In accepting the Democratic presidential nomination Thursday night, Barack Obama endorsed every form of big government interventionism and bureaucratic social engineering known to man ("now is not the time for small plans"), along with a forceful statement of his commitment that "our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters" deserve to "live lives free of discrimination" (except as regards marriage).
Leftists will celebrate him on both counts, while rightists will equally denounce him. Gays of a libertarian bent will have to weigh the whole package in making their decision.
McCain's Choice
I don't know much about Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, McCain's veep
pick. She's pro-life but apparently no 'phobe. She vetoed an
anti-gay bill passed by the legislature that would have barred the
state from granting benefits to the partners of gay state
employees, and has met with gay groups and spoken publicly about
gay friends and relatives. Log Cabin President Patrick Sammon
issued a statement calling her "an inclusive Republican who will
help Sen. McCain appeal to gay and lesbian voters." Andrew
Sullivan, no friend of the GOP,
sums it up.
But obviously, if your vote is determined by gay issues, it's going to go to Obama/Biden. If you think Obama is better for gays but worse (or even dangerously worse) for the country, than voting for McCain/Palin does not make you a self-loather (though Obama's LGBT devotees will certainly tar you, endlessly, with that brush).
More. Let's see, the relatively unknown GOP governor of Alaska is unqualified to be veep because she has no foreign policy experience, but Bill Clinton, when the relatively unknown governor of Arkansas, was fit to lead. And Barack Obama, just a few years out of the Illinois legislature and with no substantive accomplishments since as a first-term U.S. senator, is also fit to lead. Can you spell m-i-s-o-g-y-n-y? (Oh, I forgot, liberals can't be misogynists, just like they can't be racists (cough, Clarence Thomas, cough) or homophobes.
{ 86 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
First of all, why is it wrong to have sex as a teenager? … Now my question to you is why is it wrong for a gay teen to have sex, in a context that involves safe-sex and self-respect?
Rob, I disagree with this point somewhat. I’m not sure that it’s wrong for teenagers to have sex, because it’s obviously natural impulse during that time. But it is a terrible idea. Yes, teens can be taught safe sex and should (and then wait to have sex as adults, in my view), but the self-respect part is hard. Too many times one (or both) of the party to the sex may be coerced, manipulated, or otherwise engaging in sex that does not reflect self-respect on that person’s part. If this happens when one is an adult, well, that’s his/her responsibility. But children should be protected from this. And the fact that sex too many times leads to STDs and pregnancy, means that we do ourselves a disservice by not stating children shouldn’t have sex. For this reason, I advocate raising the minimum age for marriage to 18 everywhere. To say that it’s okay for a teen to have sex, simply because they are married is even worse.
On the other hand, we shouldn’t stick our heads in the sand of stupidity and say that teaching abstinence alone is going to solve the problem. Just like we should educate teens to abstain from alcohol (or cigarettes, for that matter), doesn’t mean that it’s going to happen. That’s why we also teach teens that you should NEVER drive while drunk. And while you can try hard to prevent teens to have access to alcohol, the same is not true with sex, unless the teens are locked up and/or subject to 24/7 supervision. It’s pretty easy for two teens to have a kiss to turn into something much more. Anyway, there’s no reason to not teach teens two lessons regarding sex.
Amazing how hateful the lefties are. They can’t just make a point; they consistently feel the need to insult. That, in itself, says so much about what’s motivating them.
Avee, I don’t know if the statement you refer was hateful. It looks like it could have been a response to a hateful comment made to the poster. Even so, I’m afraid the righties on this site can be just as hateful. What would be their motivation?
By the way, is there anybody on this site that believes that it’s okay for parents to dress up their children as sex slaves and/or bring them to a sex fair or willing to defend them? Also, is there anybody on this site that it is okay for a 35-year-old to have sex with a 15-year-old or willing to defend the 35-year-old?
I’ll make a deal with you. I won’t characterize gay conservatives or gay Republicans as self loathing, and in return I’d ask the those of us on the other side not be characterized as mindless, single-issue voters.
Excellent point, Terrance. Good luck!
Rob, I disagree with this point somewhat. I’m not sure that it’s wrong for teenagers to have sex, because it’s obviously natural impulse during that time. But it is a terrible idea. Yes, teens can be taught safe sex and should (and then wait to have sex as adults, in my view), but the self-respect part is hard. Too many times one (or both) of the party to the sex may be coerced, manipulated, or otherwise engaging in sex that does not reflect self-respect on that person’s part. If this happens when one is an adult, well, that’s his/her responsibility. But children should be protected from this. And the fact that sex too many times leads to STDs and pregnancy, means that we do ourselves a disservice by not stating children shouldn’t have sex. For this reason, I advocate raising the minimum age for marriage to 18 everywhere. To say that it’s okay for a teen to have sex, simply because they are married is even worse.
On the other hand, we shouldn’t stick our heads in the sand of stupidity and say that teaching abstinence alone is going to solve the problem. Just like we should educate teens to abstain from alcohol (or cigarettes, for that matter), doesn’t mean that it’s going to happen. That’s why we also teach teens that you should NEVER drive while drunk. And while you can try hard to prevent teens to have access to alcohol, the same is not true with sex, unless the teens are locked up and/or subject to 24/7 supervision. It’s pretty easy for two teens to have a kiss to turn into something much more. Anyway, there’s no reason to not teach teens two lessons regarding sex.
Hello Pat,
So once they pass this artificially created line, it is suddenly a-o-k? Yes, there are many teenagers coerced into having sex, yet this is not an unknown issue with adults with adults either. There are statutory rape laws to protect them, which I think should be set to 16, with an exclusion of an age difference of 2 years. You also have teens that are more mature than adults are. This is a rather probabilistic issue rather than a deterministic one, and I have never been a fan of this minor, and major dichotomy, since the reality is that teenage development is gradual. Unless you can standardize a way of determining a person’s overall maturity and ability to cope with stressful situations, the issue will remain muddy.
As for the alcohol issue, well that?s for another time. I?ll just point out to the Western Europeans on how they handle children, alcohol (16 years old), driving (18 years old), and sex as well.
If there was any doubt about Palin’s position on domestic partner benefits for Alaska state employees she answered it in a questionaire she filled out in her run for governor:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/09/from_the_horses_mouth.php#comments
“10. Do you support the Alaska Supreme Court’s ruling that spousal benefits for state employees should be given to same-sex couples? Why or why not?Why or why not?
SP: No, I believe spousal benefits are reserved for married citizens as defined in our constitution.”.
Northdallas said “Priya Lynn who mock their religious beliefs, their commitment to their children and families, and their support of being judged on their merits rather than their gender identity.”.
I do mock religious beliefs but most certainly do not mock people’s committments to their children and families nor their support of being judged on their merits rather than their gender identity. Any suggestion to the contrary is a lie.
As to Palin’s claiming her daughter’s child is her own, I really couldn’t care less if she did or not. As to the suggestion I’m “desperately” searching for bikini pictures of Palin, she was a hotty in her younger days, I wouldn’t mind seeing some bikini pictures of her but I’m not by any stretch of the imagination desperate to see them. As far as troopergate goes, its alleged that she improperly used her office to get the trooper fired, I don’t know if that’s the case or not and I really don’t care – it’ll come out in the wash.
Palin’s 17 year old daughter is pregnant:
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/01/palins-17-year-old-daughter-is-pregnant/
I don’t think this reflects on Palin in any way, her daughter is her own person and made her own decision. I point it out to demonstrate the hypocrisy of Northdallas. If Palin was a democrat he’d be screaming how this demonstrates her failure as a parent and how she passed on immoral values to her daughter. That he fails to mention it at all shows that its not the right or wrong that people do that matters to him, its simply loyalty to the republican party that matters above right and wrong.
“In other words, HIV-infected heterosexuals had unprotected sex, period, 24% of the time — but just counting unprotected anal sex alone, gays were over 37%. What do you think it would be if you added in oral sex?”
Slightly higher, as indicated by the 3% spread between unsafe vaginal and oral sex, respectively, in the heterosexual study.
The question is are those whom are not merely promiscuous, but are UNSAFE in their sexual activities, the so called “scientific” gays you’ve made up? I’m not quite sure what you mean when you say scientific gays, but but I presume you are taking aim at the typical white, liberal Stonewall Democrat.
Of course, this is not whom HIV is spreading amongst most rapidly now. Its spreading, rather, most rapidly amongst the undeniably more closeted ethnic communities, including African American’s and Hispanics.
“Since there are far more heterosexuals than there are gays, if heterosexuals were as promiscuous as gays, the rate in the heterosexual community would be staggeringly large. It isn’t; indeed, numerically, gays account for the majority of cases.”
It seems you need a lesson in epidemiology. If a virus, such as AID’s, is transmitted sexually, and the FIRST group of people in which zoonosis (since HIV is a modified version of a virus found in apes) is achieved are gay, than the subsequent spread will be predominantly amongst gay people. How much fucking heterosexual people do is irrelevant UNTIL someone has sex with someone from the gay community in which to pass it on, or shares needles, or has a tainted blood transfusion.
If 10 people in a town are all disease free, and only have sex with each other, no amount of fucking is going to make them get HIV. Their risk of getting any disease is nil. That changes, very rapidly however, if a partner is included whom does test positive for an STD. This is how STD’s spread so rapidly amongst highschools, and how they can trace it so quickly back to the one person whom slept with someone else outside of the “locked box” as it were.
“The other problem we see here is how gay and lesbian liberals believe it somehow is “wrong” to teach teenagers to abstain from sex until they’re older and how they believe that it is normal and “common” for adults to have sex with teenagers.”
It seems that abstention teaching didn’t quite hit home with Sarah Palin’s daughter whom has a bun in an oven, and a shotgun wedding in her future. Unlike “Buick driving welfare moms”, however, Palin’s daughter has full access to taxpayer paid healthcare and a generous salary from her mom.
Thanks, Rob, for your comments. Yes, I get the point about an arbitrary line being created. Sure, turning 18 doesn’t magically make one mature, but in the eyes of the law, at least, they are now responsible for their actions. I should say that by coerce, I wasn’t talking about physical rape, and that’s not what I meant (in case you or anyone else thought that). Of course, penalties for rape should be harsh, no matter the ages involved.
It’s one thing for a child to buy the “you have to have sex with me to prove that you love me” or the locker room bull$h&t that coerces people to have sex when they otherwise wouldn’t. But at some point (and I picked the legal age of majority) you have to be responsible to see through the bs that the manipulation is.
Yes, some at 16 are more emotionally and sexually mature than some 19 years olds. But these 16-year-olds would then see the virtue of waiting until at least 18 to have sex.
I don’t think this reflects on Palin in any way, her daughter is her own person and made her own decision. I point it out to demonstrate the hypocrisy of Northdallas. If Palin was a democrat he’d be screaming how this demonstrates her failure as a parent and how she passed on immoral values to her daughter.
Notice how Priya attacks based on hypothetical actions and ignores the people in her own party who say that it IS a reflection on Palin and that women who do not stay home with their children are bad parents.
I’m not quite sure what you mean when you say scientific gays, but but I presume you are taking aim at the typical white, liberal Stonewall Democrat.
Of course, this is not whom HIV is spreading amongst most rapidly now. Its spreading, rather, most rapidly amongst the undeniably more closeted ethnic communities, including African American’s and Hispanics.
Which is why, I suppose, the statistics show white men who have sex with men producing more cases of HIV infection than black men, Hispanic men, or other categories.
Of course the gay community is going to obsess itself with rate; since minority communities started with a smaller number, any increase at all has a greater proportionate effect on the rate of increase. But in a disease in which the odds of it being spread are increased by the increase in number of people with it, obsessing with the rate while ignoring the vast increase in number in other populations doesn’t make any sense.
It seems you need a lesson in epidemiology. If a virus, such as AID’s, is transmitted sexually, and the FIRST group of people in which zoonosis (since HIV is a modified version of a virus found in apes) is achieved are gay, than the subsequent spread will be predominantly amongst gay people. How much fucking heterosexual people do is irrelevant UNTIL someone has sex with someone from the gay community in which to pass it on, or shares needles, or has a tainted blood transfusion.
If 10 people in a town are all disease free, and only have sex with each other, no amount of fucking is going to make them get HIV. Their risk of getting any disease is nil. That changes, very rapidly however, if a partner is included whom does test positive for an STD.
Indeed. However, in this case, despite HIV having been introduced to the heterosexual population, which has far greater numbers, why do men who have sex with men still make up the majority of HIV infection cases — and why have HIV rates dropped everywhere else EXCEPT among gay men, where they continue to increase?
It seems that abstention teaching didn’t quite hit home with Sarah Palin’s daughter whom has a bun in an oven, and a shotgun wedding in her future.
Because, of course, we know that “comprehensive sex education” has prevented any and all teen pregnancies.
Personally, I think telling teenagers not to have sex and having the occasional mistake from disobedience is far better than encouraging them to have sex. After all, the gay community adamantly opposes abstinence and encourages its teens to have sex, and look at the lovely results it produces.
(Before you get too excited about the 22% drop among older gays, note what the article says about a parallel spike in syphilis across all age groups. That’s not surprising; you only get HIV once, so many of the people in the older groups already have it.)
And Terrance:
I’ll make a deal with you. I won’t characterize gay conservatives or gay Republicans as self loathing, and in return I’d ask the those of us on the other side not be characterized as mindless, single-issue voters.
Deal. For you.
Which is why, I suppose, the statistics show white men who have sex with men producing more cases of HIV infection than black men, Hispanic men, or other categories.
What’s this “Other/risk factor not reported or identified”? So 37% of HIV infected black men got infected magically? Even if they were, the production, and rate of HIV+ black and Hispanic men is pretty damning when taking population disparity into consideration. Rate does matter due to the non-uniform infected population size, and those infected in a shorter period are more likely to spread it than the older generation, especially when they have no fucking clue that they’re already infected.
Because, of course, we know that “comprehensive sex education” has prevented any and all teen pregnancies.
Nothing is perfect in this universe.
Personally, I think telling teenagers not to have sex and having the occasional mistake from disobedience is far better than encouraging them to have sex. After all, the gay community adamantly opposes abstinence and encourages its teens to have sex, and look at the lovely results it produces.
Yet comprehensive sex education doesn’t encourage teens to have sex, and it hardly can be blamed on higher HIV rates. In most cases, those programs advise teens to wait for the right person, and not to rush over a serious matter. Nor does it state that condoms are 100% effective (again, nothing is perfect).
NDT, just to clarify, are you telling us that you’re in favour of abstinence-only until marriage programs, or that you simply want to emphasize abstinence in comprehensive gay sex education programs, like Sean would? Tell us throughly, what would NDT’s sex education programs look like for schools, families, and community centres? How would it improve the welfare of gay youth? I’m all ears to constructive analysis.
“Which is why, I suppose, the statistics show white men who have sex with men producing more cases of HIV infection than black men, Hispanic men, or other categories.”
Yes. Because theres more. Sweet fucking christ man? So let me get this straight if California, a state with 36 million people roughly, has more people with AID’s than the state of North Carolina, a state with 7 million people, what does the larger number prove? Nothing! The only way to determine such a thing is based on rate.
“Of course the gay community is going to obsess itself with rate; since minority communities started with a smaller number, any increase at all has a greater proportionate effect on the rate of increase. But in a disease in which the odds of it being spread are increased by the increase in number of people with it, obsessing with the rate while ignoring the vast increase in number in other populations doesn’t make any sense.”
I don’t think that paragraph made any sense. The rate of spread amongst a population relative to their size is whats important. 50 pigeons getting killed is not a reason to call up the EPA. 50 cougars is. And the rate, and the geographical and ethnic distribution are important, because ones odd’s of getting the disease vary depending on these circumstances.
“Indeed. However, in this case, despite HIV having been introduced to the heterosexual population, which has far greater numbers, why do men who have sex with men still make up the majority of HIV infection cases — and why have HIV rates dropped everywhere else EXCEPT among gay men, where they continue to increase?”
Except HIV was only introduced to a very specific area of the heterosexual population; namely IV drug users and bisexual men and women. The number of these, and their “Ghettoization” sexually, preclude a wider spread amongst heterosexual men and women. The only area where this is NOT the case, is amongst African American women, where women are sleeping with bisexual men who are closeted, or have not been open about their sexual histories.
Frankly, I don’t care anymore. You willfully misunderstand and misconstrue basic public health concepts to promote a nonsense, reactionary view on sexuality that no one on here, even amongst other gay Republicans, seems willing to endorse.
Jim offers: “Palin was selected first and foremost because she’s a woman. No man would have had such a chance. She represents the worst form of tokenism: someone selected not on their own merits but to fit a demographic category.”
Umm, Jim, if McCain had wanted a female nominee he would have selected Kay Bailey Hutchinson or Elizabeth Dole or Condi Rice or any number of GOP Congresswomen or governors.
Nice try at spitting out the gaydemocrat talking points, but it isn’t getting you there.
Sarah Palin was chosen because she is a maverick and proven reformer with a track record of fighting corruption and exercising executive leadership.
A reform-minded maverick (McCain) chose a proven political maverick with a record of reform accomplishments (Palin).
Your attestation that McCain picked her just because she was a female is demeaning of all women, demeaning to any political minority who struggles against the impression they got to where they are because of one ethnic trait or their sex.
It’s a shame that you can’t find the voice to applaud McCain for proving once again he’s a maverick who thinks outside the box… instead, you just want to demean women, minorities and misdirect attention away from the fact that Obama’s veep is more qualified than Obama to be prez.
northdallas said “Notice how Priya attacks based on hypothetical actions and ignores the people in her own party who say that it IS a reflection on Palin and that women who do not stay home with their children are bad parents.”.
You’re in no position to criticize those who criticize Palin. You constantly blame all LGBTS for the wrong actions of isolated individuals, nothing hypothetical about your hypocrisy.
Also notice how Northdallas didn’t criticize Palin’s daughter for having reckless premarital sex. When isolated gays have done that he won’t shut up about it and insists it means the whole gay community is sexually promiscuous and irresponsible. As far as he’s concerned being a heterosexual makes it okay to be sexually irresponsible.
“if McCain had wanted a female nominee he would have selected Kay Bailey Hutchinson or Elizabeth Dole or Condi Rice or any number of GOP Congresswomen or governors.”
Umm…..Hutchinson? She supports Roe as settled law. McCain (and everyone else) dislikes her. And she’s publically stated she is uninterested.
Dole? She’s struggling for dear life to get re-elected in North Carolina. Yesterday’s news. And again, McCain doesn’t like her especially after the NC GOP defied him by running over-the-top anti-Obama ads.
Condi? Please! Not even the Koolaid drinkers can choke that one down.
If Palin were a man, there is no way on this earth she’d be what she is today: the answer to some future trivia question. A powerful (and older) man picking an unqualified beauty queen is demeaning to women as well as a demonstration of poor judgment by McCain.
Gaydemocrat? Sorry, you’re quite confused. I’ve actually voted for McCain (unlike the typical Republican I might add). The question in ’08 is whether I’ll be forced to vote for a Democrat presidential candidate for the first time? Maybe McCain can yet arrange a tasteful withdrawal and hope that Ridge or Pawlenty are still willing?
Palin was picked for two reasons; (1) she is a woman and (2) she supports the socially conservative policies of the GOP base.
Biden was picked for two reasons (1) older working class white man and (2) foreign policy expert. I am not sure why non-major party candidates pick their VP’s.
No Jim, nice try at the spin but your earlier post suggests an antipathy which would drive you away from any GOPer like a Cross to a vampire… it’s like Richard2 suddenly tellin gus he’s coting for McCain except he thinks the guy is wrong on guns, wrong on abortion, wrong on gay marriage, wrong on DADT, wrong on the UN, wrong on social spending… has an ugly wife, is too old… but would have voted for him if McCain would just change all those positions. And run as a 3rd Party cnadidate, too.
Right, you claiming to have voted for McCain may be true but it’s because you were hoping to hamper, hazard and constrain the GOP nat’lly by picking the worst GOP to go up against Clinton or Obama.
Palin was chosen because she is a maverick, she’s long worked against the GOP establishment just like McCain, she’s a reformer who has a record of accomplishment much like McCain’s and she can handle herself on the campaign trail without micro-management.
There were at least 5 other women vetted by AB Culvahouse’s committee.
I can understand how gayDemocrats would like to create and swirl controversy where none exists… but the real controversies about Obama’s 1st vetting chief, corrupt CountryWide CEO Johnson were never answered and the improprieties of Obama’s 2nd vetting chair Eric Holder have never been answered.
But if you want to diminish Palin’s outstanding credentials as a maverick, as a reformer as a candidate with an effective record… you go ahead. The women bristling to kick your butt for your blantant sexism will do it on Election Day by picking McCain-Palin.
Don’t let me stop you.
Also notice how Northdallas didn’t criticize Palin’s daughter for having reckless premarital sex. When isolated gays have done that he won’t shut up about it and insists it means the whole gay community is sexually promiscuous and irresponsible.
Nope, I criticize her; she made a really dumb and stupid decision.
Problem is, her family admits it was a bad decision and she admits it was a bad decision. No one’s encouraging it, and no one’s making excuses for it. What they’re doing is supporting her and helping her.
Contrast that to people like Priya, who make excuses for gay promiscuity and scream that holding gays accountable for their promiscuous behavior is antigay and hateful.
Also watch how gay Democrats state publicly that it’s perfectly acceptable to attack a person’s family, including children.
Nope, I criticize her; she made a really dumb and stupid decision.
Problem is, her family admits it was a bad decision and she admits it was a bad decision. No one’s encouraging it, and no one’s making excuses for it. What they’re doing is supporting her and helping her.
Contrast that to people like Priya, who make excuses for gay promiscuity and scream that holding gays accountable for their promiscuous behavior is antigay and hateful.
Also watch how gay Democrats state publicly that it’s perfectly acceptable to attack a person’s family, including children.
Note how NDT has completely dodged Sean’s and my refutation. So did Michigan Matt in a previous article.
Well, that’s easy to explain, Rob; here’s what Sean said.
Frankly, I don’t care anymore.
Since you’ve already stated you’re not going to listen, there’s no point in wasting my time.
However, since you decided to bait, let’s throw out an example of your and Sean’s version of public health.
Yes. Because theres more. Sweet fucking christ man? So let me get this straight if California, a state with 36 million people roughly, has more people with AID’s than the state of North Carolina, a state with 7 million people, what does the larger number prove? Nothing! The only way to determine such a thing is based on rate.
Of course, what rate by racial classification also conveniently assumes is that black people only have sex with black people, and so forth. If a white man infects a black man, the incidence is counted as “black”, even though a white man is responsible. Hence, pointing to race and rates is really little more than an attempt by white liberal gays to dodge responsibility for sexual promiscuity.
Except HIV was only introduced to a very specific area of the heterosexual population; namely IV drug users and bisexual men and women. The number of these, and their “Ghettoization” sexually, preclude a wider spread amongst heterosexual men and women. The only area where this is NOT the case, is amongst African American women, where women are sleeping with bisexual men who are closeted, or have not been open about their sexual histories.
Except the fact that, if that were the case, the prevalence of HIV in the black community would imply that the rate of bisexuality is far greater among blacks than it is among whites.
Inadvertently, Sean stumbled on the answer; the reason HIV spreads so readily among bisexuals, urban blacks, and gays is because they all share a common cultural trait of endorsing, supporting, and promoting sexual promiscuity. That is not the norm among heterosexuals, which is why the disease has made so little headway in the normal heterosexual population; it has remained concentrated in populations that, like the gay community, practice sexual irresponsibility as a rule, oppose and ridicule any form of sexual restraint, and equate sexual conquests with power and status.
Of course, what rate by racial classification also conveniently assumes is that black people only have sex with black people, and so forth. If a white man infects a black man, the incidence is counted as “black”, even though a white man is responsible. Hence, pointing to race and rates is really little more than an attempt by white liberal gays to dodge responsibility for sexual promiscuity.
Again, you’re dodging my argument. This is a strawman. My argument is that even though those who are HIV+ are pretty much responsible for their risky behaviours, a great deal of their choices are due to their neglected or social conservative background, regardless of race. The only reason I mentioned black Americans as an example is because their families are very high in either background mentioned.
How is it related? Well for the most part, no sex education has really been provided towards the issues of their sexuality. Self-worth is nil due to a lack of a real family, and of course, many of the closeted ones are obviously conflicted with their sexual orienation.
Except the fact that, if that were the case, the prevalence of HIV in the black community would imply that the rate of bisexuality is far greater among blacks than it is among whites.
Well yes, that’s essentially what the Down Low subculture is all about: black men with girlfriends, cheating with other men behind their backs. It’s riddled with promiscuity, and broken relationships, yet what is interesting though is how it was formed out of a rejection of gay culture.
Really now, when, where and how has the ‘scientific’ gay community promoted risky behaviour? The closest thing I can think of is the pornography industry with its countless ‘bareback’ videos. But they’re definitely not part of ‘scientific’ gay community, which are actually outraged about it.
Yet you didn’t answer my previous question NDT: are you in favour of abstinence-only until marriage programs, or do you just want more emphasis on abstinence in comprehensive sex education programs directed for gay youth? Tell us throughly, what would NDT’s sex education programs look like for schools, families, and community centres? How would it improve the welfare of gay youth?
Let I said before I’m all ears to constructive analysis.
Bloody tags. Ignore the previous post.
Of course, what rate by racial classification also conveniently assumes is that black people only have sex with black people, and so forth. If a white man infects a black man, the incidence is counted as “black”, even though a white man is responsible. Hence, pointing to race and rates is really little more than an attempt by white liberal gays to dodge responsibility for sexual promiscuity.
Again, you’re dodging my argument. This is a straw man. My argument is that even though those who are HIV+ are pretty much responsible for their risky behaviours, a great deal of their choices are due to their neglected or social conservative background, regardless of race. The only reason I mentioned black Americans as an example is because their families are very high in either background mentioned.
How is it related? Well for the most part, no sex education has really been provided toward the issues of their sexuality. Self-worth is nil due to a lack of a real family, and of course, many of the closeted ones are obviously conflicted with their sexual orientation.
Except the fact that, if that were the case, the prevalence of HIV in the black community would imply that the rate of bisexuality is far greater among blacks than it is among whites.
Well yes, that’s essentially what the Down Low subculture is all about: black men with girlfriends, cheating with other men behind their backs. It’s riddled with promiscuity, and broken relationships, yet what is interesting though is how it was formed out of a rejection of gay culture.
Really now, when, where and how has the ‘scientific’ gay community promoted risky behaviour? The closest thing I can think of is the pornography industry with its countless ‘bareback’ videos. But they’re definitely not part of ‘scientific’ gay community, which are actually outraged about it.
Yet you didn’t answer my previous question NDT: are you in favour of abstinence-only until marriage programs, or do you just want more emphasis on abstinence in comprehensive sex education programs directed for gay youth? Tell us throughly, what would NDT’s sex education programs look like for schools, families, and community centres? How would it improve the welfare of gay youth?
Let I said before I’m all ears to constructive analysis.
Their was no way that Mccain would have picked Condi as his VP. She once commented that she is more pro-choice, then pro-life and then…their…well..she is unmarried…legally.
Despite what a serial liar has claimed, I have not endorsed any candidate.
I have mentioned — to explore my own beliefs — that I do support the 2nd Amendment as protecting both an individual and a collective right.
In the context of this presidential race, I have not made comments about the U.N. I certainly have not made comments about the candidates wives. I have spoken some about electoral law reform issues.
Palin was chosen because (1) she is a woman and McCain is hoping to appeal to women. (2) she has the pro-life, pro-gun, anti-gay socially conservative political viewpoints that
Mccain needs to shore up support with that particular voting block.
She is not a maverick. Mcain gave up his maverick role in exchange for money and power.
Richard2, it seems that your finally coming out of the closet and embracing your true political nature as a gayDemocrat; good for you. That’s progress toward truth.
I was commenting to Jim about how improbable his position was and it was like “Richard2 suddenly telling us he’s voting for McCain except he thinks the guy is wrong on guns, wrong on abortion, wrong on gay marriage, wrong on DADT, wrong on the UN, wrong on social spending… has an ugly wife, is too old… but would have voted for him if McCain would just change all those positions. And run as a 3rd Party candidate, too.”
The point was trying to underscore how improbable Jim’s position was –as improbable as believing all those things about your unlikely endorsement of McCain-the-Maverick.
Despite what you might like to think (and again hiking those gayDemocrat skirts up around your ears while denying it with passion) Sarah Palin was NOT chosen because she was a woman… she was chosen by a maverick with a record of reform and bucking his Party because she, too, is a maverick who came to office because she bucked her corrupted state Party and began reforming govt.
Now, you may not like that. That may hurt your gayDemocrat chances of electing the ultimate EmptySuitCelebrity… but that’s what McCain and his campaign have said were the reasons for selecting her –despite all the untoward baggage the gayLeft blog world has “uncovered” about Sarah Palin’s “downs syndrime (sic) love child with JohnMcCain”.
Honest, it doesn’t matter why YOU or King Richard think McCain chose Palin. McCain had many more famous and better-reknown women to chose from… he picked Palin because she’s like him –a maverick who bucked the Party and has a record of reform.
Now, BarryO’s only record are the receipts from his last haircut and manicure.
By the way, the IGF editors here take a dim view of guys like you who like to call others “serial liars”. It got another famously “independent” CharlesWilson bitchslapped here a few weeks ago and I hope, Richard2, that your error in labeling others as liars comes from your legendary inability to read for comprehension… as you, once again, missed the context of my comments to Jim in the above thread.
I hope.
You can apologize at your leisure.
MM called me — a person of color — a ‘Negro’ and a ‘slave’. He called another Richard a ‘kike’. He wants me to apologize?!
Richard2, well, you are either an unwitting dupe or intellectually dishonest or both.
The comments you refer to as mine in another thread are NOT; they are likely the comments of one of your fellow gayDemocrat pals who used to post as Charles Wilson… now he posts as DUMP.
He’s been kicked off at least 14 blogs in the last 2 years and his multiple IP addresses have been blocked by another 4 blogs who have battled his special, DirtyDemocratCampaignTricks tactics far longer than I’ve been around.
That’s why I commented before you raised the concern that those anti-semitic and racist comments at 8:59AM were NOT mine.
Do you even read, Richard2? Oh yeah, in a second we’ll hear that on your resume you were once also an english teacher… in addition to all the other jobs you’ve claimed here as proof of your special credibility on an issue.
Wow, I wonder why a gayDemocrat would work so hard to discredit another commenter on IGF?
Get a clue, Richard2. The comments weren’t mine and I noticed that fact for you and others to see… why do you need to spread such distortions?
Oh, I get it. It’s like the little game your side was playing with Sarah Palin… discredit with smearingly dishonest claims and hope no one checks them out?
How gayDemocrat of you Richard2. Taking plays out of their gamebook, eh?
Now, how about that apology, Richard2? We’re waiting and there’s no sniffling, squirming wriggling out of this one, this time.
Apology?
We’re up to four occasions for some serious apologies, Richard2… in this thread alone, 2 instances.
First, you called me a “serial liar” here, without provocation or basis.
Second, you claim I’ve written racist and anti-Semitic remarks when I’ve disclaimed those remarks directly below the fakery but, even knowing that, you still spread falsehoods.
Two apologies here in this thread; 4 specific instances in the last 2 days. That sounds like a trend, no?
Come on Richard2… we’re waiting.
Really now, when, where and how has the ‘scientific’ gay community promoted risky behaviour? The closest thing I can think of is the pornography industry with its countless ‘bareback’ videos. But they’re definitely not part of ‘scientific’ gay community, which are actually outraged about it.
While it’s good to see that Dan Savage is speaking out against bareback porn, I actually found his “outrage” to be somewhat lacking. I mean, Savage is rightly concerned that some producers of bareback porn are exploiting naive young HIV- actors, who will likely end up acquiring HIV.
But not all barebacking performers are naive, barely legal, HIV- twinks. Treasure Island Media, for example, often casts 40-something musclebears who are already HIV+ — as evidenced by their biohazard tattoos and in some cases, the lipodystrophy that is just barely kept in check by testosterone/HGH therapy. Yet Savage doesn’t have a word to say about porn that role-models the controversial practice of poz/poz barebacking.
And on the related question of how barebacking porn affects the viewer, Savage is likewise silent — he mentions viewers only insofar as they are already established consumers of bareback porn and thus creating more demand for it. But he avoids the dicey issue of whether bareback porn encourages real-life barebacking by viewers who previously might have been more reluctant to cross that line.
Note — I’m not saying that a single viewing of bareback porn is going to make a gay man who’s been consistent about safer sex suddenly throw out all his condoms and buy himself a “Seed My Sloppy Fuckhole” T-shirt.
I am saying that it’s totally reasonable to suspect that bareback porn is a real co-factor in the ongoing erosion of the hard-built (and life-saving) taboo against condomless anal sex. And “outrage” against bareback porn that doesn’t ask whether such porn encourages VIEWERS to be less safe is tepid outrage indeed.
I found your website, was interested what everyone was thinking…I am not gay, but I find myself frustrated that someone should be given special treatment because of their sexual preference. That is what is so tough I think for the average American, I may not agree with how you choose to run your sex life but in all honesty I don’t want to know how anyone does. If you are a good person, if you are willing to work hard and if you care about our country that is what matters to me. If you love your kids, support your community and are willing to put the welfare of those less fortunate first that is what I care about. Who you have sex with does not matter, only that you are loving and faithful. I am a 40 yr old Mormom and I was taught that it is not okay to treat others badly simply because we do not agree with them and I would hope that is how everyone feels. This election is important not because I am against Gay Marriage but because I think that it is time that our government gets back to the basics. I want Politicians who are willing to serve not be self serving, I am excited to see a woman become VP and I would not be against a gay marriage if it was a Family issue and not a sex issue. That is how it is portrayed and I think that is one of the reasons that Americans are against it. We should all be treated equal regardless of race, religion, gender and sexual orientation…not sexual preference. I think a woman, Sarah Palin can bridge that gap.Granted my opinion is one of many and probably doesn’t mean much, I just felt that maybe it might be interesting to know that not all of us are against same sex families or individuals.
God Bless
Kelly in Idaho
Just to circle back around… Richard2 has indicated in other threads that, despite the fact he was fully aware that I have not called him racist names nor uttered bigoted comments about him or other IGF readers and it was the highkinks of an IGF troll (angry that he got booted and blocked at IGF), Richard2 will ignore the truth and facts and continue to spread falsehoods.
I expected Richard2 to admit his mistake, retract his fraud and we could have moved on.
He hasn’t and is unwilling to listen to reason or accept responsibility for his intentional misrepresentations.
The IGF editors are aware of Richard2′s conduct. They know the facts in this matter support me and the truth.
I’m sorry to say Richard2 will likely continue his unreasonable claims. On this, he’s as deceitful as his claim of being an independent.
My apologies to IGF readers for having to dwell on this matter but Richard2 gave us no other course.
Here’s ND30, I see you’re still lying:
“LOL….not likely, Richard, given the Obama campaign’s latest line of attack: Sarah Palin’s baby isn’t really hers and she’s just covering up for her daughter. That’s very “scientific”. In fact, you can read the whole set of comments attached to it attempting to use “science” to “prove” this.”
Since when is DailyKOS part of the Obama campaign?
See, I thought that the race was between:
Obama & Biden
vs.
McCain & Palin
I had no idea that it was more like this:
DailyKOS & AmericaBlog
vs.
FreeRepublic & Sean Hannity
Who gives a crap what bloggers say? And why are we holding a campaign responsible for what a blogger says? Does that even enter the area of logic?
That’s like saying that Madonna is an awful singer because her fans are mean.
That’s like saying The Soprano’s is an awful show because someone got robbed while watching it.
How about holding the candidates responsible for what the candidates say? How about that?
JasonD whines: “Since when is DailyKOS part of the Obama campaign?”
Ummm, newsflash to JasonD, since about the time Hillary dropped the ball and the chanting of leftLoons hit a fevered pitch… maybe we can mark it as the day that DailyKos provided the BarryO Campaign the fundraising access to the Kos-sacks… or I guess we should now call them Kos-sexists since they treated Gov Palin so shamefully and showed their true bigot colors. (02/28/08)
Or maybe we could mark it as the day the DailyKos exclusively published BarryO’s tampered birth certificate to prove he wasn’t a muslim. (6/12/08)
Or gheez, I guess the are a hundred points in the last few months we could contend that the DailyKos and Kos-sexists are an integral, connected and staff-sharing part of the BarryO campaign’s Temple of Doom & Gloom.
Which days would you like to count as the date that the Obama Campaign welcomed his Kos-sexists into the structure?
As for who reads the blogs? Really JasonD, for someone who is so fundamentally in sync with the netRootNuts of the farLeft (take a look at your own blog, Jason and then check out JoeMyGod or BillInExile or a quick 50 other sites) it seems beyond belief you would try to argue the netRootNuts are inconsequential.
THEY ARE the Democrat Party’s farLeft… and the Daily-Kos is the Master of the 3 Ring Circus.
← Previous Comments