this union will be
>GUARANTEED a LEGALLY responsible role model of each sex.
How does current mixed-sex marriage GUARANTEE a LEGALLY responsible role
model of each sex, David ? (I speak as someone whose parents seperated when
I was 5).
And what does this have to do with the justification for marriage in
places which allow infertile couples to marry, David ?
Andy Henderson
>John A. Kilpatrick (jaki...@jalisco.engr.ucdavis.edu) wrote:
>: ou...@mxd120.rh.psu.edu (David Ousey) writes:
>
>:>: The point is that your insistence that AIDS is a gay disease is just plain
>:>: wrong! You keep on refering to the 'medial consequences' of homosexuality
>:>: and yet those same consequences can come from heterosexual sex.
>
>: >Much rarlier.
>
>: Not really. Go lood at CDC HIV stats and get a clue.
>
>My point was that (mostly male) homosexuals make up less than 5% of the
>population but cause up to 40% of the AIDS cases (Rod's numbers). After
>taking out IV drug users, you have the biswxuals and heterosexuals who
>intermingle with the homosexuals and the IV drug users. The activities
>involved here probably mostly include anal sex and more rarely, heterosexual
For a thread that apparently started in a "Star Trek" newsgroup I
have to say that some people are remarkably narrow in their
perception of:
a) the world - just a reminder that the boundaries of the world
extend beyond the boundaries of the US people.
b) the role of gender - is gender just for procreation? In a
highly social species, is the only way to ensure survival of a
germ line through out breeding (i.e., producing more babies)
other germ lines. In general how much meaning does "survival" of
a germ line mean in such a society? Is altruistic behavior from
non-breeding members of society of any use?
c) the role of the penis or clitoris - if sex is for procreation,
these appendages can be dismissed with as we dismiss with
appendixes in many cases. Cut them out or off, and rely on much
safer artifical insemination! If sex is for bonding, why is there
an objection to MOTSS using sex in bonding?
d) the role of anomalies - genius is an anomaly, it can be
difficult to tolerate, and can cause immense social disruption.
Should it be tolerated by society, especially when it is
popularly belived to be so close to madness?
>OOZMAN
Andi
Barbara Lynne Nash
John Hornbuckle <joh...@perry.gulfnet.com> wrote:
>>Once again, AIDS is _not_ a gay disease. Having unprotected sex with
>>multiple partners is the risk factor, not "gay" vs. "straight".
>
> Sadly, this is true. AIDS was, in the past, a "gay" disease. We can thank
>them for starting the fire that allowed AIDS to spread so rapidly, but now
>we're ALL at risk. Fortunately, AIDS is easier to avoid than many disease, so
>I'm not too worried about it...
>
>
This is one of the most bigoted statements I've heard on this thread so far.
Mr. Hornbuckle, for your information, the currently accepted medical theory
is that AIDS began in *monkeys*, and was spread to humans that ate the
tainted monkeys' meat. Gay people didn't start AIDS, and the USA is the
only country noted for AIDS being more prevalent among homosexuals (which it
no longer is, it's about a 50/50 split).
AIDS has never been 'a gay disease'.
Yes, AIDS *is* easy to avoid. Have safe sex, don't use dirty IV needles (or
any at all; drug abuse is a problem, homosexuality is not), etc. You should
still be worried about it.
Barb -> Straight but not narrow
--
Barb Nash | bn...@galaxy.csc.calpoly.edu | Real Men Don't
English/Comp Sci. | bn...@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu | Fear Gays
Cal Poly, SLO, CA | "Remember the winds and the waves." -E. Sternberg
James R McCown
In article <D8AJp...@rci.ripco.com>, Chairman Mao <m...@ripco.com> wrote:
>: AIDS isn't just spread by sex. I have a friend who died of it, contracted by
>: a contaminated needle. There's a whole group that's being left out of this
>
>
>: discussion, because their catching AIDS had nothing to do with sex, and for
>: people of one sexual persuasion to claim that they're dying off the fastest
>: and another group treating that as flamebait, well, both are extremely
>: shortsided.
>
>I offer the following theory - if the Christian religous factions (especially
>Catholocism) accepted homosexuality, even if on a very limited scale (the Pope
>refusing to see 100s of HIV positive and dying homosexuals on his trip to the
>US a while back still bothers me greatly) the disease would have a cure by now
.
>
>Even a denial - a vehement denial - that AIDS is a gay disease might suffice.
>But such a thing is not forthcomming - the lie is perpetuated by a vast
>majority (much of it would seem to be for self-dillusional purposes only) and
>the epidemic continues. If the disease were believed to be a mainly
>heterosexual disease then, again, I think we'd have a cure, or be much much
>closer.
>
>It's sad, it's stupid, and I truly believe that certain people _like_ living
>with their heads up their asses. I see scant few other explanations.
>
>--
I sincerely doubt that the lack of a cure for AIDS has anything to do with
anti-homosexuality. We don't have a cure for *any* diseases caused by viruses.
Chairman Mao
: a contaminated needle. There's a whole group that's being left out of this
You must have fun friends ;)
: discussion, because their catching AIDS had nothing to do with sex, and for
: people of one sexual persuasion to claim that they're dying off the fastest
: and another group treating that as flamebait, well, both are extremely
: shortsided.
It is sad - it is an excuse for religions to bash upon differences of opinion.
I offer the following theory - if the Christian religous factions (especially
Catholocism) accepted homosexuality, even if on a very limited scale (the Pope
refusing to see 100s of HIV positive and dying homosexuals on his trip to the
US a while back still bothers me greatly) the disease would have a cure by now.
Even a denial - a vehement denial - that AIDS is a gay disease might suffice.
But such a thing is not forthcomming - the lie is perpetuated by a vast
majority (much of it would seem to be for self-dillusional purposes only) and
the epidemic continues. If the disease were believed to be a mainly
heterosexual disease then, again, I think we'd have a cure, or be much much
closer.
It's sad, it's stupid, and I truly believe that certain people _like_ living
with their heads up their asses. I see scant few other explanations.
--
* Bill and Opus for President in '96 * Cuz we NEED a dead cat and a penguin *
*:::::::::::: Moloko Synthmesc Plus... It does a body good! ::::::::::::::::*
* Boycott Pizza Hut: Cuz ! Get real kind ! Go stick your *
* burned cardboard with ! and... ! Head in a *
* catsup tend to offfend ! =============> ! Pig *
Takuma Yamamoto
is prohibited. Even though deep inside me i Am a homosexual i have a
hard time, and i am embarassed admitting this to other people and myself.
I would appreciate it if one of you could give some support or advise on
how to deal with it. I hope that someone would respond.
Thank you!!!!!!!!!
Shows what you know!
: >Once again, AIDS is _not_ a gay disease. Having unprotected sex with
: >multiple partners is the risk factor, not "gay" vs. "straight".
: Sadly, this is true. AIDS was, in the past, a "gay" disease. We can thank
: them for starting the fire that allowed AIDS to spread so rapidly, but now
: we're ALL at risk. Fortunately, AIDS is easier to avoid than many disease, so
: I'm not too worried about it...
I'm not so sure this is true. Does anyone know if AIDS was first discovered
in homosexuals? Furthermore, just because it may have been _discovered_
first among homosexuals does not mean it didn't exsist in heteros well
before that. I seem to remember hearing somewhere that the found evidence
pointing to several people (heteros if I remember correctly) who died of
AIDS years before it was "discovered". Somewhere in South America if I
remember. Anyone have for information on this?
CtB
--
-- ____ _ _ ____ _ _
Christopher Thomas Boerma / / | | / / | |
boe...@river.it.gvsu.edu | __ | | |_____ | |
Grand Valley State University | | \ / \ | |
Allendale, MI \_____| \/ /_____| \____|\
--
Terry McIntyre
: >(If this refers to homosexuality) They were wrong.
: I suggest you read the case. It can be found on the WWW somewhere in the
: Queer Resources Directory.
Here's a pointer to a Domestic PArtnership page:
jcm9@lehigh.eduhttp://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/scotts/
domestic-partners/mainpage.html
and to the Baehr vs. Levin ruling:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/scotts/domestic-partners/
baehr-v-lewin.html
Thanks to Scott Corwin of CMU for providing these.
--
Terry McIntyre <tmci...@pgh.net> http://www.lm.com/~tmcintyr
If people were meant to think, they'd have been born with brains.
Gina Goff
boe...@river.it.gvsu.edu (Shows what you know!) writes:
>John Hornbuckle (joh...@perry.gulfnet.com) wrote:
>: Sadly, this is true. AIDS was, in the past, a "gay" disease. We can thank
>in homosexuals? Furthermore, just because it may have been _discovered_
>first among homosexuals does not mean it didn't exsist in heteros well
>before that. I seem to remember hearing somewhere that the found evidence
>pointing to several people (heteros if I remember correctly) who died of
>AIDS years before it was "discovered". Somewhere in South America if I
>remember. Anyone have for information on this?
earliest documented case of HIV infection in a human was a man from
Manchester, England who died mysteriously in 1959. (There were still
some histological samples that had been preserved in wax blocks (?) and
they showed HIV antibodies.) No one knows how he got the disease,
although I believe he'd been to Africa.
I don't think anyone knows how long HIV has been around, but the
construction of the Kinshasha highway in the early 70's seems to
have contributed *significantly* to the early spread of the disease.
Not only did the highway make travel easier and faster, promoting
more human interaction in general, prostitutes catering to the
construction workers may have passed the disease from one person to
another. Needle re-use in primitive clinics has also been a factor
in the spread of the HIV.
Note that HIV was *not* a "gay disease" in its infancy in Africa; its
early spread among male homosexuals in the U.S. is an artifact of the
extreme promisicuity of a small part of the gay population. Like other
STD's, the more partners you have unprotected sex with, the greater your
chance of coming into contact with someone who has the disease.
Gina
Ob Trek (and "Faces" spoiler): Why did they only give the Phage to
B'Elanna's Klingon half? That implies they know whether or not humans
are susceptible. Since they weren't drooling over the humans they'd
captured, that must mean that humans *are* susceptible. Does this
mean Our Heroes could have already contracted the disease? Whether
they can or not, *who* was the human guinea pig that was tested by
the latex-heads? How many other ships with humans have been sucked
into the Delta Quadrant and have any of their occupants survived?
Chris Gouldie
>
If the disease were believed to be a mainly
>heterosexual disease then, again, I think we'd have a cure, or be much much
>closer.
Chaiman Mao, I'm surprised at you. I usually find your posts intelligent and well
thought-out. Surely you know that the US spends more money on H.I.V.
research than diseases that kill many more people, and affect everyone equally?
Terry McIntyre
> >a gay disease. Let's see a study or two.
Just for the heck of it, I tried http://www.who.org,
and it worked. WHO, btw, is the World Health Organization.
Hmm, so far I am finding breakdowns by geography,
not by gender...
Here's a snippet from
gopher://gopher.who.ch:70/00/.anonymousftp/programme/gpa/docbase/press/
fe90_151.asc
( That gopher URL was broken into two lines for readability )
As of 1990, 60% of global HIV infections have resulted from
heterosexual intercourse. In developing countries, heterosexual
sex is the predominant means of HIV transmission. In industrialized
countries, the heterosexual spread of HIV is increasing slowly
but steadily, especially in groups with high rates of sexually
transmitted diseases and drug injecting. By the year 2000, it is projected
that 75-80% of all HIV infections will result from heterosexual sex,
< end quote from gpa docs >
I know that the only ones
> >I've ever read or heard about say that while it's possible for a straight
> >woman to get HIV from a man, it's either impossible or very near
> >it for a straight man to get HIV from a woman.
How can I break the news to you? First, "possible"
and "near impossible" are not whatyacall scientifikly eggsakt
terms, knowadduhmeen?
Second, AIDS is pretty hard to catch, period. If it
weren't, the numbers would be even MORE mindboggling - like
the flu epidemic just after WWI.
Third, if HIV can't be transmitted from women to men,
how do you explain reports of "up to 40% of men and women
in some sub-Saharan cities"? (same press report as above )
< this is frustrating - I have been surfing the
web for an hour, and am coming up with really ancient data. >
OK, from a 1994 report - subsaharan africa, 5-6 times
as many HIV+ women as men. This suggests a greater vulnerability
for women, but I don't know if I would use "nearly impossible",
to use your phrase, for men.
That figure was from the Paris AIDS summit, and can be
found at http://gpawww.who.ch/summit/vulner.htm
There's a report by the World Health Organization, at
http://gpawww.who.ch/whademo/women.htm
Quote from women.htm: ( Press Release WHO/69 - 7 September 1993 )
WHO estimates that almost half of all newly infected adults are women. As
infections in women rise, so do infections in the infants
born to them. To date, these total about 1 million, of whom half a
million have already developed AIDS. On average, world wide,
about one-third of babies born to HIV infected mothers are themselves
infected.
More than 14 million people world wide are believed to have become
infected with HIV since the start of the epidemic. However, so
far less than one fifth of these have gone on to develop AIDS, and fewer
still have died of the infection:
...
In many developing countries, heterosexual transmission has been
predominant from the outset. In sub-Saharan Africa, women
becoming infected with HIV now outnumber men by 6 to 5. The number of
women becoming infected continues to rise. In Malawi,
infection rates among women attending antenatal clinics increased from
about 3% in 1985 to over 30 % this year.
----- end quote
That's all I could find, folks; perhaps one of you can
locate more recent, more detailed data.
Rhonda Rubin
(Chris Gouldie) wrote:
I think Mao's statement is referring to the fact that the US didn't start
spending the money on this research until the disease killed many people
and started affecting the friends and family of our dear friends in
office. By this time, the disease had spread across the country.
BTW, the disease *does* affect everyone equally. *All* AIDS victims
die...so far.
--
"The dew fell with a particularly sickening thud this morning."
Rod Swift
>: I suggest you read the case. It can be found on the WWW somewhere in the
>: Queer Resources Directory.
> Here's a pointer to a Domestic PArtnership page:
>jcm9@lehigh.eduhttp://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/scotts/
>domestic-partners/mainpage.html
>and to the Baehr vs. Levin ruling:
>http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/scotts/domestic-partners/
>baehr-v-lewin.html
>Thanks to Scott Corwin of CMU for providing these.
Other pages:
http://nether.net/~rod/html/sub/marriage.html
http://nether.net/~rod/html/sub/marriage/himarr.html
http://www.eskimo.com/~demian/partners.html
Rod
--
| ... ..... | E-mail to: be...@metronet.com | ******* |
| + + + + + + + + | http://nether.net/~rod/html/ | ***** |
| * * * * * * * * | | *** |
| R o d S w i f t | Hate is *NOT* a family value | * |
<a href="http://nether.net/~rod/html/index.html>Surf the net to my webpage</a>
be...@metronet.com
>I read _The Coming Plague_ a few months back, and if memory serves, the
>earliest documented case of HIV infection in a human was a man from
>Manchester, England who died mysteriously in 1959. (There were still
>some histological samples that had been preserved in wax blocks (?) and
>they showed HIV antibodies.) No one knows how he got the disease,
>although I believe he'd been to Africa.
This case was false, and has been discarded.
>Note that HIV was *not* a "gay disease" in its infancy in Africa; its
>early spread among male homosexuals in the U.S. is an artifact of the
>extreme promisicuity of a small part of the gay population.
I agree. Of course, HIV was never a gay disease, but, possibly,
a disease prevalent in *some* gay men.
Seminar-Maschine Schuster
pub...@gate.net (Publius) writes:
> Since homosexuals do not reproduce themselves, I imagine by then
> they will be extinct. I think now they are on the endangered species
> lists - what with HIV and stuff like that. PUBLIUS
I think (beleve) that homosexuality is defenitly not heritable so there
is no danger in extincting.
If one reduces homosexuality can only be gained by reproducing, (s)he has
never heard about adoption.
Moreover homosexuality is nothing to be ashamed of. It is as natural as
having sex with men/women/animals/rubberdolls....
God knew what he did when he created animals,
plants,
mankind,
and homosexuals.
Thomas.
Zag Gahn
>m...@ripco.com (Chairman Mao) wrote:
>>
> If the disease were believed to be a mainly
>>heterosexual disease then, again, I think we'd have a cure, or be much much
>>closer.
>Chaiman Mao, I'm surprised at you. I usually find your posts intelligent and well
>thought-out. Surely you know that the US spends more money on H.I.V.
>research than diseases that kill many more people, and affect everyone equally?
While what you say may be true, it is not inconsistent with the original
statement.
ZAG
Conrad Sabatier
>>
> If the disease were believed to be a mainly
>>heterosexual disease then, again, I think we'd have a cure, or be much much
>>closer.
>
>Chaiman Mao, I'm surprised at you. I usually find your posts intelligent and well
>thought-out. Surely you know that the US spends more money on H.I.V.
>research than diseases that kill many more people, and affect everyone equally?
AIDS doesn't affect everyone equally?
Rod Swift
> ( That gopher URL was broken into two lines for readability )
>As of 1990, 60% of global HIV infections have resulted from
>heterosexual intercourse. In developing countries, heterosexual
>sex is the predominant means of HIV transmission. In industrialized
>countries, the heterosexual spread of HIV is increasing slowly
>but steadily, especially in groups with high rates of sexually
>transmitted diseases and drug injecting. By the year 2000, it is projected
>that 75-80% of all HIV infections will result from heterosexual sex,
>More than 14 million people world wide are believed to have become
>infected with HIV since the start of the epidemic. However, so
>far less than one fifth of these have gone on to develop AIDS, and fewer
>still have died of the infection:
>That's all I could find, folks; perhaps one of you can
>locate more recent, more detailed data.
Certainly Terry :)
This is from the WHO Global Programme on AIDS (GPA) Document base
also, but is much more recent (the 1993 overview report):
Initially, in developed countries, men were more exposed
to HIV than women, primarily as a result of homosexual
intercourse or drug injecting, but the difference in the
numbers of men and women infected with HIV has gradually
narrowed as heterosexual transmission has become more
common. In other parts of the world, where heterosexual
transmission predominated from the outset, the difference
between the sexes is even narrower. Worldwide, there are
3 men already infected for every 2 women (see Table 1) and
by the year 2000 the number of new infections among women
is expected to approach that among men.
The rising infection rates in women are accompanied by a
corresponding rise in the number of children born with HIV
infection. To date, it is estimated that about 1 million
children have been infected with HIV through mother-to-child
transmission. These children rapidly develop AIDS and
die -- usually before the age of 5.
An understanding of the ways in which HIV can be transmitted
is central to an understanding of the epidemiology of the
pandemic. It has now been established, as a result of
laboratory and epidemiological investigations, that HIV is
transmitted in three ways: through sexual intercourse,
through blood and from mother to child.
HIV transmission as a result of sexual intercourse accounts
for about three-quarters of all HIV infections worldwide. In
other words, HIV infection is a sexually transmitted
disease (STD). Transmission through intercourse between men
occurs in most parts of the world, although in the developed
countries it has become far less common thanks to the
adoption of safer sex practices by homosexual men.
The majority of the world's infections have been acquired
through intercourse between men and women (heterosexual
transmission). This mode of transmission continues to grow
in importance worldwide.
This is from the WHO Global Programme on AIDS (GPA) Document base
also, but is even more recent (the 3 January 1995, 1994 overview
report):
As of 31 December 1994, 1 025 073 cumulative AIDS cases in
adults and children have been reported to the World Health
Organization Global Programme on AIDS since the onset of the
pandemic. This represents a 20% increase in cases since the
4 January 1994 Report.
Allowing for under-diagnosis, incomplete reporting and
reporting delay, and based on the available data on HIV
infections around the world, it is estimated that over
4.5 million AIDS cases in adults and children have occurred
worldwide since the pandemic began. The major proportion of
these cases have occurred in sub-Saharan Africa and the
Americas.
As of late 1994, it is estimated that around 18 million
adults, and about 1.5 million children, have been infected
with HIV since the beginning of the pandemic (late 1970s
to early 1980s).
The continued increase in HIV infections, particularly in
southern and central Africa and South Asia, will accentuate
the disproportionate impact of HIV/AIDS on the developing world.
Dave Arnett, Hardware Design Engineer
>In article <Pine.BSI.3.91.950511...@dropit.pgh.net>,
>
>> As of 1990, 60% of global HIV infections have resulted from
>> heterosexual intercourse. In developing countries, heterosexual
>> sex is the predominant means of HIV transmission. In industrialized
>> countries, the heterosexual spread of HIV is increasing slowly
>> but steadily, especially in groups with high rates of sexually
>> transmitted diseases and drug injecting. By the year 2000, it is projected
>> that 75-80% of all HIV infections will result from heterosexual sex,
>>
>
>
>behavior (a BAD THING <tm>) or illicit and non-sterile drug activity.
>Eliminate these 2 BEHAVIORS and you will essentially halt the spread of
>HIV/AIDS. Period.
>
>HIV/AIDS is a problem in BEHAVIOR. Solving that problem is likely to do a
>lot more to stopping the spread of HIV/AIDS than any amount of money to be
>thrown at a virus-caused disease.
I think Chuck makes an important point - that simple behavioral changes
(which are consistent with 'traditional' and therefore politically suspect
behaviors) would practically eliminate the spread of HIV. These
behavioral changes could end the pandemic as we know it.
But I think there is an unspoken goal of the type of information
presented by Terry. I do not impute this motive to Terry; I believe
its source is deeper in the medical and political forces which exist.
That is a deliberate attempt to downplay the importance of
Homosexuality in the spread of HIV. The goal may be to make women
more aware of their risk of infection. That is a useful goal.
The goal might also be to take the heat off of the homosexual men.
I think this goal exists to achieve political correctness, rather
than to achieve understanding and control of the disease.
Were I to explain that most of the surface area of a tree is leaf and
twig, and conclude that trunk and limb are therefore structurally
insignificant, you would catch my error. I believe the same error
exists in many people's minds when it is reported that the rate of
heterosexual infection is comparable to that of heterosexual infection.
Here are the more significant areas of information: If a man is
infected, what are the chances he will pass the disease to a sex
partner who is male? What are the chances he will pass the disease
to a female partner? If a woman is infected, what are the chances
of infecting a male vs. a female partner? My understanding of the
way this disease operates is that men can infect others easily,
and women cannot (other than to offspring). In other words,
heterosexual relationships are the leaves and twigs of the pandemic.
They form an endpoint for the virus, since the woman is not likely to
infect others. Homosexual male infection, as well as non-sanitary needle
usage, form the trunk and limbs. Heterosexual infections are localised and
limited, though numerous; Homosexual male infections and needles form
the broad transport mechanism by which the disease moves. In both
hetero- and male homosexual infections, the common bond seems to
be infidelity or promiscuity, which exists in both lifestyles.
I am encouraged by the indications that the homosexual community
has moved toward safer sex practices. That is good. I support
the idea of fighting the disease with behavoiral changes. But
I also feel that money spend in search of a cure is certainly
worthwhile, and should continue.
Dave.
------
I don't speak for HP when I post here.
Chairman Mao
: m...@ripco.com (Chairman Mao) wrote:
: >
: If the disease were believed to be a mainly
: >heterosexual disease then, again, I think we'd have a cure, or be much much
: >closer.
: Chaiman Mao, I'm surprised at you. I usually find your posts intelligent and well
: thought-out. Surely you know that the US spends more money on H.I.V.
: research than diseases that kill many more people, and affect everyone equally?
You misunderstand. I was saying that if it were regarded as a hetero disease,
great deals more of money would be made available, treatment and prevention
programs would increase, and, most importantly, the money would be much more
easily forthcoming. It took a monumental struggle by the gay community (if
memory serves) to get the money that they have currently - Bush (and, I guess,
Reagan... I don't remember, though) simply wasn't giving the necessary funds.
Maybe someone else remembers better than I do... but, back in the 80's, the
moneys were NOT coming in as, perhaps, they should have. _This_ was,
basically, what I was talking about.
A sidenote - as people became aware that "anybody" really COULD get the
disease, the fights over money decreased significantly.