Woman to Woman

By Real Norman

April 11, 2005 07:06 AM | Link to this

The Bushites pushing abstinence only programs do not tell you that in the last ten years abortions have declined 40%, while the number of AIDS deaths, military deaths and others have significantly increased. I have no objection to abstinence but it is probably the least likely to succeed.

Republicans are not noted for having youngsters committed to abstinence; both the plutocratic rich and the demented evangelicals have higher instances of pre-marital sex than other Americans. In short, don’t trust Bush on sex any more than you would on death, taxes, or war.

By Drew

April 11, 2005 07:23 AM | Link to this

PLease people who are we kidding? Ourselves. For all normal healthy pre-teens and teens and even young adults, hormones rage and sex is all consuming mentally and physically. You remember don’t you? All of a sudden boys and girls just seemed magnetically attracted to each other. Yes, have sex education, yes, tell them the realities of sex, pregnancies, STD’s, but don’t for a minute think that millions of years of evolution and primal drives will abate or disappear, that’s rule number 1’ survival and continuation of the species. How do the religious fanatics and conservatives think they got here? immaculate conception? ..probably.

By real norman

April 11, 2005 07:31 AM | Link to this

Don’t expect logic from religious believers. Religion in general and Christianity in particular revels in the unknown, the unknowable, and the unbelievable. From the day Paul of Tarsus decided to invent a story about meeting Jesus in the spirit, having never met him in the flesh, he fought against the early disciples of Jesus led by Jesus’ brother James of Jerusalem. Paul’s fantastic tale of death and resurrection and salvation for all believers was a Greek myth which the followers of Jesus never believed. But the end of the Jewish Christian community after the destruction of the Roman war in 70AD left the field free for Paul and his people to invent whatever they wished. Christianity as we know it is deception, fraud, and nonsense.

By Bruce

April 11, 2005 07:52 AM | Link to this

I find it so hard to believe that just because teens are going to have sex we should just throw our hands up on abstinence programs of any kind. Abstinence is the only 100% sure fired way to avoid STD’s, pregnancies and other life altering consequences of having sex. But instaed we use it as a LAST resort. We condem those that want better for our kids. Just telling them the truth about these things isn’t working either.

By kt1066

April 11, 2005 08:24 AM | Link to this

“The highest standards for our kids” include lies? Sorry, I don’t think education that contains lies can be said to be a very high standard. And no one objects to talking about abstinence or even encouraging it; the problem comes when you lie about it and teach it as the only choice. Even the kids aren’t going to believe that. But right-wingers will do anything rather than face facts, such as the report that the Netherlands, usually condemned by right wingers for being too permissive and open and tolerant, has lower rates of teen pregnancy and STDs than the US. Could it be that the TRUTH is helping their teens?

By Randy

April 11, 2005 08:38 AM | Link to this

Norman, I went to New York City this past week for spring break, while there we met several Jewish people, then I put your last name together with theirs (Ravitch) and realized your hostility towards Christians most likely stems from that area. Note, I’ve also met several Jewish people here in Atl that have accepted Jesus as their lord and savior and are extremely happy with their conversion. I think there is a Synagogue in Atl with about 5,000 Jewish converts to Christianity. So there is hope for you.

By Teen Counselor

April 11, 2005 08:40 AM | Link to this

In order for America to progress we have GOT to learn that life is ot always black and white. We are usually most successful in the gray. Adolescents need to be reassured that waiting for marriage before beginning a sexual relationship is the best choice. And they ALSO need to be EDUCATED on what sex entails(STIs, Pregnancy, and it’s role in their future plans). In the big scheme of things, children need to know the truth! That it’s not easy to “Just say no” but that as adults we are willing to remember when we felt that way and share our experiences about how we made it-as inspiration! It works…I do it daily!

By Real Norman

April 11, 2005 08:41 AM | Link to this

Randy: Christianity attracted fools in the first century and it continues to do so today.

By Bruce

April 11, 2005 08:43 AM | Link to this

What is a lie about abstinence being a 100% proven way to avoid pregnancies and STD’s? Why can’t that be the first choice instead of something only mentioned in passing? I do not object to teaching kids about all this other stuff but abstinence should be the most talked about and the most encouraged. No do not lie to them, tell the truth, and the truth is abstinence is 100% proven. You cannot disput that. You can jump on your soapbox and make this a good vs. evil, Christian vs. Non, republican v.s democrat if you want but I am pretty sure this effects both sides of the isle.

By Michael

April 11, 2005 08:44 AM | Link to this

Does Shaunti read what she writes? Comparing sex to drugs? Someone may want to explain the facts of life to her. She brings up an interesting point about how schools preach drugs to kids. They preach abstaining from alcohol and smoking yet millions still abuse drugs and alcohol and get addicted to cigarrettes. Meanwhile there are plenty of Coke machines in schools and they push milk (plenty of fat and calories) to kids. Telling someone they can’t do something only makes most people want to do it more. Maybe if the Religious Wrong would stop trying to inject their flawed sense of logic into everybody’s lives we could show kids and adults how to lead healthier yet normal lives.

By vince

April 11, 2005 08:47 AM | Link to this

One of my favorite tactics used by the religious/conservative folks is taking the most extreme outcomes and claiming that is the only outcome. Shaunti’s example regarding drinking and driving is to bring in someone crippled in a wheelchair and tell our children that is what will happen when you drink and drive. Honestly, does anyone out there besides disturbed by this? So, sex before marriage will lead someone into a “wheelchair”? Maybe Shaunti’s folks have some teenaged women who have children and are dying from AIDS they can haul in for “show and tell”.

If Shaunti or anyone of those abstinence only zealots would actually read the curricula put forth, they would not only demand updates, but would realize that religious subjectivity has no place in doing what truly loving parents should do; protect our children.

President Dumbya Bush was a well known beer drinker in college and did not marry Laura until he was 31. I wonder if his parents took time to explain to him the risks involved in sex, or just relied upon the good Lord to give Dumbya guidance.

Abstinence only programs are not working, nor have they proven to be effective. In fact, the curricula is providing outdated and incorrect information. The curricula is geared more toward morality and has very little to do with educating our children about how to protect themselves from the risks of sex.

I wonder how the parents of the children who vowed never to have sex before marriage feel as they are now dealing with their children’s STD’s and or unwanted pregnancies?

By Archie

April 11, 2005 08:54 AM | Link to this

I think abstinence-first and abstinence-second would work for most teenagers but I have no idea if abstinence-only works. I am trying to say that abstinence during teen years is probably the best policy and it should be taught as Dianne says but the kids should not be told lies. The truth is you can’t get std’s and unplanned pregnancy from being abstinent. The truth is that we all make some mistakes so its best to be covered why is which there’s a thing called car insurance, because we know people break the speed limit and drive recklessly, therefore you protect you car value. Shanti uses alcohol and drugs in her analogy and it’s a poor analogy because street drugs are illegal and alcohol is illegal for individuals under 21 but sex is legal. Bottom line is that abstinence is a desirable goal and it should be encouraged more than it is because the peer pressure is so strong that there needs to be a counter measure in place.

By Greg A

April 11, 2005 08:54 AM | Link to this

I find it rather interesting that Diane says we “shouldn’t teach abstinence through fear and intimidation,” and then, two sentences later, talks about teen sexual activity decreasing “because of the fear of AIDS and pregnancy.”

“Hey everybody, don’t use fear! Because it works!”

By James

April 11, 2005 09:06 AM | Link to this

OK, REALITY CHECK! Drew, you are 100% correct. These right-wing folks forget what it is to be human. They are so busy trying to prove to the world they are so much better than the rest of us, that they ignore anything that may differ from their own opinion/dogma. They were sex crazed teenagers at one time. I agree Abstinence is the best choice, but Diane hits the nail on the head. What about Gay youth & reality? I believe Shaunti wants all those nasty young gay children to go ahead and get STDs/AIDs and die. We/they can not marry. However, we can have monogomous relationships. But, alas, this is a fairy tale too. 85% of Heterosexual Married Men cheat at some point. This is 1000’s of years of evolution. It ain’t changing because Shaunti & ‘W’ says it should.

Drunk driving & drugs are not a basic human function. Sex is a drive like eating, drinking, breathing & pooping. We all have the drive/need to do it.

Randy: It is very anti-American of you to insist Norman go to Jews for Jesus. His religon and opinions are his own, and he has the constitutional right to them. You are the problem in our society-single minded, hate centered, Evangelical hypocrites! Like ‘Teen Counselor’ said, it ain’t black & white-only 1000’s of shades of gray! Our country was built on freedom. Stop trying to take that away!

By Real Norman

April 11, 2005 09:17 AM | Link to this

JAMES: I was not offended by Randy sending me to Jews for Jesus. He didn’t send me to hell! At least not yet. I have had Jesus but I finally discovered who Jesus really was, that he was not teaching what the churches claim he was, that he is dead, period. And that worshipping him, eating his body, and claiming him as a saviour is totally meaningless. That poor apocalyptic Jew suffered for his delusions. Let us not dishonor him by pretending he stood for things he clearly did not stand for.

By Amanda

April 11, 2005 09:17 AM | Link to this

One comment on Diane’s accusal of abstinance-only programs incorrectly telling children that condoms do not help stop the spread of STDs - my guess is that the teaching is actually that condoms cannot COMPLETELY stop the spread of such diseases. There are some STDs - HPV in particular - that can still be spread with the use of a condom. HPV has become such a widespread problem that there are new national commercials asking all women to get tested for increased risk of cervical cancer from HPV - and the virus is spread through skin-to-skin contact, which cannot completely be stopped by using condoms. I know many people who were diligent in condom use, but HPV is still an issue. Even the safest sex isn’t always safe.

By James

April 11, 2005 09:27 AM | Link to this

Norman: It was my frustration at the way society in our ‘free’ country is going. I am so tired of Nazi’s, I mean Evangelical Christians, demanding we do as we are told. All of our great leaders & founding fathers knew the damage that could come from allowing a church/ideology to control this country. It has happened over and over and over again. I am just very afriad that it is happening again. How long before we see the concentration camps in Iowa or South Georgia or Boot Camps in Oklahoma and Ohio to rid our society of the undesiribles. These folks are trying too hard to stop the ‘ring’ of freedom. The Taliban, I mean Bush Administration, wants our children to believe the only people worthy of freedom are those who conform to their standards. Straight, married & having babies. How far have we come to only go back?

A society can only be free if ALL of it’s citizens are free. Free to screw up & free to succeed.

By Boscoe

April 11, 2005 09:49 AM | Link to this

You’re free James. Free to face the consequences of your actions. It is a truth of faith that the human person is free. That is, we are not determined to any destiny, but rather by our freewill actions we are self-determining. Bearing this in mind, if man is free, he is then responsible. But for all the talk of freedom in our society, the idea of responsibility remains an unpleasant topic for many. FYI, President George Washington’s deep commitment to the providence of God was frequently manifested in both private and public statements. To him, freedom and moral government were inseparable. He emphasized the necessity of religion and morality for our Constitutional government. In his Farewell Address written over two hundred years ago on September 17, 1796 he declared: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity…And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.â€?

By J. Morris

April 11, 2005 09:51 AM | Link to this

It’s ironic that this column comes shortly after a study was published showing that a significant number of teenagers don’t consider oral sex to be sex, and that a significant percentage of them are either active in that fashion or considering becoming so in the near future.

The religious right is trying to strike once again by harping on the “no sex before marriage” mantra to exclusion of all else. The whole idea of abstinence before marriage is a religious one, and should have no place in our public education system.

Does this mean I don’t support abstinence education? Not in the least. The religious right always tries to draw their arguments in strict blacks and whites; it’s abstinence education or nothing! Unfortunately, such stark, unyielding solutions seldom work. Ideally, teenagers will remain abstinent until they are emotionally and intellectually prepared for the consequences of sexual behavior. However, logically we have to assume that this isn’t always going to happen. Teenagers are going to have sex. It’s better that they be prepared and safe than uneducated and dead.

It is a gross irresponsibility for the government NOT to want to inform teens about things that can prevent pregnancy and stop or mitigate disease risks. The fact that they do so in the name of ideology just makes it worse.

By E. Lewis

April 11, 2005 09:55 AM | Link to this

Just look at the numbers. Abstinence only program, as they are being taught now, are complete failures. Results count when it comes to sex education, intentions don’t. Unlike smoking, when it comes to sex and acts that teens don’t consider “real sex”, getting it wrong once can kill you, harm you or leave you with a child to take care of for the next 18 years. Abstinence won’t work if just-say-no is all these kids learn. They need a strong foundation at home. They must also have the self esteem and emotional strength to make their own decisions and the means to stick to them despite peer pressure and natural instincts/hormones.

Abstinence should be an important part of any sex education program, but it needs to be taught in the context of real life situations.

By Randy

April 11, 2005 09:56 AM | Link to this

Norman, After seeing the millions of Christians go to the Pope’s funeral, the Pope’s death dominating the press for 2 weeks and the fact that 1.2 billion people are Catholics and this not even including other Christian religions, you must feel like the FOOL. As it should be.

By E. Lewis

April 11, 2005 09:57 AM | Link to this

And stick to the facts when it comes to sex, various forms of protection, pregnancy and STDs. Most kids are smart enough to figure out when they are being lied to even if it’s with the best of intentions.

By DeltaX

April 11, 2005 10:04 AM | Link to this

Of course no one wants to talk about teaching these kids truths about sex. That would mean that all these ignorant adults would have to learn and do their homework first. I mean this in all areas - health as-well-as how to have fun with it.

Most adults I have met know little on the subject much less how to relate it to another.

Couple that with the adversion to see out relatives as sexual.

Only solution is for these people to Grow Up.

By Randy

April 11, 2005 10:06 AM | Link to this

James, You are right, Norman does have the right to his own opinion, I would never wish that that be taken away. However, I also have the right to my opinion and belief(knowing the truth)and if Norman chooses to discuss those opinions with me on this forum, I have the right to tell the truth. I am not going to change the truth, just because you and some others don’t want to here it. If you don’t want to here the facts, get off this site and bury your head in the sand. If it wasn’t true, it wouldn’t bother you.

By Real Norman

April 11, 2005 10:09 AM | Link to this

Randy: if you take the statistics for mass attendance among Europeans, it seems that a very large percentage of those coming to Rome for the pope’s funeral do not share his faith. Even in Poland, Catholic Poland, abortion rates are high. In Italy, Catholic Italy, the birthrate is way down, as it is in Catholic Spain and Portugal. Catholicism is dying in Europe, but the people still had some feelings, rightly so, for that remarkable man, John Paul II. But they don’t share his rigid faith and anachronistic concerns.

The best example of how little Catholics in America really believe is the vast popularity of The DaVinci Code among American Catholics.

By Bruce

April 11, 2005 10:12 AM | Link to this

Would you please make up your minds. Do you want the goverenment in your bedrooms or not. Not to long ago there was folks on this forum complaining how they did not want them in the bedroom and now J Morris says it is irresponsible if they are not.

By James

April 11, 2005 10:18 AM | Link to this

Boscoe, your definition of freedom is not the one I am discussing. Bear in mind, I am a Christian. You and I differ on many ideals & concepts, but I do understand and agree with what you say: All humans are ultimatly free. However, I do not owe responsiblity to anyone but myself. If my actions do not harm another, then they should be left to my free will, as GOD has done. The idea of teaching students that abstinece is the one and only way is saying-do as we say or you will die. As I stated, freedom means also the freedom to screw-up. Taking this in mind, our children are going to screw-up. I would much rather have my child make the mistake with knowledge of how to lessen the chances of a bigger mistake that will also effect another person. Morality is important. However, when it becomes a black & white issue, the freedoms of man are taken away. Women’s rights and freedoms were taken away by the Taliban. These women had the human freedom to defy the Taliban, at the risk of death. That is not freedom Boscoe.

I respect your conservative views, and think is VERY sad we have to teach sex education in schools at all. If all of these moral parents would take the responsiblity to teach what they believe at home, the government would not have to do it for them. However, the conservative view is not the only right way. You have the responsiblity to love me as a neighbor. That means the responsiblity of respecting my freedom of choice and allowing God to make the final judgement, not you. This was Jesus’ basic concept: Love one another. Respect is the way to do this and not by dictating that your way as the only way. This is why God gave human freedom to begin with.

By James

April 11, 2005 10:27 AM | Link to this

Randy, I would never demand you not express your opinion. I was also expressing mine. That is what this forum is for. You got to admitt it is fun. However, your truth is another’s lie. It is not that I don’t like to hear your opinion. If not for conservative opinions, our world would be very borring. And we would have nothing to discuss.

And your suggestion of burying my head in the sand is a problem. I don’t like sand up my nose and itwould ruin my contacts.

By Jennifer

April 11, 2005 10:27 AM | Link to this

It comes as no surprise that we are stereo-typing again. Lumping all Republicans and Christians into one closed minding group IS narrow minded.

Is the issue really abstinance? To have sex or not have sex? Society shoves self gratification down our throats daily trying to make us believe that if we buy their product our sex life will improve…..what does that teach our children about sex? That you should love, honor and respect your partner or if I buy your car I get a lot of action?

Responsible sex education should teach our children how to protect themselves against STD’s, pregnancy etc. Absolutely we should inform them about condoms and prevention, but we should also teach WHY abstinance is the other alternative. Teaching them love, respect and honor for themselves and their partner is also our responsibility; therefore, they can make a truely educated decision. After all, it is their choice to make.

Christian Mom

By J. Morris

April 11, 2005 10:29 AM | Link to this

No one is suggesting that the government intrude into the bedroom, Bruce; it’s a totally specious argument. Well, you Fundamentalists are, but that’s a different story.

There is a tremendous difference between providing information and in regulating behavior. The Government spends millions of dollars providing information about other societal and health-related issues. Sex education is no different - there are issues that everyone should be made aware of for their own safety.

Government has a responsibility to protect its citizens - it is only fundamentalist, puritanical nonsense that keeps us from teaching sex ed from a rational, real-world perspective.

By Michael

April 11, 2005 10:29 AM | Link to this

Few of us, I believe, would deny that emotional harm and worse can result from young people prematurely engaging in sex. However, teaching the biology of sex and methods of contraception are a legitimate part of the school curriculum, because education is intended to furnish students with the knowledge they will need in their adult lives, not just that portion of their lives they spend in school. So, how accurate is the science in these abstinence programs? Currently, no reviews are conducted of sex education programs limited to teaching abstinence from sexual activity. No one reviews these to see if they are scientifically accurate or provide false information and even Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist believes that it is time to review these programs.

In addition the examples provided by Ms. Glass, here is a small sample of the “informationâ€? taught in the “Just say no,â€? and other similar, federally funded programs,“sex education” programs. One program teaches that touching another person’s genitals can result in pregnancy, another describes a fetus at 43 days as a “thinking person.â€? Another teaches that the virus that causes AIDs can be spread through sweat and tears, despite the fact that the CDC has never identified a case in which AIDs has been transmit to another person by such a mechanism. Is this the sort of disinformation that we want our taxes to be used to “teachâ€? our children?

Ms. Feldhahan claimed that “Sex education became, essentially, contraceptive education. And teen sexual activity, pregnancy rates and STDs all exploded.� This is a tirelessly repeated version of the “false cause fallacy� and this very example is sometimes used in logic textbooks to illustrate that fallacy. Sex education did not “cause� these increased rates. The increased sexual activity that followed the change in mores known as the “sexual revolution,� and the absence of care while engaging in risky behaviors is what caused the increase, as well causing a new focus on sex education. And what did the increased attention to the biological facts of sex, teaching the necessity of taking of precautions to avoid the acquisition of a sexual transmitted diseases, and contraception to avoid unwanted pregnancies result it? A reduction in the 1990s in all of these. According to the a major study released by the Centers for Disease Control last year, sexual transmitted diseases have been reduced and the percentage of teenage girls who become pregnant is the lowest since statistics have been kept. Since, also according to the CDC, the percentage of teenagers engaging in sexual relations is down only slightly the last few years and is still estimated to be much higher than earlier years in which there was a higher rate of pregnancy, it could not have been abstinence. I suppose Ms. Feldhahn prefers the utterly biased claims of a person representing an advocacy group, the highly unreliable “Focus on the Family,� to the reliable and accurate claims of the CDC.

One can also contrast the results of the efforts of the American military during World War I and World War II to reduce the likelihood of soldiers obtaining sexually transmitted diseases through prostitutes and casual encounters. In the first war, the authorities relied on moral arguments to dissuade men from seeking sex partners. Venereal disease rates were exceedingly high as this strategy proved largely ineffective. In the second world war, protection from disease was strongly encouraged and facilitated with the distribution of condoms, with the result that the rates decreased dramatically.

The attempt at an argument from analogy by the advocate is laughable (Not as bad, nor as humorous as Tony’s earlier comparison of mowing a lawn for free and for a payment of $50 that was somehow intended to be analogous to position of doctors in European health care systems and the United States respectively. The professional doctor as yard man argument.) Sex is a part of our lives as biological beings and most people will have partners and children. Drinking and driving or taking illegal drugs are not a necessary part of life, they are illegal, and endanger others. There is no analogy to be made here.

Ms. Feldhahn’s columns seem to be a mixture of the incompetence of the writer and the often indefensible positions she takes up for ideological reasons. I think that the AJC should cast about for another conservative writer, one who is able to argue, present ideas in a light that gives one pause to reflect on them, in other words someone who can provoke thought instead of just an emotional chord among like minded people. If the AJC could find a conservative like David Brooks to replace Jim Wooden and Ms. Feldhahn, we would all be better served. However, her writing does serve a useful purpose for me, as she has just provided two more examples of informal logical fallacies, in addition to the ones I obtained from her columns in the past that I have used in my critical thinking classes.

By Jack

April 11, 2005 10:33 AM | Link to this

The govt should encourage abstinence for our teens. It won’t work anymore than it did when I was young. Boys will always try to get into the pants of girls. As for oral sex not being considered sex. Bill Clinton started that one. I guess if he found his daughter Chelsea doing a Lewinski on her boyfriend and she said “but its not sex” he would be fine with that. It is not a religious thing as Mr. Morris believes. Some ethnic communities have an 80% illegitamate birth rate. Do you think thats a good thing Mr. Morris? This is real good for society. A great many of these children are paid for by us taxpayers. We should tech abstinence AND responibility when it comes to sex. Rather than tech abstinence teens should talk to a 14 yr old that has had a child and they can learn much more from that.

By I must be the fake norman

April 11, 2005 10:35 AM | Link to this

If I liken sex education to birth control. What I would see is half of the group saying the only way guns are safe is not to use them until one is committed to a dedicated gun organization which promotes a commitment to gun safety and proper gun usage. The other group says, “it is perfectly nature to use guns” or, “they’re going to use their guns anyway, so you’re not going to stop them”. If a device was invented in which if you slipped the device over the end of any gun, although it wouldn’t be 100% effective at preventing unwanted gun related injuries or death, it should be taught how to use that device because of the aforementioned excuses because I’m free to do what I want and I should be able to use my gun anyway I want whenever I want. The question I have is would you let someone put a gun to your head with the protective device on, or would you take the 100% foolproof way and not use your gun at all?

By Michael H.

April 11, 2005 10:41 AM | Link to this

Randy,

(There is another Michael posting and I think we can be distinguished by our styles I will add H. to mine.)

I agree that no one should call another a “fool” for their religious beliefs or lack thereof, but what is your point other than to throw the comment back at Norman? (though I understand the temptation) In other words, what do you deem as the significance of the popularity of the Pope’s funeral? Do you think that it constitutes evidence for the truth of Catholicism or did you intend a different meaning? Just a quesion for clarification.

By J. Morris

April 11, 2005 10:47 AM | Link to this

Christianity is the single largest religion in the world, but it by no means represents a majority. More people don’t believe in Christianity than do. By Randy’s logic, that would make him the fool, wouldn’t it?

By Amanda

April 11, 2005 10:57 AM | Link to this

I don’t have the stats in front of me, but isn’t Islam actually the single largest religion in the world, contrary to the belief of most American Christians?

By Tom

April 11, 2005 11:01 AM | Link to this

Boscoe, did you notice that George Washington did NOT use the words “Christian” or “Jesus Christ”? Just wondering.

By Boscoe

April 11, 2005 11:01 AM | Link to this

James,You have the responsibility to love me as a neighbor. That means the responsibility of respecting my freedom of choice and allowing God to make the final judgement, not you. This was Jesus’ basic concept: Love one another. Respect is the way to do this and not by dictating that your way as the only way. This is why God gave human freedom to begin with. No James, that is not what that means. We are human, and as humans we screw-up. That doesn’t mean we should accept your error as your God given right. My responsibility to God takes precedence. That responsibility includes informing you of your error to attempt to lead you to God. How much better could I show *Love of Neighbor” then that? After that the choice is yours. “Love of neighbor” has nothing to do with respecting whatever errors you make in your life, but it has everything to do with respecting you because, like myself, you also are a child of God.

By J. Morris

April 11, 2005 11:01 AM | Link to this

I disagree with you Jack - teaching abstinence only before marriage is absolutely a religious issue. Your discussion of illegitimate birth is a completely different argument.

Do you not think that teaching responsibile use of birth control, both male and female, could have an impact on those figures? Or, what about addressing the fundamental problems in the communities you mention that cause young women in them to WANT a child out of wedlock? No one wants rampant illegitimacy - that’s why we advocate teaching birth control. Duh.

And please, read what I write before you jump down my throat. Please notice that I said that teaching abstinence as desireable is perfectly acceptable, as long as you also teach the rest of it.

As for the oral sex thing being Clinton’s “fault” - you are totally incorrect about that. I went to college with a woman who proudly claimed to be a virgin on her wedding night. She did not consider the oral and anal sex she had with her fiancee to be sex. This was before Clinton, and it wasn’t an uncommon perspective.

Oh, and fake-Norman, as much as the gun nuts in this county would like to have us believe differntly, the use of guns is NOT a deeply-seeded, instinctual biological drive that hits it’s peak at around 18. Sex is.

By Amanda

April 11, 2005 11:03 AM | Link to this

My bad - looked up some studies. A few put Islam first, but most do list Christianity slightly ahead of it. Ignore my comment.

By J. Morris

April 11, 2005 11:04 AM | Link to this

Adherents.com, an independent religious statistics database, shows 2bil Christians and 1.3bil Muslims.

By RS

April 11, 2005 11:05 AM | Link to this

C’mon, people, “just say no” isn’t going to work & anyone who “thinks” it does probably believes in the Tooth Fairy as well. Teenagers are bundles of raging hormones & simply lack the judgement, wisdom & maturity to make the most responsible decision. We need to get to the root of WHY teen sex is as rampant as it is…Lack of self-esteem, poor/absent role models, broekn families…It’s time for drastic measures. Sex Ed teachers should have “show & Tell” classroom sessions where they bring in guest speakers to talk to the kids..examples: teen girls whose lives have been ruined by unplanned pregnancies; people with visibly advanced AIDS. Yes, condoms, etc help but NOTHING is foolproof. I’m no prude or fundie but I agree wholeheartedly that teens are too young to handle mature relationships and, even worse, the current trend of emotionless “hooking up”. That’s why they need examples pushed right in their faces. Randy, your earlier comment to Norman is bigoted & subsequently uncalled for, sorry to say. I know exactly what you’re referring to..Messianic Jews. My best friend is one & that’s fine; that’s his choice. But no one can & should claim that their religion is the only one. How arrogant! Maybe other religions (Hinduism, Buddhism etc) also have their own “bibles” proclaiming their faiths as the only path to the Creator. ALL the bibles were written by humans. Who’s to say who is right? To say that the only way a Jewish person can get to Heaven is to convert to Christianity/become a “Jew For Jesus” is appallingly offensive. I’m glad Norman’s not offended; I am, for his sake, my own & anyone’s who has the misfortune (?!?) of not being a Christian.

By J. Morris

April 11, 2005 11:08 AM | Link to this

Boscoe represents that which is most dangerous about fundamentalist religion, be it Catholic, Islam, whatever. He actually believes that he has a responsibility to tell you everything you are doing wrong and to try to convert you to his way of thinking. He has no respect for your life, your opinion, or anything about you that conflicts with his rigid, narrow belief system.

Yes, we argue on this ‘blog, but most of us ultimately respect each other’s right to exist as we see fit. Boscoe doesn’t. I can’t imagine anything that I fear more than someone like him. Given the right circumstances, they will kill without remorse because they belive GOD has told them to.

By Jack

April 11, 2005 11:14 AM | Link to this

Mr. Morris. Don’t say duh to me you IDIOT!

By Mary Langley

April 11, 2005 11:15 AM | Link to this

Abstinence Only programs work if they include more than lecturing. I have been the project director for two abstinence only grants and our youth in three of the poorest rural counties in Georgia are benefiting from these programs. Our programs include those strategies that address the risk factors that contribute to at risk behaviors, including sexual activities. We include strategies that build resiliency among youth. Our Abstinence Only programs include these components: education, cultural/recreation and life skills training, value clarification, decision making, goal setting and positive future outlook. These programs have been evaluated and are effective.

By Boscoe

April 11, 2005 11:15 AM | Link to this

It was a metaphor Mr. Morris. You know what a metaphor is don’t you? Tom, the Washington reply was to someone who said the founding fathers wanted a distinct, clear line between government and religion. Washington clearly did not promote that idea. Those here on this forum continuously group the Islamic/Taliban with the religious fundamentalists but they don’t believe in Jesus either.

By J. Morris

April 11, 2005 11:19 AM | Link to this

I shall say Duh to you again! Come back and I shall taunt you a second time.

By Boscoe

April 11, 2005 11:20 AM | Link to this

Mr. Morris what was that you said about respecting other peoples opinion? I think we need to work on your people skills, you get a better response when you are polite. Oh, BTW, I’m not a fundamentalist, I’m just a Catholic.

By J. Morris

April 11, 2005 11:21 AM | Link to this

Um, no Boscoe it wasn’t a metaphor. Do YOU know what one is? You made a clear statement - That doesn’t mean we should accept your error as your God given right. My responsibility to God takes precedence. That responsibility includes informing you of your error to attempt to lead you to God. There is nothing metaphorical about that statement - you are plainly saying that your responsibilty is to prosletyize and lecture to people who don’t give a damn.

By J. Morris

April 11, 2005 11:22 AM | Link to this

Boscoe, my respect for other people’s opinions ends the minute they are standing on my doorstep telling me how evil I am and how I’ll go to hell if I don’t repent.

By J. Morris

April 11, 2005 11:24 AM | Link to this

Boscoe, if you aren’t a fundamentalist, I don’t know who is. You can be both a fundy and a Catholic, you know.

By DeltaX

April 11, 2005 11:27 AM | Link to this

My father was a psychiatrist. He had a big red book on the shelf called “The Book of Sex.” It covered everything. It was a non-adjenda related, straight ahead honest speak and photos - yes expliced.

My siblings and I all had ready access to the book and my mother and father to explain.

Funny thing is, he needed it for adults more than children.

I will say it again.

The subject should actually be: How to educate adults about sex and how not to have remedial icky feelings when relating it to others - especailly kids and relatives.

I have no faith in humans getting it together in this or any other complex issue.

So I shall raise my kids with truth: the adults around them are quite backwards and have very little to provide you past 12 or 13; so be sure not to equate years on the planet with intelligence/wisdom.

By Bruce

April 11, 2005 11:28 AM | Link to this

RS,

With all due respect you have answered your own question. “We need to get to the root of WHY teen sex is as rampant”

It is Raging Hormones. And apparently there is nothing that can be done about that. Unless we can legally give our teens some medicine that counters these raging hormones.

By Boscoe

April 11, 2005 11:29 AM | Link to this

Mr. Morris, try to keep up. The metaphor was the gun analogy. The post about my responsibilities to God is accurate, whether you give a damn or not. Another point to ponder is Catholics don’t go door to door. That’s the Jehovah’s witnesses (They don’t agree with the Catholics either).

By Jack

April 11, 2005 11:30 AM | Link to this

Like I said before Mr. Morris. You are a complete idiot and you can taunt me all you want. That won’t change my opinion of you. Do you trweat people in person the same as you do on this blog? I bet not. You would be hurt.

By Real Norman

April 11, 2005 11:37 AM | Link to this

In the Catholic church fundamentalists are known as “integrists,” people who have a fully papalized view of the Church and the religion, one at odds with the history of Catholics who before the 19th Century rarely bothered very much about what the popes were saying. Integrism believes in a centralized church. It is different from Protestant fundamentalism since it does not believe that the bible is always literally to be exactly what it seems to say. The bible for Catholics has to be inbterpreted by the church. Boscoe, therefore, is not a fundamentalist strictly speaking, he is an integrist. It’s just as bad and just as dangerous.

By J. Morris

April 11, 2005 11:39 AM | Link to this

Wow Jack, I was joking. Sorry that you can’t handle a little disagreement. Don’t call me an IDIOT you A*****.

By J. Morris

April 11, 2005 11:42 AM | Link to this

It was a false metaphor, Chocolate Drink.

By RS

April 11, 2005 12:04 PM | Link to this

Bruce, I understand EXACTLY what you’re saying, (good point!) which is why telling kids “Just-say-no; why?-Because-I-said-so!” doesn’t cut it. Yeah, we can put saltpeter, or its equivalent, in high school cafeteria food but our kids (AND adults) are overmedicated as is. That’s why I suggested 1)Drastic “Show & Tell” classroom sessions 2) Getting to the root of WHY kids are engaging in rampant sex/”hooking up” more so than their counterparts of prior generations.

By Mara

April 11, 2005 12:04 PM | Link to this

Michael who posted at 10:29 - well said.

Fake Norman - we could’ve told you were a fake without the moniker simply from the typos and the lack of logic.

Most sex ed. classes, be they abstinence only or comprehensive, aren’t offered until high school. If the studys are to be believed, teens are having sex at a younger and younger age, and they may already be sexually active by the time they get to the sex ed class. Also, there is very little evidence that teens who learn about sex in abstinence-only programs refrain from having sex longer than others. And the problem is that when they do have sex, they often fail to use contraception – this being a major problem in teens who take virginity pledges. On the flip side, students in a comprehensive sex-ed classroom do not become sexually active more often or earlier, and they use contraception more consistently. So the question becomes: Do we want our children to wait as long as possible before engaging in unprotected and potentially deadly sex, or do we want them to start earlier but with a better understanding of how to protect themselves? To take Shauti’s automobile analogy in another direction…we (or the school system) teach our children how to safely operate a motor vehicle. We tell them not to speed, not to follow too close, to pay attention to what’s going on around them. And then we look for the car with the 5-point body restraints and all-around airbags. We buy the cell phone and the emergency flares. Why? Because we know a childs brain, or even one of a young adult, has not developed to the point where unhappy consequences relate directly to “fun” activities. We can tell ‘em all we want not to do something, but unless Momma wants to tether them to her apron strings, you can’t watch them all the time. Is it better to be safe…or sorry?

By Jack

April 11, 2005 12:08 PM | Link to this

Mr. Morris. I’ve got one but I’m not one.

By Michael H.

April 11, 2005 12:14 PM | Link to this

Thanks Mara,

Nice job you did with extending the analogy. Very appropriate. I think that is one they should retire, though I doubt that they will.

By J. Morris

April 11, 2005 12:17 PM | Link to this

Jack, then stop acting like one.

By steve

April 11, 2005 12:20 PM | Link to this

Am I the only one that thinks that sex education belongs in the home and not in the school? That way, parents can decide what is appropriate for their children. To me, this is definitely not the school’s responsibility.

By Jack

April 11, 2005 12:22 PM | Link to this

You are the one acting like one. I’ll put you on ignore. Maybe I’ll be lucky enough to run into you one day.

By DD

April 11, 2005 12:35 PM | Link to this

I am really amazed that people have been posting for over 5 hours on this issue, and Steve was the first one to really mention that the PARENTS teach sex ed to their children (DeltaX also mentioned his parents influence) instead of the schools. I think there should be some education in the schools, but I can tell you that the discussions with my parents were much more important in my view and choices made about sex. I’m only 24, so this generation you speak of that is wildly sleeping with everyone includes me, except for the fact that I waited until I was 20, and then practiced safe sex even though the main message I heard in most cases was abstinance only. I am a bit disturbed that we don’t put more of the emphasis on parents, and also a bit disturbed that we truly think that teenagers have absolutely no control and should not be taught self-control and decision making. If teenagers are just full of raging hormones with no hope of being controlled, at what age do we stop being animals and make choices on our own?

By J. Morris

April 11, 2005 12:35 PM | Link to this

Jack, you responded to one comment, “Duh”, like a five-year old child, and now you’re threatening physical violence, and I’M the one misbehaving?

You need to grow up, jerk.

By Lyrazel

April 11, 2005 12:37 PM | Link to this

Ah, all you lofty idealists come back to the planet. Come back to the good-ol-USA and lets take a refresher course in Life-As-It-Is-and-Not-As-it-SHOULD-BE. Giggle laugh laugh. Sex is the issue. Chortle. Snort. Sex, giggle,snicker…Sex is probably the only exercise most adults get in a week. The fact children are begat of this series of sit-ups and push-ups makes the consequences more profound.

Faith-based American attitudes for sex is: DENY. Teaching denial of sex is so ludicrous! I mean, our parents had sex, Biblical ancestors spent many many many chapters doing nothing but begating—Sure try to wait for divine intervention—but—having young adults deny, deny and then, spend 8 hours a night watching sexual inuendo based TV is ludicrous. Yeah, how much does a kid know about Levitra? What about inter-personal relationships? What about—lust? Turn on any radio and you hear the lilting sounds of love songs—o take me back—o do me one more time—o baby I got you right where I—and so forth, ad nauseum. Popular TV myths can have a bevy of broads huddling about an overweight dude in gym shorts—but—in real life—no woman wants to be herded by a stud —no man wants to be cheated on and abandoned.

Why do we have to cling to teaching Stick-your-head-in-sand sex? First, if you use abstenance as a base: you have to teach sex can be fun all alone. There is nothing wrong with it. Of course, I am not asking you to show techniques. Just stop the fear of physical contact of self! Its so easy to stop fear of ones body if kids were ever finally counceled that masturbation is OK! Loving ones body leads to both physical and mental health, less Ridilin, less anorexia…

Second, if abstenance is your basis for teaching against relationships unjoined by lawful union YOU HAVE TO have Relationship Class. Public or Private, Faith-based or Secular—its what is lacking NOW.

With the rate of divorce in this country, wouldnt having classes where young men and women actually learn about being in a relationship be good idea? Yes, an early parenting class, a class to learn how to resist temptation, when to say no, what diseases can be transmitted and how, a class that treats these young adults as adults! Here you teach abstenance/birth control. For them who dont feel condoms are needed—you learn about child support—what abortions are—what premature ejaculation is and why Levitra exists—what freedoms you give up when having children—why not oral sex instead of penetrating sex if there is no condom? Now is the time to start bringing in different types of relationships—but accept the fact kids know who is gay—who has two moms—who has 3 dads thanks to divorce—Stop teaching as if Ozzie and Harriet are everybodys mom and dad. If truth be told the Nelsons suffered years of domestic abuse, alcohol addiction, drug addiction and SO WHY PRETEND? Teach!

If you give kids the real facts—they would not be running off to have their relationships BEFORE they understood concequences. Remember even the most abstenance-demanding faiths in the USA suffer extremely high divorce rates BECAUSE of Abstenance-only lecturing goes so far in teaching young adults. They rush into marriage just to have sex, FINALLY then live with the concequences of being too imature for the relationship! Stop being so afraid of sex!

By chuck

April 11, 2005 12:37 PM | Link to this

So let me ask all those who are against abstinence education, “Would you have sex using a condom with someone that you know has AIDS, Syphilis, or Gonorrhea?” If the answer is NO, “Why not?” Lets say that there is only a 10% chance of failure.

The liberal belief is that we are animals controlled by our urges. The Biblical truth is, we are made in the image of God and can control our urges if we choose to. I would dare say that the vast majority of proponents of “how to” sex education rather than abstinence education would not have sex (even “protected” sex) with someone you knew to be carrying an STD. The problem is, YOU DON’T KNOW. Anybody you choose to have sex with could have one EXCEPT, when you wait until marriage. Marriage licenses require blood tests. If you abstain, and your partner abstained, YOU WILL NOT GET AN STD. 100% foolproof. If we teach our kids anything else, we put them at risk.

By chuck

April 11, 2005 12:46 PM | Link to this

Mara, lets take the “driving” analogy one step further. We don’t let children drive until they are 16 AND have a license. If they choose to drive incorrectly that privilege is taken from them.

By J. Morris

April 11, 2005 12:47 PM | Link to this

Chuck, if you teach your kids nothing but don’t have sex and they still decide to have sex, wouldn’t you rather they wore a condom and significantly and substantially reduced the risk of contracting a disease or becoming or causing someone to become pregnant?

By all means, teach your children that the only 100% effective way to avoid these negatives is to remain abstinent until - in your case - they are married. Just don’t keep your children in ignorance of the safeguards available to them. I guarantee you, if something happened to one of your children, you would regret it forever.

And…the “liberal” belief is not that we’re ANIMALS controlled by our urges, it’s that we’re human. If you honestly think that Christians haven’t been having pre-marital sex and extra-marital sex for as long as Christianity has existed while faithfully attending church, then you are crazy.

By Jack

April 11, 2005 12:51 PM | Link to this

I wasn’t threatening. That was a promise. Girl.

By J. Morris

April 11, 2005 12:54 PM | Link to this

Thank you Chuck, by the way, for showing that Jack was, in fact, wrong about this being a religious argument. Good job.

By the way, to continue my line of thought from before - it’s great that you have this view of humans as being able to control our urges - I know that you fundies also like to haul that one out when you’re telling gay people why they should be celibate and lonely for life.

Have you ever actually studied, oh I don’t know, the HISTORY of humanity? There’s really not a lot of controlling of sexuality going on. People are pretty much boinking like bunnies all the time. You’re welcome to adhere to your absurd notions, but the practice gives the lie to the theory.

By J. Morris

April 11, 2005 12:54 PM | Link to this

Jack, you are a pathetic loser. B***.

By chuck

April 11, 2005 12:56 PM | Link to this

JMorris, I don’t teach my kids “nothing but don’t have sex”. I teach my kids that there are consequences for SIN. Lots of things are fun while you are doing them…including sex, but lots of “fun” things end up in disaster. Answer the question that I posed. IF YOU would not have sex with someone you knew to have an STD, then your position is hypocritical and fraudulent.

By J. Morris

April 11, 2005 01:01 PM | Link to this

Well no, Chuck. It’s not hypocritical or fraudulent. And you know, there are plenty of people with STDs out there who continue to have sexual relationships with their partners with their partners in full knowledge. It’s called safer sex, and a lot of people practice it.

If I were in love with someone with an STD, then yes I would have a physical relationship with them. I would be careful about it, but it wouldn’t cause me to abandon them, or ostracize them as you apparently think we should.

And please, can you frame this some other way that SIN? That is so sad and meaningless.

By Bruce

April 11, 2005 01:05 PM | Link to this

Steve,

I agree with you 100%. Parents these days leave the things THEY should be teaching THEIR children to others far to much these days. Schools have no more business teaching my kids about sex than they do about religion.

Chuck,

I have been saying that all morning.

J Morris, last week it was Crystal and now this week you didn’t even wait until Wednesday before you started. It sure makes it hard for those of us that want to carry on an intelligent conversion with you acting like a 5 year old.

By chuck

April 11, 2005 01:17 PM | Link to this

How careful is careful enough? (…especially with YOUR method of choice). The fact is that sex outside of marriage is SIN. Homosexuality is SAD AND MEANINGLESS to me, as well as sinful. This issue is really not about that though is it? Whether you view it as sinful or just STUPID, anything other than abstinence puts children at risk? I have an 8th grader in my class right now who has syphilis. I don’t think this is a funny topic at all. Her life is ruined because of a stupid, sinful act.

As for your assertion that “Christians” are out there having pre-marital sex, I can’t deny that that is true. People SIN. The fact that lots of people (including some who profess to be Christians) are doing it doesn’t make it a good choice. I see this issue as being both faith-based AND society based. As with ALL Biblical principles, the principle of abstinence works whether you are a Christian or not.

By Donny

April 11, 2005 01:19 PM | Link to this

I’m new to this blog, but I see something that really concerns me and I think is becoming more a reality in our society today. We are seeing a continual attack on conservatives or christian ideals. It starts in blogs like this where the left comparing Christians to Islamic fundamentalist. (yes this happens all the time) Next it moves to the college campuses where conservatives speakers are attacked by “tolerate, openminded” individuals throwing Urine laced cream pies. What type of violence will be next?

By Lola

April 11, 2005 01:20 PM | Link to this

I have to agree with Bruce - it is not the government’s job to educate our children about sex, birth control, abstinence, whatever. That is a parent’s job, and the extent to which a parent chooses to educate their children on these things is a personal and private matter. I have a less than one year old daughter, and I will be teaching her about sex from a very early age, removing all the taboo and embarrassing conotations of it from the very beginning. I will also teach her about abstinence and the risks associated with all kinds of sex (even oral, which, thanks to Slick Willy, is no longer considered sex by our children). She will have all the facts and knowledge she needs from me, WAY before she hears it from anyone else. From there I just have to have faith that I’ve raised her correctly and that she’ll make good decisions and feel comfortable approaching me and asking me anything. There will be no stigma on this topic in my household, which I think will be the best barrier to her making uninformed and rash decisions.

By John

April 11, 2005 01:21 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel, what you do to yourself in private is your business. I’m glad you hook up with yourself every night but I’m not going to teach my kids to be like you. You also might watch too much TV but my family doesn’t. I don’t hear too many people saying sex is “bad”. It is how we procreate, I just don’t want people “educating” my kids views of sex that are contrary to my point of view. IT’S MY RESPONSIBILITY to teach my children about sex, NOT the schools.

By Lola

April 11, 2005 01:27 PM | Link to this

I’d also like to say that teaching abstinence to children should have more to do with their self image than labeling it as a “SIN”. We ALL do things every day that are considered sinful, but knowing they are doesn’t seem to sway us from doing them anyway. Speaking from experience, there is a great deal of self-loathing that comes from a young girl who feels that sexual attention from boys (and reciprocal actions) is a way to validate herself. It works exactly the opposite way and is nothing but destructive. From my point of view, religion and SIN and all of that has nothing to do with this discussion. It’s about teaching young kids that they are worth something, teaching them to BELIEVE they are worth something and giving them the self confidence to do what is in their own best interest, which often means standing up against peer pressure. The 70%+ illigitimate rate in the black community (over 70% of black children born in 2004 were illigitimate) shows a sad lack of parenting, a sad lack of self-worth AND a sad lack of knowledge on the part of the girls who so glady open their legs for anyone who wants it. Simply teaching these girls (and boys) to have respect for themselves AND others could have prevented such a pitiful statistic.

By Lyrazel

April 11, 2005 01:28 PM | Link to this

We are seeing a continual attack on conservatives or christian ideals. It starts in blogs like this where the left comparing Christians to Islamic fundamentalist. (yes this happens all the time) Next it moves to the college campuses where conservatives speakers are attacked by “tolerate, openminded� individuals throwing Urine laced cream pies. What type of violence will be next?

Ask Eric Rudolf, Donny.

Hmmm maybe this is just another example of a liberal bashing a conservative—but at least we liberals arent out bombing clinics because we dont agree with a form of medical proceedure.

By Lola

April 11, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel - would it be possible for you to refrain from bashing anyone who thinks differently than you? I think all Donny was saying is that there’s enough political bashing that goes on outside of this blog as it is. Both parties have a serious problem with judging the other.

By Donny

April 11, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel Your talking about one lunitic out of 60 million Evangelical Christians. That’s not a trend. I’m talking about educated, bright individuals on our most prestigous campuses. I think you would agree that Eric Rudolf does not fit this desciption nor is that a fair comparision.

By J. Morris

April 11, 2005 01:40 PM | Link to this

First off Chuck, there is no “choice” in my method. I realize you don’t believe this, but I can’t help your own personal ignorance. You are a homophobic, bible-thumping bigot and that’s that.

Second, the discussion of sin IS meaningless. Sin is a religious concept, a wholly subjective and maleable set of restrictions relied upon by people who need everything spelled out for them because they are to afraid to take responsibility for their own actions and decisions. Religion has no place in schools.

I wonder if you would have told that sick girl about condoms if you knew she was planning on having sex? I doubt it. I suspect you would have railed at her about “sin” and she would have gone off and had sex anyway. You don’t actually care about this girl - you only care that she has “sinned”. Talk about a hypocrite.

Nothing in life is certain, Chuck. We’re ALL at risk every day. Yes. It would be better if children didn’t have sex. Haven’t I said that? Why is it that all you fundies assume that if you aren’t teaching abstinence you’re encouraging sex? Maybe it’s because your world is so black and white you can’t distinguish the gray. However, since the REAL world tells us that some teenagers are going to have sex regardless, I think it’s BETTER that they have the knowledge to reduce their risk.

Donny, I would like to point out that many of you Christian fundamentalists are very much like Islamic fundamentalists, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. You both want to force your rigid views of the world on everyone else through legal measures. How are you different?

By J. Morris

April 11, 2005 01:44 PM | Link to this

No Lola, because the one’s that Lyz and I are bashing are dangerous scary people who want to control the lives of everyone around them. Why don’t y’all get that?

You fundamentalists are so blind that I’m amazed you don’t wreck your cars. You judge everyone around you, you condemn everyone around you. If we “liberals” lash out it’s because we’re bloody TIRED of people like Chuck telling us all how horrible and sinful we are.

I’m so sick of the judgemental hordes of fundamentalists whining because they feel attacked. Try NOT being a fundamentalist Christian in this country - then you’ll know what it feels like to be constantly attacked.

Bruce - I didn’t attack anyone, I think you’ll find. It was Jack who went off on me. But you are a fundy - day is night, black is white, etc.

By Lyrazel

April 11, 2005 01:50 PM | Link to this

John: YES WHAT I DO in private is my business!! WHAT YOU TEACH YOUR KID is YOUR business. But when I have to pay taxes for kids with aids, kids birthing babies, parents who wont teach, kids who dont use birth control—it becomes my business! Believe me sir, I would rather all parents take responsibilty for teaching their children—you would never hear a peep from me if they did!

By Boscoe

April 11, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this

Isn’t Mr. Morris great folks? Lets give him a hand. AGAIN, he shows a fine example of how we should respect other peoples opinions. As with all humanists Mr. Morris believes his opinion is right simply because he likes the sound of it.

By John

April 11, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this

I wonder how Micheal Vick’s ex-girlfriend is feeling she got herpes while practicing safe sex.

This has become more of a political issue rather than an issue about kids - how many of you posting are parents? I bet once you have a child your views may change. If you have a daughter do you want her to fall for the famous line of “if you love me than you’ll sleep with me” or do you want your son using that line on a girl? Do you want your daughter to be the best friend of the football team?

As a parent I want what is best for my children and I won’t let that responisibility lie with anyone but myself. I had sex in high school and if I had it to do over I would have waited until I was more mature.

I’m scared for this generation they are being made to grow up way to fast….. Maybe we just need to slow the world down.

From a concered parent who votes both republican and democratic…..

By James

April 11, 2005 01:53 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, Somehow I do not think you really do love me as a child of God. And, I know you have no respect for me. I am not blind. Also, you are not God. So, don’t presume to know every detail of how his/her universe works. Your job, as a Christian, is to point out what you think is wrong, and then let me make the decision. Beating me into submission is not in the bible anywhere. But, as you are a prime example of which I speak (intollerance and missing whole real point of Christianity) I will not continue. I have expressed my opinion enough.

By RS

April 11, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this

Lola, you are so right. What you said about explaining sex/abstinence to your daughter demonstrates responsible parenting, a skill, which is sadly lacking these days. As for self-worth issues (I hate the term “self-esteem”, it reeks of “Me! Me! Me! I can do whatever I darn well please no matter who I hurt”), that’s exactly the point I was getting across earlier. Boys give in to peer pressure telling them they have to “hook up” with as many females as possible, lest they be called a “f*”. Girls jump into bed with boys & even MEN in order to feel loved & attractive. Society tells us ladies that if we’re not “sexy” & “attractive”, we’re worthless. How very sad that so many of us buy into this myth. Many times a girl will let a male coerce her into sex when she’s not ready because she’s desperate for affection & validation. A lot of teen girls have babies so that they’ll have someone to unconditionally love them. This is tragic; these youngsters don’t see the big picture & never look ahead to the consequences of their poor choices.

By Lola

April 11, 2005 01:56 PM | Link to this

JMorris - I do understand where you’re coming from, and I can only imagine the kinds of hatred and judgemental morons you have to deal with on a daily basis simply because you are who you are. I would be bitter and angry and resentful too, and probably a lot less classy about it than you are. I’m a conservative, but I have no desire to thrust my own beliefs and views on anyone else. What right would I have to do that? If I’m free to form my own opinions, shouldn’t everyone else be as well? I was simply asking Lyrazel to tone down the bashing. It’s wrong for the “fundys” to do it and it’s wrong for the “leftys” to do it. There’s no reason we can’t all be humane to eachother.

By Donny

April 11, 2005 01:58 PM | Link to this

J. Morris’s post is a great example of this trend. Does any rational person from either side of this debate think that his comparision of Christians to Islamic Fundamentalist is nothing less than hate speech? Islamic Fundamentalist killing people everday who do not agree with their beliefs. Believe me I’ve seen it firsthand!I’m not being intolerant just because I call something sin. But this behavior is tolerant?

By RS

April 11, 2005 02:01 PM | Link to this

Here, my friends, is another reason why today’s kids are having sex at younger & younger ages. I believe someone brought this up in a previous forum, but the hormones & additives in our food, air & water is playing havoc with our bodies & causing kids to sexually mature at earlier & earlier ages. Y’all need to drive past any junior high as school is beginning or letting out for the day. I see 7th & 8th grade girls who look like what I did when I was in COLLEGE. 8 & 9 year old girls are menstruating as well as sprouting breasts & auxillary hair. With that comes sexual urges that these children, yes, CHILDREN are too immature to fully understand.

By Lyrazel

April 11, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this

Donny, I have no problem with educated, bright individuals on our most prestigous campuses having faith, but when you use arguments to prove all liberals are the scum of the earth by throwing urine laced pies—you get, unfortunatly, a real fanatic brought back to view—btw, pie can be washed off. Lola, I will try to be kind.

By Stan

April 11, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this

The repressed feeling of sex is still going to come out. I can remember having nocturnal emmissions when I was young because it needed to come out. The dreams are still going to happen whether you try to repress it or not. It is going to come out because it is natural.

By J. Morris

April 11, 2005 02:03 PM | Link to this

You know Boscoe, it’s really funny to hear you say that right after you’ve told people how it’s your responsibility to correct them whenver they err in your opinion.

Please - tell me one thing that I want to make you do differently in your life? Tell me one civil liberty that I want to rob you of. I don’t care how you worship or what you believe or who you do or don’t sleep with or what you read. You, on the other hand, are VERY concerned about regulating those same things in others.

I’m not talking about opinions, Boscoe. I’m talking about your actions - your constant need to force religion down everyone’s throat, to condemn those behaviors you disagree with and to demand that those behaviors be not only illegal, but punishable. You have no clue what it means to respect another person’s opinion or life.

If that makes me a humanist, then darn tootin, I’m a humanist.

By Donny

April 11, 2005 02:11 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel, I did not say anyone was scum, nor did I lump all opposed to my view points in that group. What is did say was that the intolerance of the left is growing and the innocent are not speaking out about it. Think about what you said “urine laced pie can be washed off”. What if Al Sharpton was having pies thrown in his face? Don’t you think there would be an out cry? My point is violent behavior always escalates in any situation.

By Jack

April 11, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this

RS - I went to my son’s middle school to meet his teacher. The girls looked 21 and a lot of the boys had a 5:00 shadow. I don’t know whether its food additives or evolution but todays youth are getting older faster. Sorry I let Butthead get to me. I’m sick of his drivel.

By Donny

April 11, 2005 02:15 PM | Link to this

Here’s an example of what I’m talking about in the last elections “Perpetrators shot at Bush-Cheney campaign headquarters and attacked volunteers and destroyed campaign offices across the country” to cite a few examples.

By chuck

April 11, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this

NO JMary, I would not have encouraged her to use a condom, I would have called her mother to tell her what her daughter had planned and I would counsel the girl to remain abstinent. As for your assertion that we are ALL at risk, why would you teach a child to reduce the risk, when you can teach them a 100% foolproof method to eliminate the risk. This girl had had education about STDs and condoms since the 6th grade, but she STILL got an STD. Imagine that. BTW, I don’t think you have heard me “whining about being attacked”. I rather enjoy it.

Jesus said:

11“Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

13“You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men. 14“You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. 15Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.

Philippians 1:12-14

Paul’s Chains Advance the Gospel 12Now I want you to know, brothers, that what has happened to me has really served to advance the gospel. 13As a result, it has become clear throughout the whole palace guard[a] and to everyone else that I am in chains for Christ. 14Because of my chains, most of the brothers in the Lord have been encouraged to speak the word of God more courageously and fearlessly.

By Brian Curtis

April 11, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this

Let’s get a grip, shall we people? Maybe set out a few first principles:

By Sandy

April 11, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this

Sexuality issues need to be addressed by parents and caregivers early on, as soon as children become aware of their own bodies, i.e., in very early childhood. If a child is taught by his or her parents to never touch their genitals and that it is sinful, and they are not even given proper names for these parts let alone explanations of their functions (in developmentally appropriate terms, of course) this child will grow up with shame and ignorance about his/her, and other peoples’ bodies. When this same child reaches puberty, after having been exposed to countless sex (and violence) exposures in our media and even in video games, there is apt to be a lot of confusion and misunderstanding in a brain that is not fully developed. Throw in parental mid-life crises, divorce, domestic violence, sexual abuse, etc, and this child may feel freakish and driven about a perfectly natural biological function.

A scientific education and socially responsible program about human sexuality introduced at appropriate developmental levels could go a long way to identify at-risk children and adolescents, teach them where to get the answers to their questions and support if these are not forthcoming at home. A blend of science and compassion, with emphasis on mutual respect and preservation is called for to prevent as much human tragedy as possible. Feeding children lies and half-truths is reprehensible and dangerous, and no caring adult should tolerate it.

Nor should we tolerate it on a national level. Our nation’s current policies abroad regarding pregnancy prevention, abortion, and so-called “sanctity of life” are an embarassment. We look worse than hypocritical when our foreign aid does not include birth control and AIDs prevention in countries that are ravaged by poverty, ignorance, and militant governments that hold its citizens hostage by withholding food and medicine, and use rape as a means of intimidation. Bush et al claim that our foreign aid and humanitarian polcies are setting a moral example, but the realities of Abu Ghraib and human rights abuses at Guantanamo speak of our underlying lack of tolerance for people born into different circumstances and spiritual beliefs.

Compassion is the way to accomplish this, if we can set aside the religious sniping. Let’s not lose the focus: Survival has to come first. Reconciliation of any real or imagined sin can wait. Save the flesh first, then support the soul to save itself.

By Lola

April 11, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this

You’re a good man, Lyrazel. :)

RS brings up a good point with the hormones in our food and the effect it has on little bodies. Little girls grow up (physically) a LOT faster than they did when I was a little girl in the 70’s. Yet another reason to teach them EARLY how to respect themselves, their bodies and their self-worth (didn’t use the “E” word, RS.) :)

By J. Morris

April 11, 2005 02:20 PM | Link to this

Donny, most Islamic Fundamentalists are not terrorists. Most Islamic Fundamentalists are just people who aren’t violent and don’t kill people. They share the rigidity of belief and the desire to see those beliefs written into law that Christian Fundamentalists or Hindu Fundamentalists or whatever Fundamentalists have. They are responsible for “respectable” regimes like Saudi Arabia, where Sharia law holds sway.

As for violence by Christians, if you think it hasn’t occured in the past, or can occur again, you are woefully mistaken. Much of the violent behavior of Islamic Terrorists stems from societal differences, poverty, extreme class inequities, etc. If conditions were right, it is not unreasonable to expect that Christians would behave the same.

Or, you can look at people like the Reverend Phelps, who goes to the funerals of gay men and taunts their family, friends and loved ones with signs and chants proclaiming that the deceased is burning in hell. It may not be violent, but their behavior is evil just the same.

If you don’t like the comparison, take a look at why people are making it.

By J. Morris

April 11, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this

Oh Chuck, you’re using silly gay slurs again. You are such a loving Christian. I don’t know why you aren’t President.

Oh. Yeah, it’s because you’re an ignorant bigoted moron.

By Netbanker

April 11, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this

Y’all are a real hoot! I actually laugh out loud (not good in the cube farm at work) reading some of your posts.

Jack…I take it you did not recognize J. Morris use of Monty Python in regard to the taunting comment. The proper response would have been to tell him that his mother was a hampster and his father smelled of elderberries.

By RS

April 11, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this

See what I mean, Jack? Well, I believe you’re right on both counts; the additives & hormones are kick-starting the evolutionary process (Oops! I said the “E” word! Sorry, Fundies!) And we wonder why we’re seeing 20-something grandmas…Shudder…

By Brian Curtis

April 11, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this

Bah. I will never figure out the line-break formatting on this forum!

By J. Morris

April 11, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this

Thanks Netbanker - at least someone has a sense of humor.

By smithy

April 11, 2005 02:31 PM | Link to this

Um, Sandy? The people at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are not just innocent civilians being subjected to human rights violations because they are “people born into different circumstances and spritual beliefs”. They are people who have attempted to kill Americans, HAVE killed Americans, plot to kill as many Americans as possible. They are NOT protected under the Geneva doctrine because they are NOT soldiers of a nation, nor are they representatives of a reigning government. They are killers and thugs, and deserve every single solitary moment of humiliation, discomfort and strife that they are subjected to. So spare me the sentiment. They are nothing but subhuman slime and don’t get NEARLY ENOUGH “human rights violations” if you ask me.

By Tim

April 11, 2005 02:31 PM | Link to this

on subject… abstince only programs don’t work… simple as that (ok there’s that)

off subject… Chuck I wonder what Jesus would think about you calling people names? what a good Christian you are!!

By smithy

April 11, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this

And please - remind me what Abu Ghraib has to do with abstinence in school? Oh that’s right. NOTHING!

By mit

April 11, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this

i think everyone here is missing the most obvious point that shaunti (on accident) brings up.

If teaching kids ‘just say no’ is NOT working; be it alcohol, drugs, or sex. We need to be finding a way that does work.

I have done all 3 in my high school years. Not once did it even enter my mind what my parents said or school taught me. I did it because I wanted to do it, i could do it, so i did it. end point: they are going to do these things whether you like or not. NOthing is going to stop them, be it religion or education. But the curricla does need to be changed to take out the misinformation and outright lies about having sex. leave in the abstinence by all meets. you are right in that abstaining from sex protects you 100% from STDs and pregnancy. But tell the truth when it comes to contraception and health risks.

another look at a point made on here: schools have to teach sex ed, all parents don’t talk to their kids about this so it needs to be done somewhere where these kids can learn about it. just like drugs and alcohol.

By Lyrazel

April 11, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this

Reverend Al Sharpton is a minister, a liberal, a man who believes very strongly in his christian god and gospels. When you lump all us liberals into a group of pie-throwing extremists you dump a huge assembly of very religious people, ministers and their congregations into this group; so isnt your broad declaration evil liberals unfair?

Donny, why do you fail to see the intollerance of the conservative right? To further explain my comment: Urine laced pies can be washed off—after bombing clinics, and public gatherings, Eric Rudolf left 3 people dead and many injured with permanent scars. Donny, think about the people making death threats to Shiavo family and Greene. Were they liberals or fundamentalists? My point being dont scream of percecution before looking deeply into the ranks on your side. Thank you.

By RS

April 11, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this

Smithy, you are the ONLY person, liberal, conservative or otherwise, I’ve ever seen agreeing with me about Abu Graib & Guantanamo. Sorry, folks but walking someone on a leash isn’t anywhere near as brutal a lopping a person’s head off. Think about that

By Netbanker

April 11, 2005 02:47 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel…WOW! That was amazing!

I was just telling a young lady (who was in the emotional dumps over a breakup) that the country would be better off if we had practical education on some topics one of which would be about relationships. We’ve so bought into the Disney happily ever after love stories that completely ignore the realities of life later on. It’s all about the chase and not the follow up which is the important part. Where is the Cinderella and Prince Charming 10 years later movie when he’s too busy running the kingdom to stare into her eyes and waltz on the balcony and she’s had a couple of kids and can’t wear the glass slippers because she has corns? Why are there so few ‘On Golden Pond’ movies that put the value not on shiny new love, but on the deep bond and knowing of another that can only come with time, overcoming obstacles together, sharing memories of when we were young?

By Donny

April 11, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this

J. Morris- Have you ever lived a in a Islamic country? Do you know what it’s like to see a young Iraqi boy laying on the ground with both legs blown off? Open any newspapers and you’ll see that Islamic Fundamentalist perform most acts of terrorism. So, is it fair to compare conservative Christians to these people? No, we win elections at ballot boxes with our ideals.

By RS

April 11, 2005 02:53 PM | Link to this

Netbanker: I hope your friend is feeling better & I’m glad you brought this up because I have a pet peeve; always have. The soppy, gooey, bland lovey-dovey “music” that’s so popular. It gives people unrealistic expectations & if you don’t ride off into the sunset with That Special Person & live happily ever after, you’re very disppointed…after all, that’s not the way it’s “supposed” to be. Well guess what? Life isn’t perfect. The media pushes pap like that in order to get everyone to blindly marry & reproduce.

By Boscoe

April 11, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this

Mr. Morris, I don’t think I’m forcing down anybodies throat. An example would be just recently when I told James that after I’ve rendered my opinion about his behavior his course of action is entirely up to him. Therefore I say I am doing nothing different than you do on this forum, and that is to give out my opinion. Although I do manage to do so without calling anybody names. In fact, the only other person that I remember calling somebody names to the extent that you do is Norman (Real Norman?). But as it has been established you say you are not him. Try to calm down calling people names…It makes you look very childish. And James, my intention was to clear up the misuse of the intention of the “love of neighbor” quote.

By Jack

April 11, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this

RS - I also agree with your views on Abu Graib & Guantanamo & capital punishment. The terorists held in Cuba were hiding in caves eating goat heads for their meals while freezing their buts off. Now they are in sunny Cuba, eating three meals a day and being cared for with our tax money. We should send them back to these caves and seal them in.

By Zack

April 11, 2005 02:59 PM | Link to this

Yes, they work.

As much as young people want to have sex, they want to hear the truth a lot more. One element of truth is that sex is immoral in most cases, and another element is that condoms, in most cases, do not work at all. All they do is promote sexual irresponsibility and casual sex.

However, similar to the topic last week about left-wing judicial tyranny, one side is doing all it can to impose its agenda on the rest of us, and condoms are being promoted as some sort of solution, when, in reality, they’re increasing the problem.

Abstinence works. Young people are hungry for a strong, uncompromised factual lesson, especially one that comes with a ton of positive consequences. We don’t need, say, the ACLU blocking that message.

By Netbanker

April 11, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this

You’re welcome, J. Morris. Not everyone would get a Monty reference. Then again most people probably didn’t have traditions like coming home from Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve and staying up late with their older brother to hang out in the basement and smoke a joint while watching The Life of Brian either. Not that your taunt came from that particular film.

By Lola

April 11, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this

I have to agree with smithy and RS on the Abu Ghraib “torture” thing. Having women rub themselves on men and putting the men on a leash is FAR from torture. Humiliation? Yes. But that is not torture. These guys DID something to be where they are. They’re not just some innocent people picked up and locked away. Americans are still the most humane people there are on this earth.

By J. Morris

April 11, 2005 03:06 PM | Link to this

Donny, do you honestly think you can make a fair comparison between a war-torn country and the rest of the Islamic world? Stop listening to Fox news.

Also, as you have chosen to ignore, I was explaining the PHILOSOPHICAL similarities between all fundamentalist groups. However, I expect you’ll remain blind to those as well. There’s no ignorance like willful ignorance.

By Bruce

April 11, 2005 03:06 PM | Link to this

I have seen several people refer to Church’s as “hating sex”. I have heard, on many occassions in many church’s, sermon’s on sex but never, NEVER have I heard it preached to hate sex. I am teaching my children that they are special and that sex is something special too. It is not something to hate nor fear, intead it is something to be cherished. Something to wait for. That is what my church teaches too. I am glad I do not attend any of the church’s you folks have been too.

By mit

April 11, 2005 03:10 PM | Link to this

ya’ll need more facts on the prison stuff.

look how many have been let go and found innocent. look who is there and why. they were not living in caves. some where just in the region and picked up maybe even having nothing to do with nothing. before you all go spouting out hot air and calling these people terrorists look at the evidence against them. oh yeah, you can’t. i don’t like terrorists just as much as anyone but read some of the tribunal records released. pathetic. we can not continue to act this way. look up the govt. definition of blowback. you will be seeing alot in the years to come. when these prisoners sue our govt. for false imprisonment. What exactly are we going to do with them anyway. just let them rot there? i think not. they all get sent back home eventually.

By John

April 11, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this

Sandy, what color is the sky in your world? Not telling kids about sex will cause problems? I DON’T THINK SO! My parents would have been better serving my needs as a child if they DID tell me sex was a sin rather than let the school system take care of educating me because they felt the way you people do. Had, my parents gone to the extent of telling me that sex should be reserved for married life (They didn’t do this) I would not have gotten addicted, and it was an addiction, on pornography that took years to get over because the school system, and the media made me feel as if I was a loser/weak/inferior if I didn’t have sex before a certain age. Had my parents cautioned me about the hazards of premarital sex I would have been far better off. So will your kids if you tell them.

By Donny

April 11, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this

Well, Morris I’ve lived in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Egypt and Turkey. I think that is a pretty good sampling of the middle east.

By steve

April 11, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this

Earlier I stated that, in my opinion, this is an issue that needs to be taught in the home, not in the school. Parents should be able to teach this in a way that they feel is appopriate. As I skimmed through the comments since then I saw that at least a couple of people said the schools need to teach it because parents don’t/won’t. But my response is so what? It is not the school’s business to teach children about sex. That is the parent’s job. Just because some parents do not fulfill their responsibility does not mean the school should take it over. I see nothing wrong with schools or other organizations providing tools for parents to help and encourage them. However, it is not the business of a school, particularly a public school.

By mit

April 11, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this

thank you bruce for being a responsible parent and talking to your kids about sex.

but don’t stop just because you said it already. they have to be reminded sometimes.

By mit

April 11, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this

John, telling kids about sex as parents is a good thing. but blaming the media and the schools for your addiction to porn. get real. that’s your problem not the media’s or the schools. peer pressure is what you are talking about. you sure your not barry bonds, the media made him do steriods

never once has the media told anyone to do anything against their will. if you think otherwise i would like to see some examples.

By Lyrazel

April 11, 2005 03:22 PM | Link to this

Netbanker, I only want people who breed to take care of what they begat! I dont care what they teach but rather than prattle feel-good truth—why not face the truth? Why no outcry that most teens experiencing sex are having sex with men double their age? Why cling to this teens with teens sex idea about abstenance when its the guy at church feeling up the choir, or the husband down the street coping a feel on an innocent 12 year old—adults are more of a problem to teen abstenance than adults want to realize. Baby, if you love me—do me do me one more time—ah, from the lips of virgins…o yeah…how dare they let a child sing songs like that? Disney has harems of pubescent teens waiting to be marketed—look at their roster and ask—why IS Disney considered Family TV…

By J. Morris

April 11, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this

As usual, Zack has piped up with baseless claims and assertions.

Condoms don’t work for the most part? Funny, but the medical establishment says they are very effective. Wholly effective? No, of course not. But effective, yes. I believe someone already cited the difference in infections among WWI vets and WWII vets. I guess facts don’t matter to religious fanatics.

Sex is immoral most of the time? This is certainly at the root of Zack’s obsessions. Sex is dirty, sex is evil, the human body is a filthy thing. Sex is to be avoided at all costs. This of course ties into our theory that Zack is an imprisoned rapist.

It’s funny to hear Zack claim that people are trying to impose things on him, as if sex education programs are trying to FORCE students to have sex.

Get a grip, Zackie.

By mit

April 11, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this

parents not teaching their kids about sex can and would cause major problems, first off their kids are then ignorant, second, these kids are more likely to get pregnant and/or STDs. thirdly, these (now grow up) kids will be health risk to society as a whole.

some kids learn on their own true but they are still ignorant to things that they haven’t taught themselves yet and other kids can teach them misinformation much worse than the curricla currently taught.

By Jack

April 11, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this

Every generation looks at the younger generation and exclaims “this country is going down hill”. I heard my father say it. His father said it. I catch myself saying it now that I’m an “old man”. When you look at things now, we say morals are on a downward spiral. I’m not a “Fundie” but somethings got to give. Some kind of intervention is going to happen and its not going to be pretty.

By chuck

April 11, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this

I use those terms affectionately JMariah. I don’t understand why you would be offended. Are you afraid to show your feminine side?

You know good and well that we “fundamentalists” couldn’t care less what you do at home, as disgusting as it may be to us. What we want to end is the public “in your face” flaunting of it. What we want to end is the attempt of the left to depict homosexuality as normal, when we all know that it is a deviant behavior. What we want to end is the public depiction of promiscuous sexual behavior that shows all of the pleasure but none of the consequences. The left has glorified promiscuity while bashing the right for not doing enough to help children in poverty. Why the heck are they in poverty? Because of the leftists push to “crimininalize” any criticism of irresponsible, reprehensible behavior. Easy divorce? No problem for the left. Sexual promiscuity? No problem. Drug use? No problem. All of these things are part of the moral decay that is killing America. So forgive me if I’m not sensitive enough to your feelings JMushpants. Trying to appease you and your cronies is too harmful to the country I love.

By J. Morris

April 11, 2005 03:29 PM | Link to this

Well then Donny, since you have survived to post, we can assume that the streets are not, in fact, full of raving terrorists. We can assume that you know that most Middle Easterners are just like anyone else. We can assume that you understand, having lived under a theocracy, that you understand what happens when narrow religion controls the law.

Did you feel discriminated against as a non-Muslim in those countries, or were you actually never among the regular population? Maybe you actually liked the religious oppression so much that you want us to have it here?

By John

April 11, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this

You’re right mit, and I accept full responsibility for my addiction. My point is my parents did nothing to warn me about the dangers of sex. They let the school system educate me about sex. The school system gives young people the idea that sex is OK as long as I prevent pregnancies and STD’s. The media supports this notion with sex laden programming. What my parents should have done, and what I intend to do with my children, is to say sex is something much more than slipping on a condom and having a good time. Save it until marriage is responsible advise, that doesn’t harm children as Sandy implied.

By Jack

April 11, 2005 03:35 PM | Link to this

Nice post Chuck.

By Donny

April 11, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this

J. Morris you make my point exactly. The left always uses overeaching rhetoric. I never said anything about living in a theocracy. I was just asking for people like yourself to be more tolerant of everyone’s views without calling names or creating a pathway to violence. We should be able to debate our ideas, beliefs, both religious and secular and then the winner should be decided at the ballot box. That’s where we all win.

By Scott

April 11, 2005 03:42 PM | Link to this

would we not be doing kids the greatest service by teaching them ALL of the facts?

Absolutely the only way to avoid STI’s, unwanted pregnancy, etc is NOT TO HAVE SEX. That is an indisputable fact.

I played football growing up to my first year of college. I certainly had some injuries, like many people who played. The only way not to take the chance on getting hurt was not to play. That didn’t mean the coach refused to give me a helmet when I went on the field, just because I might get injured.

Tell the kids about abstinence, but also tell them to wear a helmet if they have to play (at least in schools). If you feel the value of abstinence is vital to your child’s upbringing, then INSTILL IT AT HOME! Stop relying on the government to instill values. That’s why you are the parent!!!

By Jack

April 11, 2005 03:44 PM | Link to this

Donny It does no good to argue with someone who has a giant chip on their shoulder.

By J. Morris

April 11, 2005 03:44 PM | Link to this

You are harmful to the country that I love Chuck. Personally, I’m tired of your flaunting your heterosexuality in public. I’m tired of you thinking that all gay people do is sit around and rut around like bunnies. I’m tired of defending myself to scum like you who think that YOU are the only Americans who have rights.

I’ve got news for you F**K, I was born here too. I don’t give a rat’s a* about your narrow religion. I don’t care if you think I’ve a deviant. I pay taxes. I work and contribute to the economy. Frankly, I don’t CARE if you find my life “disgusting”. It’s my life and you don’t have any right, ANY right to tell me how I can live it, INSIDE the bedroom, OUTSIDE the bedroom, or anywhere else. You claim to love this country? You don’t care a thing about this country. You don’t care a thing about freedom or equality. The only thing YOU care about is continuing to live inside a tiny narrow world, and forcing everyone else to live their too. My civil rights are NON NEGOTIABLE, hatemonger.

Moral decay? That is laughable. It’s straight people that are ripping off the retirements funds of big corporations. It’s straight people who commit most of the crimes. It’s straight people who cheat on their spouses and get divorced so much that the number of divorces outnumber the marriages. It’s straight people who beat their children. It’s straight people who make the wars. Your pitiful attempt to suggest that the actions of about 8% of the population are responsible for the moral decay of this country would be laughable if it weren’t so scary. Do you know what a SCAPEGOAT is, Chuck?

“Leftists” seek to criminalize…what? What does that mean? The only people seeking to criminalize things are you facist right-wingers. The people seeking to crush science and research in this country are you backwards, superstitious religious fantatics.

You are a vile, filthy, hatefilled, ignorant bigot who deserves to rot in the hell of your own making. Personally, I look forward to it.

By Sheborn

April 11, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this

What we want to end is the public “in your face� flaunting of it. What we want to end is the attempt of the left to depict homosexuality as normal, when we all know that it is a deviant behavior. What we want to end is the public depiction of promiscuous sexual behavior that shows all of the pleasure but none of the consequences. The left has glorified promiscuity while bashing the right for not doing enough to help children in poverty.

Ah, Chuck must be back from spring break. Chuck please give some examples of the above, particulary the “in the face flaunting” and how promiscuity has been publicly glorified. I’m curious as to what you think you are entitled to.

By J. Morris

April 11, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this

Donny, when you are tolerant, I’ll be. Ok?

By Seaborn

April 11, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this

Nice post J Morris :).

By J. Morris

April 11, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this

If I have a chip on my shoulder, Jack, it’s because people like you have put it there. You think I get rilled up? Damn right I do.

By Jack

April 11, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this

You will be there before Chuck. BTW bunnies aren’t gay.

By mit

April 11, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this

j

10 deep breaths. then ignore.

By J. Morris

April 11, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this

Jack, please take this as a personal invitation to perform completely anatomicaly impossible acts to yourself, your mother, and the rest of your family.

By Jack

April 11, 2005 03:57 PM | Link to this

Have I made you angry enough Mr. Morris? I’m not anti-gay but you do have an attitude. If it upsets you so bad for someone to mention you being gay, why do you flaunt it so much? It doesn’t bother me that you are the way you are, just the way you present yourself. So mature in your posts.

By Donny

April 11, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this

Jack -Good Point-It’s impossible to have an intellectual debate with someone who calls you scum and has to use an “*” as letters of the alphabet just to express himself. I’ll move on. Best of luck to you J. Morris

By Jack

April 11, 2005 03:59 PM | Link to this

I imagine you’re a pro at that anatomicaly impossible act. HAHA!

By Scott

April 11, 2005 04:01 PM | Link to this

tolerance? respectful debate? on this blog? surely you jest

By Netbanker

April 11, 2005 04:04 PM | Link to this

Zack…where did you get your information that condoms, in most cases, don’t work and that they promote sexual irresponsibility and casual sex? You advise us that young people want factual information. Can you please provide some to support those statements?

Sex being immoral in most cases is a religious ‘truth’ that only applies to those who subscribe to that particular religion. The ACLU isn’t trying to block the abstinence message. Those of us who support full education about sex absolutely support encouraging young people to wait until they are mature enough to have sex. Hopefully that will be when they marry.

For those basing there argument for abstinence only on The Bible, is that really the best support material? I don’t recall anywhere in the Bible that says to wait until marriage, but that could be my krafts disease kicking in. What I do know is that there is a lot of references to rape, getting father’s drunk to have sex with them, giving a spouse a handmaid to impregnate because one can’t conceive, etc.

By Jack

April 11, 2005 04:04 PM | Link to this

Where’s Whiley?

By J. Morris

April 11, 2005 04:10 PM | Link to this

Jack, all I said was “duh” and you lost your bloody mind. Don’t tell me that I have an attitude As for the other thing - I’m not FLAUNTING a thing. Half the people on here talk about their spouses and love lives, perhaps more than half. Is that FLAUNTING? No. It’s being able to talk about myself and my life without being afraid that someone will freak out, without changing pronouns, and without lying.

That’s why I have an attitude. Jack. When a straight person talks about being straight no one bats an eye, but when I talk about being gay, and even dare to defend myself against the attacks of religious fanatics, I’m FLAUNTING.

Yes I bring up being gay on the blog because so often the topic turns into an anti-gay attack of one kind or another. I defend myself vigorously so I have an attitude.

Donny, glad that you choose to ignore every argument I’ve made and focus on my occasional use of harsh language. Personally, I find it impossible to have an intellectual argument with a fundamentalist, so we’re even.

By Seaborn

April 11, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this

J Morris,

I certainly understand your anger, I feel it myself…but you can’t let this Chuck person get to you that way. You have more credibility than he does.

By Whiley

April 11, 2005 04:17 PM | Link to this

LOL I’m here ! just no time to put all my thoughts together just yet. Maybe tomorrow. This is a good topic. Looks like i’ll have a lot of catching up reading to do hehe.

By Jack

April 11, 2005 04:18 PM | Link to this

Maybe I was wrong to use the word flaunt. You are just too sensitive about the way you are. You shouldn’t really give a rats behind about what other people think. Its very easy to see what buttons of yours can be pushed. I have my buttons to. You’ve managed to push them a few times along with the “ilk” and of course Norman. All in fun. I think we scared everyone off the blog for the day. SORRY FOLKS!

By Lola

April 11, 2005 04:19 PM | Link to this

In the words of that useless repeat DUI offender Rodney King - Can’t we all just get along?

By Lola

April 11, 2005 04:22 PM | Link to this

Not everyone was scared away.

Personally, I love each and every one of you just the way you are. Even those of you whose opinions are completely wrong. :)

By Netbanker

April 11, 2005 04:25 PM | Link to this

Chuck…recent research into the humane genome is getting closer to fully identifying all the genes that control human sexuality. What happens to your belief system if it is proved that there is a genetic reason for homosexuality? I don’t imagine these questions will result in any positive movement in your attitude because I’ve provided a link in the past to research from The National Geographic Society that shows that homosexual behavior is present in hundreds of species. But here it is again…http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722040722gayanimal.html

Donny..be careful about what you wish for at the ballot box. What happens if Islam outgrows Christianity? And please look back at our history as a nation. The ballot box would still be reserved for men only, civil rights wouldn’t exist, etc. Is that what you really want?

By Whiley

April 11, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this

Let me say just one thing for today, short & sweet. (more tomorrow) Birth control education & condoms do not promote sexual promiscuity, hot young bodies, excessive alcohol & loud night clubs do.

lol !

By Donny

April 11, 2005 04:28 PM | Link to this

Fundamentalist: movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles

Is being a “Fundie” such a bad thing? I think we have them on the left and the right. Has nothing to do with the lack of tolerance.

By Tim

April 11, 2005 04:29 PM | Link to this

I am sorry to speak for JMorris… but Jack I isn’t sensitive about the way he is… he didn’t get upset when someone mentioned he was gay… he got upset when someone used that in a derogatory way… wouldn’t it tick you off is someone did something like that to you?

p.s I have been wracking my brain on what my derogatory name would be… all I can come up with is Tammy… I don’t think that is very creative though… I’ll keep working on it though (said with just a touch of sarcasm)

By Tim

April 11, 2005 04:32 PM | Link to this

‘I’ should be ‘JMorris’… sorry my fingers work faster than my brain most of the time (a lot like how my mouth works faster than my brain during verbal conversations)

By Tony

April 11, 2005 04:32 PM | Link to this

What I find amazing is just a few short forums ago the topic was Adult content on TV and most liberal posters stated that the FCC and the government should stay out of it, “it was/is the responsibility of the parent/parents.” What changed?

By Scott

April 11, 2005 04:33 PM | Link to this

Glad to see you’re still around Whiley

By J. Morris

April 11, 2005 04:34 PM | Link to this

I don’t know Donny. Why don’t you ask the people under the Taliban if being a fundamentalist is a bad thing?

Despite the falsehoods spread by the right, the left isn’t trying to stop anyone or curtail anyone’s civil rights. We are trying to ensure that everyone is treated equally under the law. On the other hand, the fundamentalist right is trying to ensure that only Christians are treated well under the law. Everyone else be damned.

By Donny

April 11, 2005 04:34 PM | Link to this

Tim-A good example would be when J. Morris compared me to an Islamic Fundamentalist because I’m a Christian. Jack should tone himself down here, but J. Morris is the INTOLERANT one

By Crystal

April 11, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this

Is it all right to post now? All clear? OK, then the TOPIC!

Abstinence-only works! My parents taught me. Not my school. Temptation? Sure. But I couldn’t break the hearts of those who loved and trusted me. And the honeymoon was great—no excuses, no little lies, no STDs, just love and trust(and er.r..fun!)

Here’s one for abstinence!

By Tim

April 11, 2005 04:40 PM | Link to this

Donny… I was not referring to his conversation with you… I was talking about when he got upset with the usual immature remarks that Chuck (when he called him JMary) made… that would upset me if someone said something like that to me too… and we wonder why some children have low self-worth (as RS put it) and other children are bullies… we have ‘wonderful’ (said with A LOT more than just a touch of sarcasm) people like Chuck teaching these children

By Scott

April 11, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this

JMorris yes, everyone should be treated equally under the law. Without exception. Too often the extremes of both political parties only want it one way, however, resulting if a chafed attitude from those who neither believe in absolute iron rule or the anything goes theory either

Whiley Oh how right you are! LOL!

By DeltaX

April 11, 2005 04:42 PM | Link to this

Given Abstinence-only programs increase the “waiting to be married” by 2%, but also increase the STD transmission by 17%; you would think that it would be clear that these programs do not work.

But instead the religious idiots (I refrain from using the label christian, since it requires a “relationship” which requires “dialog” which translates to learning on both sides - these idiots do not learn) view is black and white. This means, like the extremist in other places, one “theirs” saved is worth #(insert any number above the previous) of those heretics.

Point in case (Watch GPTV sometime): 1 - Drugs are made illegal 2 - Users (en todo) have not fluctuated more that 2% in either direction. All we have done is make criminals out of people, and put a burden on the population to sustain their existence in prison.

Previously, a vast majority of users worked.

Sex is no different. There is a learning curve here, and until the majority of people begin to raise their kids with responsibility, this will be an issue. It has nothing to do with social programs - for they are not the problem, the parents are idiots.

JMorris: There is no use in dialog with these people. Dialog is not taught in their places of learning, only grotesque dictation.

By J. Morris

April 11, 2005 04:44 PM | Link to this

Sigh. No Donny, I didn’t compare you to an Islamic fundamentalist because you are a Christian. I compared Christian fundamentalists to Islamic fundamentalists. I did say “you Christian fundamentalists” and for that I apologize. I was making an assumption.

However, based on your statement about Christians being attacked I drew the conclusion that you were, in fact, a fundamentalist. Why? Because most moderate and liberal Christians understand that when people get upset about FUNDAMENTALISM they aren’t getting upset at CHRISTIANS.

Funny how its always the fundamentalists who assume that they are the only Christians, and that any attacks on fundamentalism are attacks on the religion as a whole.

I’m not intollerant, Donny. You’re welcome to worship however you choose, I don’t care. Fundamentalism is inherently intolerant because it would impose its precpts legally on everyone. When a Fundie says “You’re intolerant because you refuse to accept my condemnation and judgement of you”, it’s kind of like a Nazi telling a non-Aryan “You’re intolerant because you refuse to accept my hatred of you.”

By Greg

April 11, 2005 04:51 PM | Link to this

That’s so funny when people on here mention flaunt. I have yet to see somewhere stand outside of a straight club, and hit them in the head with a baseball bat, or beat the crap out of them for being heterosexual. How many times has a straight club been bombed because it was a straight club?

By Scott

April 11, 2005 04:51 PM | Link to this

JMorris - thanks for clearing that up. There have been several times where Christianity as a whole has been clobbered with the same stick on this blog

By Sandy

April 11, 2005 04:56 PM | Link to this

John, to clarify my previous post, parents should indeed talk to their children about sex, starting early on and in age appropriate terms. This should continue throughout adolescence and young adulthood, ideally incorporating science and parental values, which are not, as one would glean from prior postings, mutually exclusive. However, if parents are unwilling/unable to do this, why not have a resource available for those kids wise enough to want to ask questions?

Smithy, the connection of Abu Ghraib and sex education is about repect for humanity. Forced sexual humiliation and rape strip both the perpetrator and the victim of their humanity. The Abu Ghraib prisoners were rounded up civilians and not proven terrorists. Regardless, I will not be convinced that this reprehensible treatment is worthy of any captor, American or not.

My understanding of the Geneva Convention is that humane treatment of those we capture saves our own soldiers from retribution, stops the eye for an eye treatment.

I didn’t think it was possible, but I gotta say I’m more than a little shocked that so many seem to not only to support, but delight in torture in the blogs described above. As far as Americans being the most humane people on earth, well, yes, no wonder we’re so loved at the moment.

Teach your children well.

By J. Morris

April 11, 2005 04:59 PM | Link to this

Sure Scott. I don’t hate Christians or Christianity. All of the finest people I know are devoutly Christian. They are also devoutly tolerant, loving, compassionate people, qualities lacking in some of the posters who proclaim their religion the loudest.

I was raised as an Episcopalean, and I guess you could say I’m “moderatley lapsed”. My only complaint is with fundamentalism and fundamentalists. I believe that there are many amazing people who have done amazing things in the name of one God or another. I also believe that there are truly evil people who have done truly terrible things in the same name.

Hope that clarifies my position.

By Netbanker

April 11, 2005 05:01 PM | Link to this

Actually the gay attacks and this topic as both seem to point an the American obsession with sex and especially OP Sex (that’s other people’s).

By Scott

April 11, 2005 05:02 PM | Link to this

Sandy - I agree…we have the strongest military on earth and we want to be a world leader. That requires no less than the highest standard of conduct from our troops.

By Davis

April 11, 2005 05:07 PM | Link to this

Quick question - If I have been straight all my life, but in the last couple of years had a homosexual relationship and have had a few male sex partners, but still find women attractive..am I gay?

By Real Norman

April 12, 2005 07:23 AM | Link to this

The fact that the bitterness here between believers and non-believers, between theocrats and secularists has increased tremendously with every posting leads me to believe that any resolution is hopeless. Frankly it is a war. We shall in the next decades be battling for the future, theocracy or freedom, and while the result is unclear the fact remains that no quarter should be given in the defense of liberty. If we who hold to reason and freedom lose, so be it. We shall have fought for a noble cause. I still look forward to the day when the last believer is strangled with the entrails of the last Christian clergyman.

By Real Norman part duh

April 12, 2005 08:12 AM | Link to this

Norman, you and your kind will soon have their way, but it won’t last. The time between the cry “All is lost” and “All is saved” is but a moment.

By Lyrazel

April 12, 2005 08:15 AM | Link to this

Gosh! How many of you are parents? I find it fascinating that you cant see some of the primary reasons you need to assist your kids to find sexual understanding and be at peace with their decisions. Its not risk factor—its love—and wow! if you fill a blog with so much hate toward others—I shudder to consider what your children are hearing.

I am not a parent—never wanted to be a parent—so I made a choice and dont regret it. I have worked with mothers on the street with three kids under six from three different men who wont use birth control or condoms because it: kills the mood! I have heard religious excuses as well as that old 1850 cliche—condoms are a hassle. I want to scream and tear my hair—but—screaming doesnt even get the point across and when they skip their AIDS tests I cant help but be amazed by stupidity but cant do anything.

So maybe folks, its not your precious little dumplings you need debate about. You probably raised them correct with a generous religious background and they will become exemplary. They can attend rallys and sign documents and maybe some of them will have a perfect wedding night like Crystal had. My wish is they do.

What you need to think about is: does abstenance-only programs and lectures help all those millions of kids who dont get church/good parents/comfy homes? These are the kids who live close to the street, who hustle tricks, who live closer to temptation than your adult years ever experienced. Its these kids whom I really concern for—because 5 out of 9 will have their first sexual experience with an adult before they are 12; 3 will be forced into sex and 1 will die of transmitted disease. Do abstenance programs really help them or should we finally allow these children information and product that could save their lives?

Norman, dont hold your breath waiting for Voltaires big moment.

By rocky

April 12, 2005 08:23 AM | Link to this

Here’s an example of gays “flaunting” their disgusting lifestyle - I took my kids to the Dogwood Festival this weekend and apparently all the fgs decided to come out in full force and do their best to embarass and mortify the parents there with their families by wearing npple rings, leather chaps and short shorts, etc. We saw a black man roller blading in a wedding dress, two men french kissing so avidly you could see their tongues all over eachother’s mouths, one man actually walking his “partner” on a leash. I then had to try to explain these things to my six year old son. What did I tell him? That these people were extremely mentally ill. I explained that they had such a low regard for themselves that they felt it was necessary to act this way to get attention and try to prove a “point” to the normal people. I told him that they HAD proven a point: That they are the most immoral and pathetic human beings on earth, and that we should pity them.

By smithy

April 12, 2005 08:28 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel - the children you speak of SHOULD be given the education and information they need to keep themselves from being those terrible statistics you listed. I completely agree. However, it should NOT be part of the curriculum at a public school. It’s sad that these kids don’t get the parenting that others do, but the fact of the matter is that it is not the a public school’s place to step in and give them that information, because there is no way to give it to ONLY those kids who don’t get it at home, and therein lies the problem. It’s a parent’s job to decide what and how to teach their kids about sex. I will not have my kids learning about things that I consider off-limits (i.e. homosexuality, promiscuity, etc.) from their school. That goes against my own parental choices.

By Mara

April 12, 2005 08:35 AM | Link to this

Smithy, RS, Jack, and Lola all should be ashamed of themselves for excusing the mistreatment of prisoners in Gitmo and/or Abu Ghraib. It has been acknowleged by our own government that up to 70% of prisoners (at the time of the abuse) were innocent people rounded up in insurgent sweeps or through tips provided by disgruntled aquaintences. Whether or not the actions were at the level of torture is immaterial. It was definitly wrong and immoral not in a religious sense, but in a human rights sense. Excusing it becuase it was used on terrorists is in itself. SHAME I say! Netbanker - interesting info on the genome. There are studies, currently in review, that indicate that the brain activity in homosexual men more closely resembles the brain patterns of hetrosexual women than of hetrosexual men. As for the genome, your post indicates that you may view this as “proof” that homosexuality is a naturally occuring variation of sexuality. Unfortunately, if there is a “gay” gene, the homophobes will not see it as a normal genetic difference, but as proof positive that homosexuality is a genetic abnormality, thus making homosexuals abnormal and unnatural.
Onward and upward to Tony, who inquired on why parental control was advocated for television watching but not for sex ed. - This is one of the silliest questions I’ve heard. With the FCC it isn’t a question of watch or don’t watch, it’s a question of who gets to say what is available to watch. It’s personal preferance versus sensorship by the state in regard to television watching. Sex education, on the other hand, is a public health issue. Teen pregnancy is a social issue in that society as a whole often foots the bill. STD’s are a social issue since healthy citizens are preferable (and more profitable) tha ill ones. Apples and oranges. Apples and oranges. Personally, I think that abstinance should be stressed because an adolescent mind and body are still immature and not completely developed. I also think that exaggerating the dangers undermines any credibility of the information source, be it parent,teacher, or clergy. I also think that withholding health information verges on the punitive. After all, had they not had sex, they wouldn’t need the information. Those are my thoughts this morning. I’ll check back later to see how badly you’ve trashed them. Ta-ta for now.

By Whiley

April 12, 2005 08:38 AM | Link to this

It’s a funny thing you know. If it were two beautiful gay women making out in the park, someone would be selling tickets for it.

What else causes promiscuity?, lets think, OH yes, any college keg party.

Birth control, birth control, birth control ! Give to planned parenthood & encourage ALL females to go. Their birth control education is better than anything I’ve ever seen. No candy coating anything with them. Right to the facts, how to use, what method is best for each person, etc. And continually give your sons condoms. Tell them they can’t be “trapped” into fatherhood if they always protect themselves.

Abstinence programs? Might work for the 12-15 age group. That’s about it. If parents don’t want their teen having sex, then I’d make sure they are never alone with the opposite sex lol

By Stan

April 12, 2005 08:40 AM | Link to this

Rocky, you’re kidding, right? How many times have I seen white bikers riding on the back of motorcycles with leather chaps? Most of the people that I know that have nipple rings, are straight people or work in a tattoo place. As for somebody wearing a wedding dress, Dennis Rodman did that some years back. Don’t remember much of a backlash because he was a celebrity. Short-shorts were created by Miss Daisy Duke herself, and I must admit, growing up, I enjoyed looking at that.

By rocky

April 12, 2005 08:50 AM | Link to this

My point, Stan, is that this was an OBVIOUS attempt at the “in your face” flaunting that the gays seem to feel is their only way of self-expression. If it had been two women kissing, it would have been just as disgusting as it was seeing two men do it. It’s inappropriate behavior in public for ANYONE - hetero or homo. There’s no need to shove your tongue down someone’s throat in full public view in the middle of a festival. And the fact that it was being done in an area FULL of families with small children made it that much more nausiating and disrespectful. None of these people in the chaps (with very little under them, i might add) and in the mesh tops with nipple rings were straight, and they did their BEST to make sure we all knew that. It was nothing but an outright visual assault on the families there to have a good time with their innocent children. The freak in the wedding dress wasn’t a celebrity - he was a pathetic loser looking for attention. And the short shorts were made to be worn by WOMEN, I do believe. I don’t need to see some flamer’s a** hanging out of his shorts.

By RS

April 12, 2005 08:55 AM | Link to this

Rocky, most gay people are NOT like that. What you saw is a tiny minority. Mara, I understand where you are coming from, but I’m a militantly pro-Israel Jew & all those people, even the so-called “innocent” ones are the enemy because they hate me & my family for simply being what we are.

By James

April 12, 2005 08:57 AM | Link to this

Davis, Sounds to me like you are Bi. Best of both worlds. Most people will tell you to keep your gay self quite, especailly if you are married. I say, do what makes you happy. And, if you are ever need some man time-you just let me know.

Real Norman: Last last sentence is scary!

By chuck

April 12, 2005 08:58 AM | Link to this

Rocky, That is exactly the kind of garbage I’m talking about. Then they wonder why normal people want to push them back into the closet.

BTW Net B…thanks for the nonexisistent web site. I know however, that if the site was there we would all be able to trust its content because the National Geographic IS CERTAINLY NOT A LEFT LEANING liberal rag. They should really stick to maps and leave the science to objective scientists. Some scientists believe that the so-called observation of these homosexual traits among animals are nothing more than the wishful thinking of a few homosexual agenda-driven-pseudo-scientists, anxious to show that some other animal is as abnormal as humankind. Other scientists believe that these behaviors are misinterpreted and are actually nothing more than inferior specimens desperately trying to attract members of the opposite sex in their drive to reproduce. Either of these two explanations makes more sense than the “homosexual” position…no pun intended. I’ll come back with some links that actually work for you to digest later today.

By RS

April 12, 2005 08:58 AM | Link to this

Rocky, I am beginning to wonder about the reason you even noticed these little details: i.e. mens’ bottoms hanging out of their shorts, very little under chaps, where tongues go….

By rocky

April 12, 2005 09:06 AM | Link to this

Actually, RS, it was my six year old little boy who noticed it and when he said “EEWWWWW” i asked him what was wrong and he pointed to the tongue jousters. But nice attempt at turning it around on me. I hope one day you have to explain that kind of disgusting and unnatural behavior to YOUR little ones.

By Real Norman

April 12, 2005 09:09 AM | Link to this

If you don’t want your sons to get “Trapped?” into fatherhood teach them about restraint, the ONLY 100% foolproof way not to get, or get someone else pregnant. Even if it means making sure your sons or daughters are NEVER alone with the opposite sex. What would you say to young men? They need to learn how to be respectful of women, and their fathers and mothers should teach them this themselves. Not the media! They need to learn with prayer, and reading good books so they can know what God wants of them (this is possible to know). If men learn to look at women as someone merely to have sex with, then they will be enslaved to their lust and never find love, because true love is respectful of the other, seeks to grow in goodness and charity, and lust is none of these. They should look at a woman as respectfully as they would their own mother or sister. They should ask themselves this question: “will this woman raise my kids the way God intends her to?â€? If not, then stop the relationship and then your lust will stop there. Otherwise, you’re putting yourself in a world of danger. What would you say to girls and young women? When you dress immodestly you will only attract immoral, lustful men. If you think there is no such thing as a good man, you probably believe this lie for one possible reason that you have been an immodest or immoral woman, and have only attracted bad men in the past. NEVER accept what any TV, magazine, radio or any forms of media say about what men want! The only truth in those is that only lustful men want an immodest woman. I think the media “hasâ€? asked some good men what they wanted in a women, but you will never see it in the media. Modest women spend time in prayer with God, dressing modestly for God and for a respectful man. If you really believe your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, your dress and behavior will reflect this belief. You will attract a good man. They will come to you; God will guide a real man to you, you don’t need the media to tell you what kind of man you want. Listening to the lies of the media will only confuse you and get you into trouble. Then test these men. If you don’t you will fall into a trap of a man “seemingâ€? to be holy or good, but he is not truly a good man. Jesus wants you to test the spirits so we don’t get fooled by evil (1 John 4:1). If they are not living the Ten Commandments or living by the Church’s teaching, lose him quickly! If they pray with you, make strong efforts to respect you, and they never want to defile you (like men of the world), you will know he is a good man.

By James

April 12, 2005 09:12 AM | Link to this

Rocky: You are one bigoted AH. Sure, there were some freaks in Piedmont Park in MIDTOWN ATLANTA. Guess what: It is the gay ghetto! There were also allot of hetero freaks there doing the same, but you did not mention that, did you! You and I both know this kind of behaviour is normal in this area. It is like going to Africa and calling black people N*S. If you want to shelter your children from these things, stay in white bread land (read: Suburbs). Also, seterotyping all gay people like this is just ignorant. In previous forums, I have explained how white bread my family is. Suits & ties. Mowing the lawn & getting the dogs to the vet. I live in Alpharetta & I know it is inappropriate to kiss my partner and make out. But, when entering midtown, it is our kingdom. Also, teaching your children all gay people are sick and deserve pity, even though you know all scientific evidence tells you otherwise, and not exposing them to the reality of 80% of the gay population (mostly like myself) is you instilling bigotry into the next generation.

Also: If I see one more Hetero couple swapping spit and making out at North Pointe Mall, I’m gonna puke! Why is it perfectly normal to you when you walk through Town Center Mall or North Pointe to see Hetero couples holding hands & kissing and go ‘AWWWW THAT’s Sweet.’ and then if two men do it ‘GOD-That is disgusting.’ And, even though you would not admitt it, we gay’s know your true hearts-str8 men-2 women kissing would get you off in 2 seconds flat! You can’t lie-we know the truth about you.

Sorry, but had to get that one off my chest. (and no, it is not in a bra or dress).

By Sandy

April 12, 2005 09:12 AM | Link to this

Mara is proof of intelligent life out there…

By chuck

April 12, 2005 09:12 AM | Link to this

JMelissa, I can’t believe that an activist such as yourself doesn’t know about the movement to make it ILLEGAL to say anything derogatory about homosexuals. These laws have already been proposed in a number of European legislatures and even in a couple of U.S. States.

RS You are kidding right? It is WAY MORE than a small minority who behave in this manner. One “gay pride” parade had several thousand lunatics acting out in the ways described by Rocky, and much worse.

Had these behaviors been acted out in public by normal people, they would have been arrested for public indecency. Because they are gay, officials are afraid to act.

By Tim

April 12, 2005 09:12 AM | Link to this

great now Chuck has a play pal… rocky you are a sorry piece dog poop… actually no… the crap the comes out of dogs is better than you are… let me tell you something you sorry excuse for a human… I was at the dogwood this weekend with my partner… you know why you probably didn’t notice us is because we look just like you! we don’t ‘make out’ in public not because I am embarrassed or ashamed of my sexuality but because I don’t think that is appropriate public behavior for anyone… there were just as many straight people at the festival this weekend that were not dressed in the most appropriate manner or that were acting a little ‘off’… you need not to lump every gay person in the same category… just as I don’t lump every straight person in the same discusting slimy category I have set aside for people like you and Chuck

p.s. YOU WERE IN MIDTOWN!!!!! (I will tell you like so many ‘loving’ people like Randy have told me about living in Georgia… they told me to move) If you don’t want to see gay peole… stay out of midtown!!! what the heck did you expect… if you don’t want to see gay people then go to the freakin daisy festival at Stone Mountain… oh wait lesbians might be there

By Bruce

April 12, 2005 09:17 AM | Link to this

I find it odd that there are some that believe abstinence does not work. And if you think it does them help come up with a PROGRAM to rely that to the kids. Stop blaming the other side, which ever side you are on, and help make a difference. If you spent as much (if not more) time discussing abstinence instead of giving teenagers options maybe the results will be different.

I can give my kids the option of picking up pine comes in our front yard or going to the DQ for an ice cream and guess what they will choose? Likewise, if you tell kids not to have sex but we know you are so make sure you use these methods of birth control, guess which one they will choose? As for me and my house we will teach abstinence as the ONLY option until marriage. If you don’t agree with that then keep you dirty little boys away from my pretty little girls.

By Whiley

April 12, 2005 09:23 AM | Link to this

SOMEbody please explain to me clearly what exactly dressing “modestly” is?

I honestly don’t see UN modestly dressed women that often at all. When I was younger, dressing one way or the other really didn’t have that much affect on what type of men hit on me. I was cute so I was hit on no matter what I wore. (ahhhh the good ole days ! lol)

By James

April 12, 2005 09:24 AM | Link to this

Chuck: You are just as bad as Randy. Gay Pride is a celebration. Get over your preconceived notions of what people are supposed to be and wear. Men wore robes (dresses) in Biblical times. Jesus had long hair. More Str8 men/women have tatoos & nipple rings, etc. than gay. This is a time (in our part of town) to let loose and have fun. I have seen str8 men in dresses & women more than half naked in New Orleans on Burbon St. If you don’t like it, you go to the Garden District. Here, you go outside I285. If you are so insecure about your ability to explain that many gay people are in loving relationships and look/walk/talk/act & generally live JUST LIKE YOU, then STAY OUT!

Of course, Chuck and Randy could have a good ol’ time in New Orleans drinking, renting hoes, and such. But, that is OK because it pleases them.

By steve

April 12, 2005 09:30 AM | Link to this

All these different opinions in regard to sexuality further my point that the teaching of sexual education to children is the responsibility of parents, not schools. Leave it out of the classroom. If organizations want to provide resources for parents to help them - great. But, bottom line, this is a decision PARENTS must make and parents alone.

By Jack

April 12, 2005 09:31 AM | Link to this

I choose to ignore it when two men are making out. Two women making out is another story. My wife & I went to a Melissa Etheridge concert. Wow.

By rocky

April 12, 2005 09:32 AM | Link to this

Suddenly I’M the AH. I don’t get it. I tried to have a nice family weekend with my kids and we were assaulted by the raving flamers. No, I didn’t notice you, Tim. You know why? Because you were acting like a NORMAL human being and not trying to INNUNDATE everyone with vulgar behavior. My boy says “EEEWWWW” when his mother and I kiss as well, so it was NOT just because it was two men. That’s simply how I came to see it. I’m angry that we aren’t able to enjoy a simple CITY-SPONSORED event, that just HAPPENS to be in F@gtown, without having to spend half the day trying to undo the images forced on my children. I find it disgusting when I see a hetero couple making out ANYWHERE in public. It’s not acceptable behavior for public places, no matter WHO it is. I’m not “lumping” anyone together. My anger is geared ONLY at those who took advantage of an innocent festival to FORCE their political agenda on those of us out to enjoy the beautiful day with our children. It was shameful, disgusting and immoral. There’s a time and place for everything. An arts festival on a beautiful spring day is NOT the time and place to try to make a point through shock value. It did nothing but reinforce the sterotypes a lot of people have already. If you’re mad about those kinds of sterotypes, maybe you should talk to the flamers who did their best to ruin everyone’s day.

By Seaborn

April 12, 2005 09:32 AM | Link to this

Rocky,

When you move into midtown Atlanta, pay the high property taxes and constantly support the local businesses, than you can complain. In Midtown Atlanta, San Francisco, West Hollywood, and Manahattan it is NORMAL to be gay, so it’s not flaunting. These are our homes, not yours so if you don’t like it, just stay the hell out.

And I’d love to give you the opportunity to call me f*g in person.

And Chuck,

If you base your opinions of gay people on the images of Gay pride parades you see on the news than you truly are as stupid as I thought you were. I guess every heterosexual woman in Louisiana is a degenerate, boob showing whore…I assume that based on images I’ve seen of Mardi Gra.

You try and push me back in the closet bigot. You want a fight you’ll get one. But you ought to know I can blend in with you straights a hell of a lot better than you can blend in with us. You watch your back now.

By James

April 12, 2005 09:32 AM | Link to this

Bruce: Albeit, you and I don’t see eye to eye on much, I will give you this one. PLEASE TEACH YOUR CHILDREN WHAT YOU WANT THEM TO KNOW AT HOME. This whole discussion would be null & void in parents would take the responsiblity of teaching their children right and wrong at home. Your beliefs are yours. Your values & morales are yours. Pass them on, and stop blaming the school system. I wish parents would take responsiblity for thier own children. You don’t want them to see men in dresses? Don’t take em’ to Midtown. You don’t want them to see gay people kiss? Keep them in town. There are MORE than enough activities in the suburbs to keep you and your children entertained.

MOST OF ALL Why are you taking your children to Gay Pride? I know you are not stupid. All of us here are intelligent (well, most of us). Take responsiblity for your own. You don’t want your children exposed to a stripper, don’t take them to a strip club. DUH!

By rocky

April 12, 2005 09:40 AM | Link to this

Seaborn - if that is “normal” behavior in the gay community, then you’re right. I will stay as far away from that scene as I can. But seems to me that there have been a lot of guys on this blog who say that is NOT normal behavior of gays, and that you are just like the rest of us. So which is it?

And don’t give me this crap about it not being flaunting. It was so obvious what they were trying to do, even a blind man could have seen it. They were pushing their agenda. Plain and simple.

You may own the homes by the park, but you DO NOT OWN the park. It is there for everyone. So get over yourself and spare me the limp-wristed sissy threats.

By Boscoe

April 12, 2005 09:42 AM | Link to this

Whoa! Hold on James. All I hear is how Chuck and Randy are AHs and other kind, caring names you can think off. Gay people are always complaining how they contribute to society by paying taxes and yet when Rocky complains about the depraved display in a city in which WE also pay taxes your response is to stay home. Now is that right? Is it decent? What would your response be if I told that to you?

By Seaborn

April 12, 2005 09:45 AM | Link to this

Rocky,

What planet do you think you are on? An Innocent festival? It was held in a major urban center of the United States, not small town, USA. When you go out into the public realm, you are entitled to be free from assault, to be free from robbery, and to be free from public displays of sex. You are not entitled to be free from the inconvenience of being around people whose “legal” activities offend you, or put you at a loss as to how to explain them to your kids, especially when those people are the majority in the area you are “visiting”. Again, if “when in Rome” doesn’t have any meaning to you, stay in places you are more comfortable.

By Colleen

April 12, 2005 09:46 AM | Link to this

I attended 12 years of Catholic school and had the “abstinence only” mode of sex education before it was mainstream. For myself and my peers, it often led to bad decisions. We wrestled with our hormones and emotions and fought temptation but we often lost the battle. The problem was that with abstinence held up as the best and only solution, we had no fallback plans. My first boyfriend and I would “slip up” again and again and then re-promise ourselves and each other that we would get back on the “right track.” It took nearly 8 months and two pregnancy scares for me to face the fact that I was sexually active, and to begin to use contraception.

I was lucky—I never got pregnant from this form of Russian roulette. Other of my friends did, or rushed into ill-considered marriages based on hormonal urgency and not clear thinking about what a lifetime commitment really means.

I have no problem with people commiting to practice abstinence, but it’s only 100% effective when used 100% of the time. All too often people aspire to the higher ideal and are left unprepared with a Plan B if they fall short of that. I don’t have children of my own, but if I did I would want them to consider all the options and make a decision about when they wanted to begin a sexual relationship with someone in advance, and be prepared accordingly. It’s much better to be in control and have all the options thought out, that to be passively “carried away” again and again and have to live with the sickening fear of pregnancy and STDs.

By Tim

April 12, 2005 09:50 AM | Link to this

rocky… you lumped all gay people into the same category!! you know why I was acting ‘normal’… because I AM ‘normal’… just because I am gay does not make me some degenerate… and you wonder why I and others are p**? you call midtown ‘f*’… why don’t you just stay in breederville from now on seeing as you do not have the mental capacity to see gay couples in public

I also seriously doubt that the people you came in contact with were making some sort of political statement… and no I am not upset with those people because you are too STUPID to realize that not everyone in the gay community participates in those types of activities

I do have to say I didn’t see anything like what you mentioned going on though… dang I must have went on the wrong day!

By Boscoe

April 12, 2005 09:50 AM | Link to this

A study published in the current issue of the British Journal of Psychiatry has revealed that 43% of gays, lesbians and bisexuals have a mental disorder. Chuck, Rocky…if thats normal I don’t want any part of it.

By J. Morris

April 12, 2005 09:56 AM | Link to this

I’m glad that some others have jumped in here on the raving bigoted morons called Chuck and Rocky.

Rocky, Chuck - the only pathetic people here are you. You and your hate-filled, preconceived, stereotypical notions of what people are and should be are exemplary of everything that is wrong with humanity.

I have a strong suspicion that the “outrageous” behavior you witnessed would barely have earned a glance from you had it been heterosexual couples engaging in it. As many have pointed out, flamboyant sexual behavior is hardly limited to gay men - ever been to an Atlanta nightclub, Schmuck? No, I would guess you’ve never been out of the sticks.

And Rocky, please take your limp-wristed comments and shove them sideways up your a*. You have no idea about what gay men are actually like. I would also be happy to have you call me a f* to my face, as I would happily punch your teeth down your narrow-minded bigoted throat. Please do us all a favor and be hit by a truck.

By Jack

April 12, 2005 09:56 AM | Link to this

What percent of straight people have mental disorders? Probably around the same as gays.

By James

April 12, 2005 09:56 AM | Link to this

BOSCOE! I missed you! I was looking for you!

Well, guess what, you folks pay taxes in Alpharetta, Marietta, etc. I agree the park does not belong to us, but this area we consider a ‘safe haven’ from your hatred. (and yes guys, that is what it is-nothing more) I do not lead my lover around on a leash or wear chaps with my butt hanging out. It is a little strange. But, why is it you blame only the gays?!? I saw some SERIOUS str8 freaks in the park on Sunday myself. I looked at it with amusement & kept going. Did you point those out to your kids? Did your kid go EEEWWWWW when he saw a man & woman kissing with lots of metal & tatoos? Why did you not take this opportunity to teach your children about diversity in the world?

You know what you are getting into when you move into the city of Atlanta. I think it very insulting that Gay People started the ‘Urban Pioneer’ thing. We fixed up those houses you folks live in. We decorated them & made the neighborhoods safe. Now, you want to move in and tell us “OK, you made it pretty-NOW GET OUT!.” It is so typical: You only want to use gay people for our skills (decorating/music/etc.) But, then you don’t want us to live our lives and love. Just like the African Americans 100 years ago: “Clean my house, watch my kids, then GET OUT!”

I am, as you call it, a ‘normal’ gay. I choose to be that way. It is who I am. However, many people choose to express themselves in different ways. This could have been a wonderful learning experience for your children. “Son, while that is not something you mother and I approve of, some people do it. It is their way of expressing themselves. Two men are in love like your Mother & I. They have a specail love too.”

By J. Morris

April 12, 2005 09:57 AM | Link to this

Oh yes, Boscoe. Please tell us more of your BS statistics.

By Bruce

April 12, 2005 10:00 AM | Link to this

James,

In the last election the majority of Georgia voters said no to gay marriages. Now how would you feel if those that voted that way started telling you to stay out of Georgia? I tend to agree with those that say that kind of activity is not appropriate no matter who you are. And one more thing holding hands in the mall is not the same as licking someone face with your tongue.

By rocky

April 12, 2005 10:00 AM | Link to this

There were plenty of hetero freaks at the festival too, and those were also pointed out to my kids as pathetic losers looking for attention. Anyone who pierces their face or tattoos their neck is nothing but someone desperate for any kind of attention. It is not “self expression”. It’s self mutilation and not normal. No worries, Seahorn. You will never catch me or my family down there in your part of town again. And when piedmont park stops being able to host events like this because of the subhuman element down there, we will laugh as they pave over the grass to build parking decks and strip malls. Then you and your fairy friends can cry about how it used to be.

By Tim

April 12, 2005 10:01 AM | Link to this

James… so it was Sunday when I could have seen all the ‘festivities’… I will have to make a note of that for next year

By James

April 12, 2005 10:06 AM | Link to this

Boscoe, I think you have a mental illness too. When was your last CAT Scan? Also, please point me to the website for that study. We all discuss studies. We all know they can be skewed any way we want them to be. Towards my favor or yours (so you understand that I know we use them just like you do.)

However, I go back to the orignial topic of discussion: Teach your kids at home. Too many breeders (for the benefit of Chuck & Randy) do not take the responsiblity for their own spwan. We F*GS have kids too. We have the same issues you do. We have to take time with our kids too.
Guess what folks, we are all in the same boat Kids need to know the truth about sex & be 100% prepared. Abstinence is the best choice, but if they don’t make that choice, at least give them the fighting chance to stay alive.

By Seaborn

April 12, 2005 10:06 AM | Link to this

So if I go up to a festival in the Marietta Square and I’m offended by two sleasy heteros lip locking, then I have the right to complain? Or would you tell me to stay out of Marietta?

And Rocky,

I didn’t say making out in public was normal. I don’t especially like to see that either. But a lot of gay people live in that area and have as much right to to make fools of themselves as heterosexuals do. So these two guys were trying to get in your face, and instead of just realizing it was two idiots, you’ve decided that that’s a generalization of all gay people.

And Limp-wristed? What is it with the cliche’s with you guys? If you got into a contest of “masculinity” with most of the “flamers” I know, you’d get your butt kicked.

By Jack

April 12, 2005 10:06 AM | Link to this

Mr. Morris, Is that all you can do is call people names? I don’t want to repeat yesterdy as it was not productive at all. Use reason instead of name calling and maybe someone will take you serious.

By Tim

April 12, 2005 10:08 AM | Link to this

Bruce… after the election plenty of people did tell me to move out of Georgia!! (starting with the ‘loving’ Randy)… so now the favor is simply being returned… sucks don’t it

rocky… you don’t have all of your actual anymore do you

:)

By Debora

April 12, 2005 10:10 AM | Link to this

Rocky and the rest of you, STAY HOME! STAY OUT OF MIDTOWN! STAY OUT OF OUR AREA! WE PAY THE TAXES! GO HOME AND STAY THERE! NO ARE NOT WELCOME! YOU ARE NOT WANTED!

By J. Morris

April 12, 2005 10:11 AM | Link to this

Rocky, I pity you. You live in such a narrow little world, don’t you? There’s no room in that world for most of the rest of it - it must get lonely being such a superior being.

You do realize that body piercing is a millenias-old part of human cultures all over the world, right? Personally I don’t choose to participate, but that doesn’t make it an invalid life choice. Nor does being different make someone a “freak” or attention-starved or any of the other derrogatory things you’ve called people.

I wonder if you realize exactly how much hate you spew on a daily basis. I bet your children turn out just like you - hate-filled, judgemental, ignorant, most likely uneducated. Thank you, Rocky. Thank you for continuing a long-standing tradition of stupidity and human misery. I’m so glad that you could join us on this ‘blog - we need another mini-Hitler like a hole in the head.

Please, continue to call people you don’t understand “subhuman”. Continue to call people fairies.

The only subhuman I see is you. The only human garbage I see is you.

By rocky

April 12, 2005 10:12 AM | Link to this

James, you seem to be the most level-headed gay man on here. I agree that I could have taken the opportunity to talk to my son about diversity as you mentioned. But I felt we were under attack and the shock value was strong enough to make me angry, thereby prompting an angry response. They wanted to shock us, and they did. My son still doesn’t “get” what it was all about, other than some people trying to get attention. He has no concept of gay vs. straight vs. whatever. He just knows it when he sees something very different than what he’s ever seen before. It was definitely a learning experience for both my children and me. We’ve learned not to ever return to a public park inside the perimeter, no matter what’s going on there. It simply wasn’t worth the hassle that resulted from it.

By Randy

April 12, 2005 10:13 AM | Link to this

So part of the discussion is body-piercing. Unhappy people do unhappy things to get attention. They didn’t get the attention at home from mom and dad, as mom and dad ignored them when they were young because they wanted to live their own life. Goes to selfish and selfcentered. I have been on 6 cruises and probably 20 major vacations over the last 7 or 8 years and my daughter went with us everytime. I will bet anyone a million dollars she never needs a tattoo or any body piercing(except one in each ear).

By J. Morris

April 12, 2005 10:14 AM | Link to this

Jack, there is no reasoning with people like Chuck and Rocky. I am happy to engage in reasoned debate with people who are capable of reason. If you don’t like my name-calling, frankly I don’t care. Please feel free to ignore my comments. I have been subjected to name calling all my life by trash like them, and in case you didn’t notice, Mr. Double Standard, they are doing a really nice job of throwing around vicious slurs. As long as they post garbage, I will continue to tell them exactly what I think about them.

By Seaborn

April 12, 2005 10:15 AM | Link to this

Rocky,

You know, when you folks voted to change the constitution so I can’t marry my partner (we never wanted to in the first place), I thought to myself..”I’ll move out of the backward state and never come back…that will teach those straight people”. And of course I realized that my moving would away have little to no impact on anyone but me, and most of you straight folks would just say “good riddance” anyway.

But you should come back down there, not on a festival day…they are always strange anyway. You should come on a nice weekend, go have lunch nearby and then hang out in the park for awhile. I think you would get a different perspective.

By Akeya

April 12, 2005 10:16 AM | Link to this

WHat amazes me about “abstinence only” programs is the fact that they teach saving sex for marriage.

I did not realize that marriage is a given for everyone. NO one told me and all of the many other people I know who aren’t married that we are guaranteed in this life to get married.

Another issue, the rate of women contracting AIDS/HIV from their husbands is on the rise. Why? Because marriage does not guarantee fidelity. It is only supposed fidelity. Husbands are cheating on their wives and vice versa.

By Mara

April 12, 2005 10:16 AM | Link to this

Sandy - you are obviously an individual of intelligence, good taste, and discernment. Thank you for the compliment.

RS - How do you know that these particular individuals hate you and your family? Could it perhaps be the culture they live in has an anti-Semetic bias, therefore you assume that these idividuals hold the same bias? And even if they personally hated you and your family, (or believed that the land you live on was stolen, or any of the other pretenses Arab societies use to exuse their often violent intolerance)would that excuse their treatment? Does it excuse the sexual assault and humiliation of men and women who had done no harm to anyone and whos only transgretion is the contempt they feel for “the zionist jew”? If you answered yes to that, you have lost the moral superiority. You name yourself a militant jew even as you condemn militant arabs…interesting. But then, I have no dog in the fight so my interest is academic at best. That being said, I laughed right out loud when I read your post to Sandy about the hanging out of butt cheeks and the toungue placement. Very droll and witty. Once again, I take my leave. For some reason they like it when I actually get some work done :^) One last suggestion to Rocky. When your kid asks you why those 2 men/women are kissing, how about just saying that “they love each other just like me and mommy.” Just a suggestion to cool your blushing cheeks.

By Real Norman

April 12, 2005 10:22 AM | Link to this

Why Straight Men Are Just Happier People. What do you expect from such simple creatures? Your last name stays put.The garage is all yours. Wedding plans take care of themselves. Chocolate is just another snack.You can be president. You can never be pregnant.You can wear a white T-shirt to a water park.You can wear NO T-shirt to a water park.Car mechanics tell you the truth.The world is your urinal. You never have to drive to another gas station restroom because this one is just too icky.You don’t have to stop and think of which way to turn a nut on a bolt.Same work, more pay. Wrinkles add character.Wedding dress $5000. Tux rental — $100.People never stare at your chest when you’re talking to them. The occasional well-rendered belch is practically expected.New shoes don’t cut, blister, or mangle your feet.One mood-all the time.Phone conversations are over in 30 seconds flat.You know stuff about tanks.A five-day vacation requires only one suitcase.You can open all your own jars.You get extra credit for the slightest act of thoughtfulness.If someone forgets to invite you, he or she can still be your friend.Your underwear is $8.95 for three-pack.Three pairs of shoes are more than enough.You almost never have strap problems in public.You are unable to see wrinkles in your clothes.Everything on your face stays its original color.The same hairstyle lasts for years, maybe decades.You only have to shave your face and neck.You can play with toys all your life.Your belly usually hides your big hips.One wallet and one pair of shoes one color for all seasons.You can wear shorts no matter how your legs look.You can “do” your nails with a pocketknife.You have freedom of choice concerning growing a mustache.You can do Christmas shopping for 25 relatives on December 24 in 25 minutes.No wonder straight men are happier!

By rocky

April 12, 2005 10:23 AM | Link to this

Um, Debora? Midtown isn’t YOUR area. I thought all the carpet munchers are in Dikhater.

By James

April 12, 2005 10:24 AM | Link to this

Tim, to be honest, I only saw 2 str8 freaks & lots of bare chested men Sunday. (1/2 of which were carring kids w/ their wives) I wish I had seen the leash & chaps.

Boscoe: Georgia voted against gay marriage, because like most of the SouthEastern United States, we are VERY slow to change. A recent poll by several news agencies showed that 59% of Americans would like to see civil unions between same-sex couples. This being up 10% from just 10 years ago. Georgia was slow with African Americans civil rights & they will be slow with gay rights. But change only goes forward, never backward. So, wether you like us or hate us, we are here to stay!

By Randy

April 12, 2005 10:25 AM | Link to this

I agree with Tim, lets keep families out of midtown. Don’t expose children to this hedonism. It’s always going to exist in society, with a small percentage of people who are going to live a hedonistic lifestyle. They are probably just trying to get rid of some demons from their childhood. They should be helped if they are willing to admit they have a problem. If they are not willing to admit they have a problem(like some on this site)there is nothing we can do as honorable, stand-up, solid, winner Americans.

By chuck

April 12, 2005 10:26 AM | Link to this

This is an article abstract from the journal cited by Boscoe.

Controlled, cross-sectional study Michael King, MD and Eamonn McKeown, PhD Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences, Royal Free and University College Medical School, London

James Warner, MD

Department of Psychiatry, Imperial College, London

Angus Ramsay, PhD, Katherine Johnson, PhD, Clive Cort, MSc, Lucie Wright, MSc and Robert Blizard, MSc

Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences, Royal Free and University College Medical School, London

Oliver Davidson, PhD

Department of HIV & Sexual Health Psychology, London, UK

Correspondence: Dr Michael King, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences, Royal Free Campus, Rowland Hill Street, London NW3 2PF, UK. E-mail: m.king@rfc.ucl.ac.uk

Declaration of interest None. Funding detailed in Acknowledgements.

Background Little is known aboutthe mental health of gay men and lesbians living in Europe.

Aims To compare psychological status, quality of life and use of mental health services by lesbians and gay men with heterosexual people.

Method Cross-sectional study in England and Wales using ‘snowball’ sampling.

Results Participants: 656 gay men, 505 heterosexual men, 430 lesbians and 588 heterosexual women. Gay men were more likely than heterosexual men to score above threshold on the Clinical Interview Schedule, indicating greater levels of psychological distress (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.07–1.43), as were lesbians compared with heterosexual women (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.11–1.52). Gay men and lesbians were more likely than heterosexuals to have consulted a mental health professional in the past, deliberately harmed themselves and used recreational drugs. Lesbians were more likely to have experienced verbal and physical intimidation and to consume more alcohol than heterosexual women.

By Boscoe

April 12, 2005 10:26 AM | Link to this

Alright Mr. Morris. Gay people complain all the time about their rights being taken away. In Canada, gay marriage is legal, but a majority of the gay couples have NOT rushed to the alter they so desperately claimed they were being denied. Why is that? Mara, insists you people love each other. Why not make a commitment then?

By rocky

April 12, 2005 10:28 AM | Link to this

Akeya - what WERE you taught about sex if not to save it for marriage? Were you taught anything? Were your mother and father married when you were born? Did you not ever dream as a little girl of the man you would one day marry? I’m curious as to why you are so down on marriage.

By Jack

April 12, 2005 10:29 AM | Link to this

Rock those that last post of yours destroyed what credibility you had.

By Seaborn

April 12, 2005 10:30 AM | Link to this

Boscoe,

I doubt if the entire anti-depressant industry is sustained by gays.

By Mara

April 12, 2005 10:31 AM | Link to this

Real Norman lives in a town called “Perfect” just like the folks on TV! LOL

By Tim

April 12, 2005 10:34 AM | Link to this

rocky said carpet muncher… good lord… I always wanted to relive my middle school days… thanks to the intelligence level of rocky I am now able to do that… thank you

By RS

April 12, 2005 10:36 AM | Link to this

Rocky, I’m curious how you responded to your little boy when he pointed out the 2 men in a lip-lock. And thanks for your kind wishes, but I’m militantly childfree (i.e. childless by choice) so I’ll never have to wrestle with that particular dilemma. If I DID have a child, & the aforementioned child said to me “EEEW! Mommy, why are those 2 men (or ladies) kissing?” I’d simply tell it like it is: “Honey, most men fall in love with ladies and want to marry one and most ladies fall in love with men and want to marry one. But sometimes 2 men love each other or 2 ladies love each other. You know, like Uncle M. & Uncle J, or Aunt D. & Aunt C”. Way to go, Tim & James!!! Chuck, the reason I know it’s only a small minority of gays who indulge in the sort of behaviour that disgusted Rocky last Sunday is because I’ve attended Gay Pride events with friends so I’ve seen it. And really, unless you live out of state, it’s hardly a secret that Midtown is, indeed, the “Gay Ghetto”. If you know you won’t like what you see, stay in Vanillaville with the rest of the generic population. Know what? 1) I’m straight but I’ve always been more offended by hetero shows of public affection 2)Rocky, Chuck etc, ever occur to you that gay people may be offended by some straight antics?? Bruce, sometimes waiting till marriage isn’t practical. For reasons I won’t go into, I didn’t marry till age 40. WHY should I have been punished for something that wasn’t my fault & be denied something so basic & natural? Oh, I get it! Because a bunch of long-dead self-righteous old sticks SAID SO!

By James

April 12, 2005 10:37 AM | Link to this

ROCKY Thank you, I like to think of myself as fair. Obviously biased toward my side, but fari.

That was just bad-Dikhater? Funny, but bad. Also, give your children the chance to experience all life has to offer. Explain to them your veiws upon it. (whatever they may be) I agree, take them to Piedmont Park on a normal Sunday. Enjoy the resturants & Sun. If you see someone a little out of your comfort zone, use it. God has given you an opportunity. Or, just say this is what happens when you do not practice abstinence before marriage (LOL! That was a joke folks).

J. Morris 90% of that ‘Str8 Man’ stuff applies to me. I shope for all my relatives Xmas gifts from 1 store on 12/24 in about 30 mins. Do my nails with a pockett knife, etc. Am I becoming str8? I think $8.95 for a 3-pak is way too much! Where are those women who wanted to marry me?

By Lola

April 12, 2005 10:38 AM | Link to this

Wow. I missed some firey discussions on here this morning already. I don’t even know where to start.

First - Abu Ghraib. I don’t endorse mistreatment of people at all, and I certainly don’t endorse torture. But I don’t feel what was done to the guys at Gitmo was torture. It was humiliation, but not torture. And if it gets information out of them that will save some American lives, more power to them.

Second - abstinence-only programs. Akeya, marriage is not a given for anyone, but it is something that most people strive for and envision as a likely outcome when they begin dating (i’m speaking of heterosexual couples only). Marriage is a wonderful thing, allowing two people to share their lives together legally bound and bound by their hearts, to raise children and make a life for themselves. This is what I am doing with my husband and it is one of the most rewarding things I’ve ever done. My 10 month old daughter will also be taught abstinence and the virtues of saving it until she is married. I think there’s nothing wrong with that.

By the REAL rocky

April 12, 2005 10:40 AM | Link to this

HEY! I did NOT post that carpet statement! Someone else logged on as me. That was NOT ME!!!

By Boscoe

April 12, 2005 10:40 AM | Link to this

James, take off the rose colored glasses. Wasn’t it you who said people should decide at the ballot box? Kansas just became the 18th state to ratify their state constitution banning same-sex marriage. 27 more states will decide this year. That doesn’t sound to meb like the majority of citizens in this country support your lifestyle.

By Seaborn

April 12, 2005 10:41 AM | Link to this

Chuck and Boscoe,

What is so suprising about that study? After dealing with you folks I’ve thought about seeing a shrink myself for anger management.

A better study would be to compare people in tolerant areas versus intolerant areas. I imagine a gay person in Holland would be much less likely to seek psychiatric help than a gay person in someplace like Saudi Arabia, to mention two extremes.

By Lola

April 12, 2005 10:43 AM | Link to this

I’m here, James! I wanted to marry you! :)

By James

April 12, 2005 10:45 AM | Link to this

Boscoe/Chuck: Did you ever think that we are depressed and take more drugs because people like you treat us so like the scum of the earth? You are the real problem. I am 100% sure, if we had the same treatment & love from our communities that you have, we would be just as normal as you.

Your like the school-yard bully. You keep hitting us while saying ‘Why did you hit yourself.’ Even though I know Boscoe (God bless him) will get me for this one: Jesus would have never done & said the things you are. WWJD?

By Tim

April 12, 2005 10:46 AM | Link to this

well then whoever posted the carpet muncher statement you’re an idiot

sorry REAL rocky

By smithy

April 12, 2005 10:48 AM | Link to this

Actually, Seaborn, the muslim immigrant population in Holland has exploded to the point where there is a HUGE battle going on right now between the native Dutch and the fundamentalist islamists because of the liberal attitudes there. They are actually considering a law that would prevent any more muslims from moving there, and would seek to dispell any muslims that oppose the liberal lifestyle there. The same thing is happening in Amsterdam. Their liberal immigration policies are coming back to bite them right in the behind.

By RS

April 12, 2005 10:49 AM | Link to this

Rocky, you are NOT under attack; calm down, dude. YOU’RE not the one who isn’t allowed to marry your significant other. By the way, your comment to Debora was hateful, bigoted & totally uncalled for; is that how you talk around your children???!!?? Randy, tattoos & piercing are nothing more than self-expression. Not my thing either but I don’t condemn anyone who dresses like that. Mara: You actually hit the nail right on the head; yes, I DO have a “dog in the fight”. True, I’m not into all that touchy-feely “let your enemies walk all over you” garbage but the difference between my Isro-centric militancy & terrorist militancy is that I don’t act on it; I’ve never climbed aboard a crowded bus with a bomb strapped around my waist, I’ve never flown a bomb into a building, I never lopped anyone’s head off & I never danced in the street & passed out candy to children to “celebrate” the murder of thousands of civilians.

By James

April 12, 2005 10:50 AM | Link to this

Boscoe: No, I was not the one saying the ‘people’ should decide at the ballot box. I support the judges making the decisions as they often see more of the facts of a situation than a mob can.

Also, You know as well as I do, voting for this amendment does not prove they disapprove of my lifestyle. Many expressed concern they could not allow civil unions. Many said they support gays being equal, but not given marriage rights. You are like Dumbya, you thing 51% is a mandate. It ain’t Black & White-it’s 1000’s of shades of gray.

By chuck

April 12, 2005 10:52 AM | Link to this

From the American Psychological Association:

Population-based studies

Several large population-based public health studies are discussed in the November American Psychologist (Vol. 56, No. 11) by Susan Cochran, PhD, an epidemiologist in the University of California, Los Angeles School of Public Health, who authored or co-authored many of the studies. Specifically, the studies find:

• Higher rates of major depression, generalized anxiety disorder and substance use or dependence in lesbian and gay youth.

• Higher rates of recurrent major depression among gay men.

• Higher rates of anxiety, mood and substance use disorders, and suicidal thoughts among people ages 15 to 54 with same-sex partners.

• Higher use of mental health services in men and women reporting same-sex partners.

Gleaning this type of information on LGB people has never been possible in general surveys before, Cochran notes. However, because the surveys on which these studies are based examine HIV-risk factors, including psychiatric problems and sexual behavior, they include questions on sexual orientation and sexual partners, she says.

“It’s a breakthrough because it has traditionally been difficult to gather large samples of gays, lesbians and bisexuals due to their small numbers in the population,” Cochran explains.

The data contradict previous findings that there are no significant differences in the mental health of heterosexuals and LGB people, adds Cochran, who notes she is concerned that these findings may give ammunition to people who want to falsely promulgate the argument that gay people are by nature mentally ill.

By rocky

April 12, 2005 10:52 AM | Link to this

Thanks, Tim. That was pretty low, whoever did it.

By Norman

April 12, 2005 10:54 AM | Link to this

The last Real Norman was not the REAL NORMAN.

By RS

April 12, 2005 10:55 AM | Link to this

Rocky, it may not be that Akeya is “down” on marriage; maybe she’s just acknowledging that not everyone marries. Well, everyone DOESN’T marry; she’s right. For whatever reason(s), some people are unable to marry; straights too; why should they be penalized?

By Boscoe

April 12, 2005 10:57 AM | Link to this

I really should become a Shiite Muslim. They love self-flaggelation and other kinky practices which I would love. Norman tells us that Shiite Islam is closest to original Christianity, so I think I should go there.

By Lola

April 12, 2005 11:01 AM | Link to this

I agree with RS. I didn’t marry until I was 34 years old and I didn’t wait until then to have sex. I did, however, wait until I was 19 and in a two year committed relationship before I did have it. I’m very glad I waited until then. Ironically, it turned out that my very first boyfriend, the one who took my virginity, turned out to be gay! LOL! I like to go with the line of thinking that he just couldn’t imagine another woman being any better than I was, so he just turned to men. :)

By Seaborn

April 12, 2005 11:04 AM | Link to this

Your American Psychological Association study doesn’t really add anything new. I assume you are trying to say that gay people are just naturally screwed up, where I would say the high rates of depression come from the pressures of an intolerant society, especially among emotionally vulnerable youth. Maybe you should try and add some intellectual context to your post instead of just pasting something.

Funny,my two straight brothers are on prozac, and I seem to be able to clear my head with a daily six mile run.

By Jack

April 12, 2005 11:05 AM | Link to this

These people posting under other names are chicken. Probably members of the “ilk”.

By James

April 12, 2005 11:05 AM | Link to this

Boscoe, my good conservative friend, I think you ain’t that far from becoming a S** Muslim. Just change the name from God the Allah & do some more prayers. Good luck with that. ;0)

By Tim

April 12, 2005 11:06 AM | Link to this

Lola… I think scientific evidence shows that is what happens with a lot of gay men… they just can’t find another woman who adds up to that ‘one’ ;) you had me seriously laughing out loud

on subject… like Lola… I obviously didn’t wait until I was married… but I did certainly wait until I was mentally and physically ready for such a big step into adulthood… and also made sure it was with someone that I would want to share that experience with… just didn’t go find someone on the street corner

By Randy

April 12, 2005 11:07 AM | Link to this

Was the real last Norman, the real last Norman? Or was the real last Norman, not the real last Norman. Who’s on first?

By James

April 12, 2005 11:07 AM | Link to this

Lola Baby: I am sure you are right, no other woman could be as wonderful and beautiful as you. Funny, but I am starting to have feelings for Boscoe.

(Just kidding!)

By Debora

April 12, 2005 11:10 AM | Link to this

Thanks for defending me everyone, but that level of ignorance does not bother me. I will put my carpet munching self into my PAID FOR convert BMW and drive home to my 1.1 million dollar house in Atlanta, where I pay HUGE TAXES that help maintain Atlanta and Piedmont Park so that breeders like these people can come and trash the park and the city and leave me with the clean up bill.

By Boscoe

April 12, 2005 11:11 AM | Link to this

James, for clarities sake, I don’t have a problem with gay people themselves. I do not support, or advocate, violence against them. I feel they should be pitied and assistance should be provided to help them with their affliction. Several catholic medical associations provide this very assistance. It’s the homosexual act I consider depraved which is in and of itself against nature. Alot of people feel the same way I do. Not just 51%. Kansas passed by a 2 to 1 margin. Several other states surpassed that. The people of those states voted NO. Pure and simple, black and white. Sugar coat it if you must but those citizens voted against you. James, Jesus probably would say the things I am saying, but the Catholic Church (The one Jesus founded) is clear, homosexuality is a sin.

By Boscoe

April 12, 2005 11:12 AM | Link to this

James, I’m sorry, I meant to type that Jesus would NOT say the things I have.

By Randy

April 12, 2005 11:15 AM | Link to this

People are all born with the same basic needs. These needs continue throughout their early development. If these needs are not met, they go throughout life trying to fill that hole. When I was young, I didn’t get enough milk to drink. Since that time I drink milk every chance I get(now I’m lactoce intolerant)but I still want milk. Same thing with people who have excessive body piercing, homosexuals etc. That need was not fulfilled in their early childhood. In the case of male homosexuality, no dominate male figure in their life around the age of 18 months. One may have been in the house, but he didn’t pay much attention to the male child at that particular time. On body piercing the absence of attention was later in life(teenage years). Everyone wants their parents approval and attention. Lesson, pay lots of attention to your children.

By Boscoe

April 12, 2005 11:18 AM | Link to this

I have no desire to become a s**. Thanks anyway for the invite Norman.

By Randy

April 12, 2005 11:18 AM | Link to this

Boscoe is right, Jesus’ love, is and has always been unconditional. We as unperfect Christians will falter. We tell you the facts and are not perfect.

By RS

April 12, 2005 11:22 AM | Link to this

Lola: You go, girl, with your fabulous self! (Boy can you tell I’m a “f*g hag” or what??) See that? When he’s had the best, the rest just don’t pass the test! Boscoe: Pity? Affliction? Depraved? Sin? Against nature? What are you talking about, someone who enjoys the intimate companionship of long-deceased water-buffalo??? Oh, two mature loving adults in a committed relationship! My bad! Sorry!!!

By James

April 12, 2005 11:22 AM | Link to this

Boscoe: I love it when someone like you says “I have nothing against gays.” It is just like the old “Some of my best friends are black.” GET REAL! Jesus did not found the Catholic Church. The secular Roman Government did. I know you think everyone else but you and all other Catholics are going to hell, but it just ain’t so. Also, the success rate of these ‘Gay to Str8’ programs is miserable. Less than 5% of these folks stay in a relationship with someone of the opposite sex more than 2 years. They cause more misery and self-hatred than they help. If the whole world were Gay, Boscoe, and you wanted only women, do you think you could go to a class and learn to love only men?

Face the fact: 1) The Catholic Church has JUST NOW apologize for letting Jews get murdered in Germany. 2) The Catholic Church still ignores basic human sexulaity 3) The Catholic Church, despite the HUGE rise in AIDS and overpopulation in Afica, demands they not use condoms. The Catholic Church’s history ain’t so great when you look at it. It has made mistakes, and continues to do so. I did not choose to be gay. I just chose to NOT ignore what GOD made me. I could be miserable and make you happy Boscoe, or be happy and make you miserable. This is the best option for both of us.

By Tim

April 12, 2005 11:22 AM | Link to this

Randy… where again did you get your PhD in psychology from? yeah that is what I thought… we have had this discussion before… just because a man is gay does not mean that he is ‘filling a void’ his dad left

does that mean that lesbians didn’t get enough attention from their mothers at 18 months?

By Lola

April 12, 2005 11:24 AM | Link to this

I love this blog. Where else can you get the variety of people and personalities (yes, even those annoying ones ;) that we have here? I’m feeling a lot of love for all of you. Just wanted to share that. :)

By smithy

April 12, 2005 11:28 AM | Link to this

I think it’s safe to say that Lola is on Prozac as well. :)

By James

April 12, 2005 11:30 AM | Link to this

Honestly, I can not decide who I love more here:

J. Morris, the Real Norman, Lola & RS or Randy, Chuck & Boscoe. I really do appreciate the intelligent discussions and I am thankful for the opposing ones. Or who would we have to ‘discuss’ with?

By Jack

April 12, 2005 11:33 AM | Link to this

We love you too Lola.

By Akeya

April 12, 2005 11:36 AM | Link to this

Rocky- do you attend the same elementary school as your son?

By Michael H.

April 12, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this

Chuck, Boscoe,

In responding to someone’s post who offered a nonexistent or unobtainable web site you wrote that “they should leave the science to objective scientists. Some scientists believe…and other scientists believe…â€? Which particular scientists are you referring to? I have read some of the literature on this subject and the positions you describe do not seem to be well represented, especially the later one, though there is a danger of anthropomorphism in interpreting the behavior of non-human animals. In any case, I believe that the issue is much more complex than you seem to suggest.

First, one needs a “precising definitionâ€? of “homosexualâ€? which consists in more than just the performance of homosexual acts. Kim Wallen, of Emory University, is a research professor of psychobiology at Yerkes National Primate Research Center, has been working there for 25 years, and is one of the objective scientists that you call for. He claims that, “Sexual contact between two males or two females of a species is not only common, and in some species it has an as-yet-unexplained social purpose. “Same-sex sexual behavior” is extremely widespread in the animal kingdom. Homosexuality for humans involves a variety of things and is much more than just sexual behavior per se. It has to do with attraction, who you’re bonded to, who you want to be intimately involved with. So I’ve never really felt comfortable applying the notion of homosexuality to nonhumans. The really striking aspect of human homosexuality is first that it is very enduring and shares many of the same features of heterosexual love, in terms of attachment and the emotional side of it… And the second thing is that it’s so socially distressing to us. If we wanted to take a lesson from our nonhuman primate cousins, they would most likely say, “What’s the big deal?”

The last claim is a normative judgment and goes beyond the data, but I think he knows this subject, the empirical data and conceptual issues very well, and he does not believe that the controversy that you offered among scientists really exists. Probably the most important point that he makes is that homosexual acts among nonhuman primates are not enduring, they don’t form lasting relationships, so “homosexuality,� per se, may be a uniquely human phenomenon.

Boscoe,

It has long been documented that gays have more psychological problems as a group than the norm. However, you seem to causally attribute these problems to homosexuality itself. But consider how psychologically well adjusted most heterosexuals would be, if their behavior had long been criminalized, resulted in jailing and dishonorable discharges from the military. Imagine the psychological impact of being mocked by public “f*� jokes, branded a “sinner� by mainstream religions, and socially compelled to conceal your sexual orientation. It takes quite a bit to overcome that and remain unaffected by it. (And, by the way, I responded to an earlier post of yours and challenged your identification of morality with religion and the claim that religion was the “only path to virtue.� You can go back and have a read of it if you like, and it did not consist in an attack on religion, but a brief argument. You can respond if you wish, but I am not interested in engaging in the mutual exchange of insults that has come to characterize the postings at this site.)

I agree that the overt, provocative behavior such as that in the public park should be conducted in private, whether by homosexuals or heterosexuals, and is just uncalled for. I don’t purport to understand all the psychological motives giving rise to such behavior, however, from what I have read, it is characteristic of a minority of gays.

And, no, I am not gay, not that there is anything wrong with it, and not that it is relevant from a logical point of view to any claim that I made or argument that I have given.

By Boscoe

April 12, 2005 11:48 AM | Link to this

Well I gave compassion a shot. James, do you really want to debate the history of the Catholic Church? You face the facts - 1) The Catholic Church did not attempt to exterminate the Jews during WWII, Hitler did. The Holocaust was also anti-Christian. After Hitler revealed his true intentions, the Catholic Church opposed him. Even the famous Albert Einstein testified to that. According to the December 23, 1940 issue of Time magazine on page 38, Einstein said: Being a lover of freedom, when the revolution came in Germany, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks…Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly. The Catholic Church’s stance on human sexuality and condoms has remained the same through the centuries. The world has changes James, the Church so far remains strongly consistent. These Catholic groups do not have class on how to be straight James. The goal is to identify the root cause of the affliction. Even if it is only 5% effective, that better than zero. The testimonies of those who have changed are stronger than your doubts.

By Akeya

April 12, 2005 11:51 AM | Link to this

Rocky- I’m sure there are many little girls who dream of marriage. Does that mean it is an automatic?

Answer the question…is marriage something that is guaranteed to every person who is born and lives to see adulthood?

If it is, I want to know what happened to my marriage pass…

By rocky

April 12, 2005 11:59 AM | Link to this

No, Akeya. I don’t. And I don’t understand why you avoided the very straight-forward questions I asked you. I can only guess that marriage wasn’t a big priority in your household growing up and that it’s likely your parents were not married when you were born, thereby making it a minor detail that you were born out of wedlock and illigitimate. I saw a statistic yesterday that said 70% or more of black children born in 2004 were illigitimate. That tells me that marriage is not a priority, or even something most people care about, in the black community overall. Which would then explain your stance on why waiting until marriage to have sex is wrong.

By Norman

April 12, 2005 11:59 AM | Link to this

It is true that until 1933 the Catholic Church was the strongest opponent of Hitler. But then the Vatican under Secretary of State Pacelli (Pius XII, thereafter) made its deal with Hitler and forced the anti-Nazi Zentrum Party to disband. From that point on Catholics in Germany fell all over themselves trying to prove they were just as good Nazis as Protestants were. Einstein, Boscoe, appreciated the Church before it was taken by Pius XII in a bad direction.

James: you have got the Roman Church’s number all right!

By rocky

April 12, 2005 12:04 PM | Link to this

I will gladly answer your question, Akeya. No, marriage is absolutely not guaranteed to every person who is born and lives to adulthood. However, as a child growing up, the possibility of marriage is something that should always be looked towards with excitement and anticipation. There is no harm in teaching youngsters to wait until they are married to have sex. Even if they don’t get married, the chances are that they will still hold their sexuality in a much higher regard and will not give it up so easily and quickly in their youth, than if they’re taught nothing but how not to get pregnant. And from the looks of things, not too many girls are being taught that anymore either.

By Boscoe

April 12, 2005 12:05 PM | Link to this

Micheal H, my reply was in response to suggested paths to virtue. Virtue, as we know, means: conformity to a standard of right; a particular moral excellence. My description of humanism clearly shows it is not the path to a standard when humanists cannot agree on the standard. Virtue then is out of reach. All forms of humanist sentimentality ethics have one common characteristic: subjectivism. Humanists love their own opinion not because it is true, but because it is their own. Man then becomes a mere tactician, no longer seeking the common good but rather his own selfish interests. Under the banner of humanism, man (not God) becomes the measure of all things. With the self as the measure of all values, psychological man could transform the standards of morality, consequence, responsibility, and free will that had once seemed the unshakable pillars of bourgeois society. Man turns in upon himself in self worship and “the commandment ‘Know and express thyself’ has replaced the Judeo-Christian commandment ‘Love God and others.’� Humanists decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong without any external entity to instruct them.

By RS

April 12, 2005 12:05 PM | Link to this

Wow..right now my jaw is hanging down to my knees! I’m still reeling from Rock-Head’s unwarranted racist attack on Akeya! And I thought the “Dikhater/carpet-muncher” remark was appalling; Rock, you just hit a new low…

By Akeya

April 12, 2005 12:05 PM | Link to this

Rocky- You are making excuses and ASSumptions.

Please answer the question. Are people automatically guaranteed marriage?

And funny you should assume that I am black simply because you ASSume I am opposed to abstinence only before marriage. I ask one question and you purport to know what went on in my household. Just because someone’s parents are married does not mean that their children will automatically have the opportunity to get married.

Answer the question…

By Davis

April 12, 2005 12:08 PM | Link to this

James - thanks for the response…I guess I kn ew the answer to that…which just means I will be reviled by both communities Sigh

By rocky

April 12, 2005 12:09 PM | Link to this

Sorry, RS. I didn’t appreciate Akeya’s little shot about me going to elementary school with my son. And again, that carpet comment was not mine, and I refuse to take anymore crap for something I never said.

Akeya - my assumption that you’re black had NOTHING to do with the topic and EVERYTHING to do with your name. It just sounds like a black name to me. That’s not racist at all. It’s simply an observation. Black people tend to have more unique names than white people. That’s all. I simply asked some very fair questions of you and you responded with a shot at me. I am a very reactionary guy, in case you hadn’t noticed that yet.

By Les

April 12, 2005 12:13 PM | Link to this

My “first” and I are still friends after 30 years. His fraternal twin (male also) is married with 2 kids. My “first” has had the same male roommate for 15 years. Although he has not told me he’s gay, I believe he is (and my parents thought he was way back then). He’s still my friend and I love him as such. These guys were raised in a home with very involved parents so they shared the same experiences. Here’s my question: Have there been any studies where one twin is gay and the other is not?

Second Issue: A couple of years ago, my then 14 y.o. niece from small- town America came to visit me in the big city to see Mamma Mia at the Fox. There were two guys holding hands in front of us and she turned to me with a look of shock and asked? Aunt Les, why are those guys holding hands?” I replied: “Because they like each other.” I then remembered that her father is a homophobe and followed up with: “Two guys holding hands may not be something you believe in but if these two people found someone who makes them happy, then what’s the harm?” She digested what I said and then smiled and shrugged her shoulders as if to say “there is no harm” and we went on our merry way. She never said another word about it and I hope I was able to teach her tolerance for when she leaves the comfy confines of her small-town American upbringing and experiences the real world.

By J. Morris

April 12, 2005 12:13 PM | Link to this

Well, I see that the “Gay men are more depressed” argument has already been responded to with the “Duh, because many of you treat us worse than you would treat a dog” reponse.

It’s also interesting to see all of the fundies claiming that people voting for anti-marriage initiatives hate gays. The truth is that the Right wing propaganda machine used a traditional wedge issue to scare people. When you break down the civil union/civil rights things to specific components, the response from people is significantly more positive.

The percentage of people who say they do not find homosexuality to be wrong is also steadily increasing - eventually the Chucks and Rockys and Randys and Boscoes of the world will be left behind, the fossils that they really are.

By Boscoe

April 12, 2005 12:15 PM | Link to this

Norman Not trusting the new regime, the Vatican signed a Concordat with the Reich on July 20, 1933 in an attempt to protect the Church’s rights in Germany. But the Nazis quickly violated its articles. In Lent 1937 Pope Pius XI issued the encyclical “Mit brennender Sorge” (With burning sorrow) with the help of German bishops and Cardinal Pacelli (later Pope Pius XII). It was smuggled into Germany and read in all German Catholic churches at the same hour on Palm Sunday 1937. It did not explicitly mention Hitler or Nazism, but it firmly condemned the Nazi doctrines. On September 20, 1938, Pius XI told German pilgrims that no Christian can take part in anti-Semitism, since spiritually all Christians are Semites. The recent slander against the Church and Pope Pius XII can be traced back to 1963 with Rolf Hochhuth’s play, “The Deputy.” In this play Hochhuth criticized Pius for being silent and portrayed his silence as cold indifference.Even though fiction, people took it as fact. Sound familiar Norman? Pope Pius XII was a diplomat and not a radical preacher. He knew that he first needed to preserve Vatican neutrality so that Vatican City could be a refuge for war victims. The International Red Cross also remained neutral. Secondly, he knew how powerless he was against Hitler. Mussolini could quickly shut off electrical power to Vatican Radio during his broadcast. Finally the Nazis did not tolerate any protest and responded severely. As an example, the Catholic Archbishop of Utrecht in July 1942 protested in a pastoral letter against the Jewish persecutions in Holland. Immediately the Nazis rounded up as many Jews and Catholic non-Aryans as possible and deported them to death camps, including Blessed Edith Stein. Pius knew that every time he spoke out against Hitler, the Nazis could retaliate against the prisoners. The charity and work of Pope Pius XII during World War II so impressed the Chief Rabbi of Rome, Israel Zolli, that in 1944 he was open to the grace of God which led him into the Catholic faith. As his baptismal name, he took the same one Pius had, Eugenio, as his own. Later Israel Eugenio Zolli wrote a book entitled, Why I Became a Catholic. But Pope Pius XII was not completely silent either, especially in his Christmas messages. His 1941 and 1942 Christmas messages were both translated and published in The New York Times (Dec. 25, 1941, p. 20 & Dec. 25, 1942, p. 10). To prevent retaliation, he did not refer to Nazism by name, but people of that era still understood him, including the Nazis. According to The New York Times editorial on December 25, 1941 (Late Day edition, p. 24): In Germany’s Reich Main Security Office, the SS control center, a careful analysis of the message is filed: “The Pope has repudiated the National Socialist New European Order. His speech is one long attack on everything we stand for. God, he says, regards all peoples and races as worthy of the same consideration. Here he is clearly speaking in behalf of the Jews and makes himself the mouthpiece of the Jewish war criminals.”

By Akeya

April 12, 2005 12:15 PM | Link to this

Rocky- Maybe I’m incorrect, but maybe little girls should be taught more about technology, math, and science instead of being taught that one day their Prince Charming will wisk them away on his white horse (or in his White BMW, whatever…)

The fact that marriage is not guaranteed should be more of a reason to teach people not only abstinence, but how to protect themselves.

Let’s face it, I’ve seen kids that get completely ignored in school because they are attractive or hip enough, only to carry the same disappointments into their adult lives. Not everyone is meant to or has the opportunity to get married. It’s not a given. I’m not saying that they should run willy-nilly having sex with any and everyone. I’m saying that abstinence ONLY is ludicrous and harmful to the sexual intelligence of our youth. We should not have kids thinking that they can get pregnant by being touched a certain way.

By Akeya

April 12, 2005 12:18 PM | Link to this

Rocky- My comment about you going to elem school had to do with your comments about Dikhater.
You thinking my name is a “black” name is another issue altogether. I won’t even make a comment on that.

By Akeya

April 12, 2005 12:20 PM | Link to this

correction: NOT attractive or hip enough.

By Akeya

April 12, 2005 12:21 PM | Link to this

correction: NOT attractive or hip enough. It also amazes me that others who are for ‘abstinence only” have not answered my question.

By chuck

April 12, 2005 12:22 PM | Link to this

NetB. Here is an article excerpt. You can read the complete article:

[http://www.ipsnews.net/new_nota.asp?idnews=27742]

There is indeed a controversy among scientists about what the so-called homosexual behavior among animals means.

*..However, research of other species implies that homosexuality could be a sort of survival strategy, determined by social factors.

A study of Japanese macaque females, who are bisexual and particularly promiscuous, illustrates this argument. The monkeys showed occasional homosexual preferences, but nevertheless make every effort to excite the males, while also competing with them for the sexual favours of other females.

According to Paul Vasey, psychology and neuroscience professor at the University of Lethbridge, in Canada, this behaviour occurs especially when the females are faced with defenceless males.

The bisexual behaviour of the macaque females is a strategy intended to excite the sexually inactive males, Vasey told Tierramérica.

He explained that during his research, published in 2002 in the Archives of Sexual Behaviour, he manipulated the numeric relation of females with respect to male macaques in order to analyse the females’ sexual preferences in function of the availability of potential mates of the opposite sex.

”I found that when the number of males is reduced, the homosexual behaviour of the females increases,” said the scientist.*

By John Chandler

April 12, 2005 12:24 PM | Link to this

Part of an education is not an education at all. The issue is “Abstinence Only”. If we have information that can protect people, control unwanted pregnancy, literally save a life, it would be criminal to withhold from our children. I believe in any program abstinence is covered first . It is clearly the only sure thing. People, even young people, need ALL information to allow them to make informed decisions. We must encourage, harass, and plead with children to not engage in sex. But, we must also give them all the information they need to get through life. The example of drugs was used by the columnist. It is actually a good analogy. We teach kids to do no drugs. We also teach them about the effects of drugs, we give them drug hotline info, we have people who have been affected talk to them. We give them all of the info, suggest strongly which behavior we see as appropriate, and do what we can as adults to see that they are safe .

By RS

April 12, 2005 12:28 PM | Link to this

Akeya & Rocky: That is precisely WHY I remained unmarried so long. And believe me, even then, I had to work at it. Yes, marriage is not a given for everyone. It’s so easy for all you smug, suburban Vanillaville-ites to preach abstinence until marriage. You just don’t get it, do you? Not everyone had your adolescence; loved, popular, attractive & secure with your perfect bodies & perfect pearly-white smiles. My, how arrogant you get when faced with anyone “different”, be they gay, lesbian, overweight, unathletic etc.

By RS

April 12, 2005 12:31 PM | Link to this

Fundies: So, if someone is too unattractive, say, to get married, does tht mean they’re supposed to say celibate forever? Where in the Bible does it say that being physically unappealing is a sin & must be punished? I’ve read both Testaments & have never seen that

By Akeya

April 12, 2005 12:33 PM | Link to this

RS-

You know I have posed that question to others who think abstinence only the only method that should be taught and Rocky’s answer is the closest I’ve gotten to an answer.

Usually, no one responds because they are so busy touting abstinence only before marriage that they completely forget that NOT EVERYONE GETS MARRIED. It’s not about not wanting to, marriage just does not automatically happen for everyone.

By norman

April 12, 2005 12:35 PM | Link to this

Boscoe: read John Corwell’s book, Hitler’s Pope, for information about how Pius XII helped to destroy the Catholic Center (Zentrum) Party in Germany and thereby handed over to Hitler’s the Catholic population of Germany, which then became Nazified.

Read also Richard Steigmann’s The Holy Reich, for how well Christians and Nazis got along in the Third Reich.

By Michael H.

April 12, 2005 12:40 PM | Link to this

Boscoe,

Let me, politely, and again with respect, ask you to return to my earlier posting, and note the origin of the meaning of the word “virtue” in classical Greek philosophy, and the references in the history of ethical thought, a rich history, which is largely independent of religion.

Your definition of humanism is what we call in informal logic a “persuasive” or “rhetoricalâ€? definition. This is a definition which illegitimately smuggles in an attitude or normative position as if it were a part of the actual meaning of the word itself, when instead, that attitude or position must be argued for. “Abortion,â€? is defined as “the murder of an unborn childâ€? is an example. Or in this context, defining a “religious personâ€? as “someone who holds irrational, supernatural beliefs in a nonexistent deity.” That’s hardly fair or neutral is it? It is little more than semantic legislation, as was your “definitionâ€? of the word “humanism.â€?

There is no reason to believe, and you certainly have not given an argument for the claim, that “humanism,�which is not an ethical theory by the way, collapses into selfishness. There is no reason to believe that the nonreligous care less for the well-being of their spouses, children, friends,and fellow citizens than do the religious. Neither have you given an argument that normative ethics is dependent upon an “external� standard, it is merely an unquestioned assumption, and one which has certainly been challenged throughout the history of Western philosophy.

But, again read the earlier post, where I refer to Aristotle, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, and J.S. Mill, all of whom offered non-religious based ethics on a variety of grounds.

And I won’t try to reject your arguments by noting that philosophy is my field and that I teach ethics at the college level or by attacking you. Appeals to authority, personal or religious have no place in these matters.

By Jack

April 12, 2005 12:44 PM | Link to this

RS the “ilk” would probably want those of us who are too unattractive to marry not to have sex. They would call that natural selection.

By RS

April 12, 2005 12:44 PM | Link to this

Akeya: Well, to fundies, everything is so-o-o-o clear cut & absolute. EVERYTHING is a “choice”, marriage too. Like I said, I’ve come across this attitude so much; rich, spoiled, good-looking smug suburbanites who’ve always had the world at their feet; they never even had to MAKE any choices.

By RS

April 12, 2005 12:47 PM | Link to this

Jack: I have to laugh. “Natural” selection, hm? Healthy, normal adults remaining celibate for life is “naural” but a committed relationsship between 2 adults in love, of the same gender, isn’t?!?!

By chuck

April 12, 2005 12:49 PM | Link to this

Akeya, maybe the reason he didn’t answer the question is that the question was inane. Of course not everyone is going to find a spouse. That does not make sex outside of marriage any less sinful.

Maybe the reason you haven’t found that person is because you are looking in the wrong places. A guy who wants to jump in your bed without commitment is not worth fooling with in the first place. I can’t imagine that you think sex under those circumstances…knowing that the guy could care less about you but is willing to jump your bones…will make you happy.

The people I know who have talked about those kinds of encounters have always spoke of the empty, hollow feeling that these kinds of trists brought to their lives. Not pleasure or substance, but long term misery…especially when they resulted in the contraction of STD’s.

These young girls are being taught now that they should let these guys jump their bones and that it’s “only sex”. That is ridiculous. Girls who are used in this way have higher incidences of substance abuse and depression than girls who abstain. That is why we should teach abstenence.

By Jack

April 12, 2005 12:54 PM | Link to this

It would have been nice to be born into wealth. What do you think about these “well to do” parents buying their daughters breast implants before they finish high school. that sends a good message does it not?

By J. Morris

April 12, 2005 12:58 PM | Link to this

I’m sorry, but who is teaching girls that they should let guys “jump their bones”? Talk about inane.

Chuck, maybe you missed it before, but sin is a religious concept. If you want to teach your children that pre-marital sex is a sin, that’s part of your personal belief system, but it is by no means a universal truth.

By Scott

April 12, 2005 01:00 PM | Link to this

Jack - No, it does not

By Jack

April 12, 2005 01:03 PM | Link to this

Mr. Morris - Are you saying that if you had a daughter that you would teach her that it is ok to have sex with whomever & whenever she wants?

By Whiley

April 12, 2005 01:10 PM | Link to this

Actually, we should be teaching our girls to jump the guys, when & how they want to with no GUILT. Just be smart about it all.
That’s how I was raised & I turned out just fine. I’ve never felt guilty or sinful when I had sex. THAT is freedom ! I feel so sorry for you bible beaters that let religion turn your sex life into something evil.

By Tim

April 12, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this

I have noticed a lot of people talking about sweet innocent girls and teaching them so that all these boys don’t convince them to jump into bed with them… well I am 22… and I hate to tell y’all who think that but a lot of these girls are not the little innocent angels you are making them out to be… I would have to use both hands and probably take my socks and shoes off to count how many girls approached me while I was in high school and told me to name the time and place and they would gladly sleep with me (the tended to use more explicit words… giving you the PG version)… I didn’t go around to these girls trying to get them to jump in bed with me (obviously seeing as I am part of the he-man woman haters club)… these girls weren’t little innocent things… nor were they those slutty girls I am sure a lot of you are thinking about… they were the daughters of the man and woman who had 3.2 children, a nice house with white picket fence, and an SUV (they were the girls from the right side of the tracks… a lot of them very ‘Churchy’ girls)… if only the father of a friend of mine knew how many times his sweet little angel tried to get me to sleep with her… he would probably have a heart attack… I say all this to let you know these girls now days are just as sex crazed as the boys… gotta watch out for them as much as you have to watch out for the boys… so you can tell your ‘little angels’ to wait all you want and then tell people to keep their gross boys away from your girls… but be careful it actually be that your little angel is the one ‘tryin to get some’

By Jack

April 12, 2005 01:13 PM | Link to this

Whiley, Where were you when I was young and spry? LOL!

By Tony

April 12, 2005 01:16 PM | Link to this

Mara, So you think I’m silly? Maybe your not willing to understand my question. I’m talking about the “Federal Government.” Apples to Apples In a previous forum you and many others stated that the federal government (FCC) should not interfere and that it was the responsibility of the parent to monitor their Childs television viewing. Today on television everything from cosmetics to what store to shop at is promoted with sexual innuendos. Listen to the climaxes as a girl washes her hair and tell me a young boy doesn’t get aroused. Watch as beer commercials insinuate that if you drink this beer you’ll have girls dancing in bikinis shaking their, well. I can go on about the hypocrisy on television in our music and in video games, but hopefully you get the point. If by your admission the Federal Government has no business telling advertisers to tone down their sexually explicit content in their advertisements and that the parents should monitor their children’s viewing habits, why then is it okay for the federal government to tell your children how to use condoms/sponges/spermicides/etc? Apples to Apples. Either it’s okay for the federal government or it’s not. Make up your mind!

Bottom Line: If I had a child in school grades 7 through 12, I would make a v-line to the President of that school and demand the content (books/material) of sex education being taught. Talk to the teacher. Evaluate for yourself. You can opt your child out of that course. Fortunately I do not have school age children, however, I would not send my children to Public School and instead opt for Private School. But that’s just me.

By Scott

April 12, 2005 01:18 PM | Link to this

Jack - It seems to be the common theory among many on here…as long as they have the information and available birth control/protection, why can’t they have sex with anyone/anytime/anywhere they want? The concept of sin is regarded by some as purely religious, so what’s the problem if you are the aforementioned teen who has access to protection? what harm can that do when abstinence teaching is so restrictive (and certainly less fun)

By chuck

April 12, 2005 01:23 PM | Link to this

JMinutia, Biblical truth is UNIVERSAL truth. These principles, as I have stated before, work whether or not you believe. God made us and therefore KNOWS waht is BEST for us. How many children are ready for empty, meaningless, sexual relationships? Or are you one of those NAMBLA proponents who thinks that children should be able to consent to sex?

As for your idea that nobody is teaching these young girls that sex is acceptable, look around you. Society is teaching them that. Movies, music, commercials, television shows, magazines…the popular culture screams that unfettered sex is good and right…a guilt free pleasure like frozen yogurt. The reality is that we are in a cultural war and you are on the side that will bring about the destruction of our way of life. The other reality is that these girls are killing themselves over these guys who jumped and dumped. You don’t have a clue what is going on in the world of adolescents. I can tell you that we are dealing on a daily basis with the aftermath of YOUR type of “if it feels good do it” warfare.

I’ve got news for you Mr. degenerate. There are moral absolutes and you are going to learn about them all too soon.

By Jack

April 12, 2005 01:25 PM | Link to this

We need to subsitute the word “wrong” for “sin”. So you wouldn’t think it wrong for YOUR daughter to have sex with 50 different guys and maybe a few girls too?

By J. Morris

April 12, 2005 01:28 PM | Link to this

Jack, why do you and other conservatives make the assumption that because I don’t believe that abstinence only education is the best or most effective way to teach sex education that I believe in sexual promiscuity?

I don’t have a daughter, but I do have a 15-year-old neice to whom I am very close. Do I want her having sex with anyone? Of course not. Thankfully, she isn’t in any hurry. However, if she DID decide to have sex, I would want to make sure that she was at least knowledgeable enough to protect herself as much as is possible.

Conservatives paint sex-ed classes that include instruction about disease and condoms as “instructional sex” classes, but that is simply an innacurate argument designed to stir up people’s fears and emotions. I have no doubt that comprehensive sex education classes always emphasize that abstinence is the safest policy. I have no doubt that they constantly exhort teenagers to not have sex.

I think that kids should be taught sexual responsibility. They should be fully aware of the consequences of sexual activity - physical, emotional - so that when they are old enough and mature enough to decide for themselves they are prepared. I would hope that my neice, and other kids her age, would realize that they aren’t ready for the consequences yet.

That is what good sex ed should teach - not that sex is a sin, or that it’s evil or dirty. They should be taught that it’s an adult decision and that they had better be damned prepared in multiple ways before they take the plunge.

By Jack

April 12, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this

Mr. Morris Your post to Chuck left that impression.

By Lyrazel

April 12, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this

Akeya—your comment about girls waiting for Prince Charmin struck a cord with me. As far as sex education I was taught: girls bleed. If girls dont bleed they are pregnant. When you get married your husband will explain everything about sex. Girls who have sex before they are married get pregnant. Girls get syphilis from sailors. Masturbating leads to criminal behavior and heroin abuse. Children born to parents of mixed races have tails and will be born mentally ill. Thats it! I swear its true!

What I find so hard to swallow is how many parents here believe a classroom is where your child will be taught about sex/your home is only where they will learn about sex. Maybe in a perfect world you can isolate your child from elementary school to high school, but kids learn in gym class, from walking a hallway, from talking after class, from sitting on a bus. What happens when Elmo Fuddy grabs your choir boy child for a quick fondle in church—and your son never speaks to you about it—because he watched you have a tirade in the park after seeing some men french kiss—and you dragged everyone home upset and fuming about despising gays.

For kids sex is as discussed as the newest video game console—and if a kid has bad information from sources—she soon lets the boyfriend have his way without a condom because he washed his p*** with soap and soap prevents sperm from getting women pregnant (dont laugh I heard it). Little Becky might go to church with you every Tuesday and Sunday and sing like an angel but—her rush to get married at 18 might be the worst mistake she makes in her life. For generations parents have schlepped an awful lot on teachers—to the point where teachers now have to teach—basic manners—hygine—cooperation and respect as well as the seven subjects on tests. Yet parents demand that public schools follow highly parochial lesson plans—want faith-based science—then scream against teachers when Georgia scores lowest on curriculum understanding. By the time those kids reach the free clinic, planned parenthood or adoption center…its too late to pretend you taught them anything except Just Say No. Even if they aint your kids—you will end up paying for this stupidity.

By RS

April 12, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this

Tim: You’re right; I see the way these young girls dress & act. Well, that’s the result of everything we discussed yesterday (self-image issues, hormones in our environemnt, wanting to be loved..). Plus the fact that you were probably the hottest guy in your school! Jack, you’re not kidding about parents sending their teen daughters the wrong message by taking these girls to get breast implants!Chuck, I think what you were trying to tell Akeya is to respect herself; very good message & I’m sure she does. But even that is no guarantee of matrimony. When I was single, I met a lot of men who wanted to settle down in a monogamous relationship & get married…to someone PRETTY. Never mind that many of these sad fellas married the same type of gold-digging bimbo over & over & were so-o-o-o perplexed each time the ill-fated marriage ended. DUH! Whiley, I was raised like you; it doesn’t work for everyone. I was always much too sensitive (??) to not care that my lover didn’t give a rat’s happy hiney about me because I could never be intimate with someone I didn’t have very deep feelings for.

By James

April 12, 2005 01:35 PM | Link to this

Man, I am never going to lunch again. Boscoe, you a priest? You sure do have your Catholic history down. However, why did the most recent pope feel the need to make a public apology to the Jewish People? And, to show that I am equal opportunity here, I am sure everyone here is aware the Southern Baptist Convention (#1 Gay Haters) was formed around the time of the Civial War to prevent the ending of slavery & the equal rights for blacks. They have, in just the last 10 years, apologized for that one. Admitt it Boscoe, the church has done ALLOT of nasty things all in the name of Christ. Not just the Catholic Church, but most churches & religons.

Answer another question I do not understand about the Catholic Church, Why can you not speak directly to God? You, the priest and the pope are all his ‘children.’ I do not understand. Also, why is it that the Cahtolic Church holds up the Virgin Mary and prays to her rather than God directly? I have tried to ask my Aunt, an ardent Catholic, but she just ignores me. One other thing, why do you all feel 1 man (a human) is God’s messanger on earth? However, a college of Cardinals votes for him? Shouldn’t God like put a ray of sunshine on him or have some kind of cross suddenly burn into his head or something? I am no student of Catholisim. I am no professor. However, I know organized evil when I see it. (not saying the Catholic Church is it)

By Tim

April 12, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this

well I didn’t get that impression from ready any of your posts JMorris

By Lola

April 12, 2005 01:37 PM | Link to this

In school I was actually overweight, not one of the “popular” kids, and was rejected by many boys I had crushes on. I had bulemia from the age of 14 until I was 31, and I went through periods in my life where I felt I had little or no worth at all. After swearing off dating and men for FIVE ENTIRE YEARS, I decided I was going to go back out there and see what was there for me. It was then that I met my husband. My love for him has nothing to do with money or looks or status or any of those things. It has to do with him being a wonderful person who has a lot of love to give me and our daughter. I don’t think marriage is for everyone, but it certainly doesn’t belong only to the “beautiful people”. In my experience, it’s always been the “rich, spoiled, good-looking smug suburbanites who’ve always had the world at their feet” that end up with the emptiest lives and broken marriages. Maybe I’m old fashioned, but I still think that children are better raised in a household with two parents. Whether that is two men in a loving committed relationship or a man and a woman, it matters that the children know they have two parents they can always turn to, no matter what. I can’t imagine being a single mother, just speaking logistics-wise. It takes two of us to keep up with our 10 month old daughter who runs us ragged as it is! I guess my point is that no, not everyone gets “married”. But saving your first sexual encounter until you truly love someone (and they love you back!) is something you will always look back on and be glad you did.

By Scott

April 12, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this

Jack - there was a hint of sarcasm in my post I think you missed. No, I would not be happy if my daughter (if I had one) were sleeping with “50 guys and a few girls”. I wouldn’t be happy with my son if he displayed that kind of irresponsible behavior either

By J. Morris

April 12, 2005 01:39 PM | Link to this

Chuck, how dare you suggest I am a degenerate? You know absolutely nothing about me except that I am gay. To you, that makes me a degenerate, but guess what - I would pit my personal morality against yours any day of the week. Personally, I don’t need some archaic set of rules set down millenia ago for a bunch of nomadic primitives to tell me how to live my life.

I know what’s right and what’s wrong, and I don’t need narrow-minded Puritans like you to figure it out. You want moral absolutes? Great - don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t lie, don’t cheat, don’t hurt your fellow man, do unto others, etc. These are absolute moral truths. Every society reflects these in some way or another.

Sexual mores? They vary all over the world. There are lots of places, Schmuck, where sex is not treated like some kind of malignant tumor where people are much happier and much better adjusted than we as a society. Ages of consent - they vary too.

I’ve got news for YOU Mr. Facist. Society is changing for the better. It’s not OK for you to be a hate-mongering bigot anymore Chuck. The oppressed are fighting back, and that scares you. We’re not going to take your abuse any more. We aren’t going to be second class citizens anymore. You’re going to learn that all too soon.

By Jack

April 12, 2005 01:41 PM | Link to this

Why don’t we tell our children that sex before marriage causes blindness? (there are so many people that cannot see)

By Lola

April 12, 2005 01:45 PM | Link to this

Sorry, folks. That last posting was probably TMI. I didn’t mean to dump on you.

By Scott

April 12, 2005 01:49 PM | Link to this

JACK too late…..it’s common knowledge that masturbation causes blindness..LOL (sorry, couldn’t resist)

By Michael H.

April 12, 2005 01:50 PM | Link to this

Boscoe,

Let me, politely, and with respect, ask you to return to my earlier posting, and note the origin of the meaning of the word “virtue” in classical Greek philosophy, and the references in the history of ethical thought, a rich history in philosophy, which is largely independent of religion.

Your definition of humanism is what we call in informal logic a “persuasive” or “rhetoricalâ€? definition. This is a definition which illegitimately smuggles in an attitude or normative position as if it were a part of the actual meaning of the word itself, when instead, that attitude or position must be argued for. “Abortion,â€? is defined as “the murder of an unborn childâ€? is an example. Or in this context, defining a “religious personâ€? as someone who holds irrational, supernatural beliefs in a nonexistent deity. That’s hardly fair or neutral is it? It is little more than semantic legislation, as was your “definitionâ€? of the word “humanism.â€?

There is no reason to believe, and you certainly have not given an argument for the claim, that “humanism,�which is not an ethical theory by the way, collapses into selfishness. Neither have you given an argument that normative ethics is dependent upon an “external� standard, it is merely an unquestioned assumption, and one which has certainly been challenged throughout the history of Western philosophy.

But, again read the earlier post, where I refer to Aristotle, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, and J.S. Mill, all of whom offered non-religious based ethics to consider a range of views that you seem unfamiliar with.

And I won’t try to reject your arguments by noting that philosophy is my field and I teach ethics at the college level. Appeals to authority, personal or religious have no place in these matters.

By Jack

April 12, 2005 01:50 PM | Link to this

You show such maturity Mr. Morris. Can you think of any other names you would like to call people. You are calling the kettle black. You don’t know the people on this blog from Adam yet you feel free to call them whatever you wish but let them do it to you and OH MY GOD

By Whiley

April 12, 2005 01:50 PM | Link to this

Did I mention I was blind from too much sex ?

lol !

Don’t have sex till you’re in at least college. Then go for it just as the guys do. Stop with the sin preaching. People have always gone through a wild stage, accept it, live it, love it ! Then when you are ready, grow up, get married, then pretty much forget about good sex. You’ll always have your good memories ! hehe

By RS

April 12, 2005 01:50 PM | Link to this

Lola, everything you just posted really resonated with me…the boys who ignored you in high school are the ones who’ve missed out; THEIR loss. I’m so glad you were able to overcome your eating disorder & find happiness. I am so appalled & outraged by a society that puts so much pressure on our young girls to be model-thin that they starve themselves, sometimes to the point of death. Oh I agree! I’d much rather see a child raised by 2 loving gay or lesbian parents than by a drugged out single parent or in the foster “care” (?!?) system. THOSE are the girls that get pregnant at an early age; sadly, it’s the only way they can be held, even for just as long as the sex act lasts..

By Zack

April 12, 2005 01:53 PM | Link to this

J. Morris—Your commentary against me yesterday shows that much more that you’re every bit the desperate, bigoted, dishonest person I’ve said you are.

Since you lack credibility, you attack, which is very similar to how gays are always attacking those who disagree with them, always misusing the word “bigot.”

As for condoms, they don’t work. There is no clinical evidence WHATSOEVER to show that they work AT ALL against the vast majority of STDs, yet they’re distributed as though they’re a solution! You’re broad-minded to the point of believing everything you hear (at least all the propaganda), and you don’t question that which you should.

Yes, by the way, you ARE a degenerate. You’re a troublemaker of the worst kind. I guess you were the typical classmate who annoyed the substitute teacher, huh?

By chuck

April 12, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this

James, I have to dispute your slant on the formation of the “Southern Baptist Convention”. It is slightly incorrect. The Baptist Church as well as the Methodist Church and a number of other denominations existed well before the Civil War. These denominations SPLIT over the issue of slavery. It was not formed for that purpose but as most Southerners, members of the Churches in the South were under the mistaken historical assumption that Africans were subhuman and equated them with property such as farm equipment. This feeling was not exclusive to the South. Many in the North felt the same way, Much of the change in attitude in the North can be attributed to the courage of those in the Church who preached equality AND to the book “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” which showed slavery for the evil it was.

By Scott

April 12, 2005 01:55 PM | Link to this

WHILEY - AAAAACK!! Say it ain’t so! I just got married a year ago and now I need to be prepared to ultimately forget about good sex??? Oh the agony…agony…

By J. Morris

April 12, 2005 01:58 PM | Link to this

Jack, seriously - are you blind or just wilfully stupid? How many names must Chuck call me before you jump on his case too?

Zack, glad to see you’re back calling people desperate, bigoted and dishonest.

By Zack

April 12, 2005 01:59 PM | Link to this

Does this forum not have a moderator anymore? The comment J. Morris made yesterday is possibly lawsuit material.

By Whiley

April 12, 2005 02:00 PM | Link to this

lol I’M SORRY SCOTT ! Sex isn’t as important when you get older anyway. If you are married to the right person it won’t matter.

By J. Morris

April 12, 2005 02:00 PM | Link to this

Lol Zack! You keep believing that you can sue someone for disagreeing with you in a ‘blog! What an idiot.

By Boscoe

April 12, 2005 02:01 PM | Link to this

Micheal H, the discussion has everything to do with religion. To claim that one has a right to act according to conscience, but without at the same time acknowledging the duty to conform to one’s conscience to the truth and to the law which God himself has written in our hearts, in the end, means nothing more than imposing one’s limited personal opinion. Why is the present-day world fevered with this anxiety to put itself right, without the help of the Almighty? To save itself without asking God to save it? For the simple reason that it refuses to admit itself a fallen world in need of God’s help. Secular humanism is a godless belief system (a godless religion) in which man puts himself at the center of creation, in place of God. And so men struggle and muddle along, immersing themselves more deeply in the mire, pretending there is nothing really wrong, crying ‘progress’ where there is no ‘progress,’ calling for a new world which ever tarries and does not come, pursuing a fantastic idea of some future Utopia of happiness on earth, fooled by false deceivers who may thank the intellectual decadence of the age for whatever acceptance their tomfooleries may win. There is no hope for the world but in the acceptance of the revealed truths of the Fall and Original Sin; for, strangely enough, to accept them is to discover the entrance-gate to human happiness. From that entrance-gate there runs a royal road laid by God, wending its way from earth to Heaven. A way of sorrows passing through a vale of tears; a way of thorns that turn to roses; a way of peace that passes understanding; a way of faith foreseeing the unseen; a way of hope piercing death’s dread portals; a way of love losing itself in Love Eternal; a way of unearthly beauty illumined by the dawn-light of eternity; a way of happiness undimmed by any shadow of an ending, entering the Heart of the Everlasting. It is called the way of grace.

By Archie

April 12, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this

I definitely do not believe in abstinence-only the way some people are describing it here but as I said before abstinence-first and abstinence-second. 98 percent of all people do get married but it is unrealistic for all unmarried people over 21 to wait up 5 to 20 years into adulthood to have relations. Based on life experience you will be just as fulfilled sexually if you wait until adulthood or marriage. Some married people practice abstinence. As liberal and as much as I like sex I know that you have to know what you’re doing and who you’re doing it with and abstinence maybe the best policy if you’re not married. However, if you’re someone that for whatever reason plans on never getting married then you need to know about the protection methods available and even you’re a teenager you need to know about the various protection devices and method,diseases,and emotional processes that come with having sex. Let’s face it a lot rules in the Bible are there for control and order. If everyone is loyal to their spouse you have no illegimate children and no spread of disease. As liberal as I am at times I have no anger towards the christian people because for most people it’s best to follow a set of rules because some simply don’t have the best judgement. For others they are discreet and intelligent, and mature to know what sex is and what it is not. Some women know that a guy has a history of womanizing yet they wonder why he isn’t to her in their relationship. Those women need to abstain(joke) and some men know a woman is promiscuous yet wonder why they caught a disease from said woman. Those men need to abstain. Practicing christians need to follow the rules but of course we don’t.

By Lola

April 12, 2005 02:03 PM | Link to this

Thank you, RS. That really means a lot to me. My one goal as a mother is going to be to teach my daughter to love herself first, and to always do her best to see the beauty within others. When I think back to the other kids at my school who like me, were also not in the mainstream, I often wonder how they are doing in life and hope they have found happiness like I finally did. The best gift I can give to my daughter is unconditional love for her and a stable and loving home environment with her father. I will teach her that sex is something that is very significant and not to be taken lightly, but also something very natural and nothing to be ashamed of. And in doing so, I will teach her to save her sexuality to be shared with a man (not a boy) she loves and who loves her. I want her to have a realistic body image of herself, and not fall into the same traps that I did. I was over 30 by the time I finally began to love myself as I am, and I just don’t want her to have to go through the same kinds of hard lessons I did to reach that point. I know my vision of how she’ll develop is probably not based in reality, but if I can even come close to doing things the way I just described, I think she’ll be a very well-rounded person with a good head on her shoulders. I consider it the most important job I’ll ever have.

By Tim

April 12, 2005 02:03 PM | Link to this

Zack… then file a law suit already… that would be sooo much fun to watch

By Jack

April 12, 2005 02:07 PM | Link to this

Mr. Morris bless your heart.

By Scott

April 12, 2005 02:07 PM | Link to this

Whiley - well, I am certain that I married the right person (though clearly I missed out on the tornado you were in your younger years!!! LOL!) but sex is not important? perish the thought! ;)

By Akeya

April 12, 2005 02:07 PM | Link to this

Chuck- I had to laugh… You assume that I haven’t found anyone. I’m engaged to the boyfriend that I have been with for 2 years, so your assumption is inane.

Tim- I looked up a list of registered sex offenders in my area and was appalled at the number of convicted statutory rapist because I am pretty sure that most of these men were involved in consentual sex with daddy’s little hot pepper.

Lola-your post is exactly what I mean. Nice, wonderful people are passed over for a long time before it takes someone intelligent enough to look passed “looks”. This is not to say that someone is unattractive, but we live in a society in which looks count. I know 50 year old women who have never been married-and not because they didn’t want to be. It just doesn’t work out to be as simple as I hear a lot of people make it.

Abstinence before marriage does not apply to all.

By Lyrazel

April 12, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this

Lola, it was a lovely post—your short little blurb could teach a lot of kids—WHY. Waiting to have sex with someone you make a commitment to—and who makes a commitment to you—is a fantastic goal. What riles me is the Tell-them-Nothing-JustSayNo so many here subscribe to. Why hide sexual facts? Why not let kids learn about sexuality but show them about the joy of loving relationships based on honest commitment? That way, when they are adults and ready to begin a family they have a strength that cannot be sundered by ignorance, they are prepared to raise a family, they have a partner who will be there.

By Tim

April 12, 2005 02:10 PM | Link to this

RS… thanks for the nice words… I don’t think it was because I was the most attractive ;) but thanks for thinking that :)

By Whiley

April 12, 2005 02:12 PM | Link to this

Scott, not AS important. (lets clear that up)

I’m not dead yet ! hehe

By chuck

April 12, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this

I call ‘em like I see ‘em JMinniehaha. Just the fact that you go off on everybody who has the slightest difference of opinion with you speaks volumes. You are “Mr. Civil Intelligent Discussion” in some of your posts and decry any use of vitriole, but when confronted by facts you can’t dispute you become Mrs. Hyde, ready to storm the gates of all who prove you wrong. I would be willing to bet that you are more than a little unstable.

I think your posts identify you quite well as the limp-wristed, inneffective, whiny little, “my-Daddy-didn’t-hug- me-as-a-kid” wimp that you are. You are right about one thing…I don’t know you personally, however, I do know you by the personna that you have given us here. While I’m sure that we would not not get along in person, I don’t think under any circumstances that there is anything to fear from you outside of your dangerous, insidious view of life.

By J. Morris

April 12, 2005 02:17 PM | Link to this

Chuck, I don’t go off on people who have differing opinions from me - I go off on ignorant bigots like you who hate indiscriminately.

If anyone is unstable, it’s you. I wouldn’t be surprised if you were a gay-bashing bully when you were younger. Probably still are.

By RS

April 12, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this

Scott & Whiley: Hey, married sex is the bomb! I should know, there’s a hot married man I fool around with frequently & I love every minute! OK, calm down, Fundies! The gentleman is married to ME! Akeya-how true! These hypocrites want to punish innocent people just because of an accident of nature, seeming to forget that we’re ALL created in God’s image & that’s an image with a multitude of forms. Lola; my wish for ALL girls is to have a mother like you; your daughter is truly blessed. Oh I can answer your question…My friends, husband & I were all outside of the mainstream when we were in school & know what we’re like now? Very artsy, INTERESTING city-dwellers & we’re all either musicians, writers, artists, spoken-word performers/poets, DJ’s, karaoke & triva game hosts…well you get the picture. We did ok!

By AllaboutME

April 12, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this

…chuck…its men like you who make people like me hate christianity, christians and fat book of words…thanks again for setting the entire faith backward 3 centuries…you did more than norman could ever accomplish….thanks for the epithany…see you in hell…wink wink…

By Michael H.

April 12, 2005 02:23 PM | Link to this

Boscoe,

You didn’t read the earlier post, did you? Have you read any of the arguments of these philosophers? I seriously doubt you ever took the time to engage with them, rather than engaging in more confirmation bias in reading only what Catholic writers have to say in an effort to further shore up your preexisting beliefs.

Well, I see little point in trying to reason with you. When I present an argument, suggest you consider the thought of some of the greatest thinkers in the history of Western culture, you ignore what I say and launch into one grand straw man mischaracterization of other views rather than making the slightest effort to charitably understand them.

To quote a French academic (heaven forbid) “Preaching in the garb of analysis is a sin against academic life.” As an academic, I couldn’t care less about moral temper tantrums in which people rail against the bogeyman of humanism and reduce every problem in the world to some ridiculously simple “absence of religion” claim, turn away from God nonsense, without giving the slightest reason why religion is necessary to justify ethics or to make people better human beings, nor play the slightest attention to how much harm belief in religion has brought. I prefer reasoned argument, so there is no need to respond to me again. I’m done with it.

By RS

April 12, 2005 02:23 PM | Link to this

Oh, Tim, I’m sure you were & still are. Look, my husband is drop-dead gorgeous & he didn’t get ANYWHERE as much play as you did…unless there’s something he’s not telling me!

By Tim

April 12, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this

Akeya- I knew some of those girls in school

everyone else please do not take what I have said to mean that I think that every girl is some little sex crazed maniac… all I am saying is you would be surprised… there are probably as many girls out there with their raging hormones as there are boys

I think one of the other things we need to teach girls AND boys is how to say no to someone… for example… I have a 14 year old sister (God help my mother with this one!!)… a while back a boy in her class drew something on her hand and then closed it… he then told her that the only way she could open her hand and look at it is if she rubbed his balls… well she proceeded to tell him something to the affect ‘if I touch your balls it will be to rip them off and cram them down your throat’… see I think this is a good way to say no… the little scuzz ball got the picture and has not bothered her since

(sorry if I have already shared that… for some reason I am thinking I have on an earlier forum… they all tend to run together)

By Archie

April 12, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this

Akeya, it’s difficult for men to find a mate as well. I personally have a problem with the number of newborns born to black folk out-of-wedlock. This way of doing things hasn’t worked out. The economic aspect of doing things that way is hurting black folk but there are other cultural things that need to be changed. My point is if you’re nice and accessible someone will find you because we men make passes ad nauseum and many men want to get married although they may not act like it openly and there are alot of good guys available so that the economic aspect of children out-of-wedlock doesn’t have to be so prevalent in the african-american community. Of course many single parents do an outstanding job but you can’t ignore the statistics that have been printed in this newspaper over and over. Right now black men and women are hard-headed as far as relationships but sticking to the topic abstinence-first,abstinence-second but not abstinence-only because a healthy man or woman need not restrict themselves forever.

By Brian Curtis

April 12, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this

I have yet to see anyone confront JMagnanimous (see, not all name distortions have to be insults!) with “facts he can’t refute.” Rather, he seems to get irked when confronted with blind, unreasoning bigotry and hatred of gays—perfectly understandable, since that translates into hatred of him.

The vitriol is reserved for those who have earned it. And fundamentalists of any stripe—Christian, Moslem, or other—have always earned with their hateful, anti-American and anti-freedom attitudes that belong in a primitive theocracy rather than the gloriously pluralistic U.S.

By Scott

April 12, 2005 02:28 PM | Link to this

Whiley - though I don’t know you that well, somehow I would bet you can still run with the best of them!

RS - well that’s a relief!! Iwas beginning to think I was a freak or something! (well, maybe I am but that’s a different discussion! ;) )

By Tim

April 12, 2005 02:30 PM | Link to this

RS… THANKS!! ;)… I tend to think it was just the fact that I was sooooo much more FABULOUS than their boring boyfriends lol… JK!! ;)

chuck… don’t you have a class to teach… or some gay middleschooler to harrass?

By Jack

April 12, 2005 02:31 PM | Link to this

Girls now a days are much more aggresive sexually then they were back when I was in school. Not only are they more developed physically but they don’t say no like they used to. In my day girls didn’t call boys. When my boys were in school, our phone rang off the hook. (not a grampa yet!)

By RS

April 12, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this

Tim, your sister sounds like a TRIP! I think the lady will always be able to handle herself in just about any situation & no, that particular story is brand-new to me.

By RS

April 12, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this

Well, Scott, you have to remind yourself what it was that attracted you to your spouse in the first place. If you can say “Ah! Yes, of course!” & not “Good grief! What was I THINKING?!?” then you’re ok!

By Scott

April 12, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this

RS- hehehe don’t worry about me….I am very attracted to my wife on every level, not just physical (though that is very nice too!) So I expect the sex to be great well into our twilight

By Tim

April 12, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this

RS… she takes after her big brother :)… after I heard that story I felt much better about her growing up… but the reason why she was comfortable saying that is because we have always been very open (probably helped that she had an older brother and sister that would inform her of things just to get on mom’s nerves… but it actually helped her in the long run)… she is comfortable talking about sexual topics

and for those who say we should teach abstinence-only… because you say it doesn’t make sense for people in favor of sex education to say things like ‘don’t have sex… but if you do here is a condom’… well we weren’t taught that… we were taught… don’t have sex until you are old enough and mature enough… and then once you are ready here are things you are going to need to know (see we were taught not to have sex… but were also taught when we eventually did become sexaully active how to protect ourselves)… my mother has told us now the reason why she did that was in case we did decide to have sex too soon… she obviously taught us not to but she knew we still were going to make our own decisions in the long run and wanted to make sure we had the proper knowledge

so that way you aren’t saying ‘don’t have sex… but if you do here is a condom’… BUT if they decide they are ready before you think they are at least they will know how to be protected… instead of going… oops well I know I am not supposed to have sex but I am going to anyway… and then don’t protect themselves

By Akeya

April 12, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this

Archie-

I..er..I don’t want to sound arrogant but, I’ve never had a problem attracting men. It’s just that I see this happen to so many people-men and women alike. HOnestly, I cannot answer many questions about relationships between black men and women because my fiance is not black. But, I digress…

Are you, too, assuming that I am black?:)

By AllaboutME

April 12, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this

…abstinance-only is like taking viagra before going to church…

By chuck

April 12, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this

JMisinformedasusual, you would be wrong again. I actually had a gay boss with whom I got along quite well. We disagreed on everything. He did his job and I did mine and we argued just about everday about these issues. Unlike you, he understood the issues and my arguments. He couldn’t refute them either, but he didn’t get all whiny about it like you. He never resorted to the kind of hatred you spew out on an hourly basis. Like you, he would have given anything to be straight…except change his behavior.

You have the mistaken idea that everybody who disagrees with you must hate you. I don’t hate you…I don’t know you. I do however hate the sin that you are such a strong proponent of. You may be right. Society may very well be in the process of accepting your lifestyle as normal. It will do so to its downfall. I know one thing though. It won’t be because of me. I’ll go to the last breath fighting your pro-homo-agenda.

Allaboutme: I’ll just leave you with ONE verse from the Bible:

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

You will NEVER find Christ UNLESS you seek Him. You are obviously looking in the wrong places. He’s not going to fit into your neat little box based on what YOU believe.

Brian Curtsie, What about “homosexual fundamentalism”?

By RS

April 12, 2005 02:59 PM | Link to this

Scott, it’s refreshing when a man speaks so highly of his marriage/wife. Tim, my family is very open too. You have to be…kids can pick up SO much misleading info

By Archie

April 12, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this

Akeya I have read your posts in the past and yes I made the assumption. I apologize. You made it sound as if women you knew could not attract men. I hope things work out for you. I went off topic mentioning race only because you brought it up in responding to someone else. I can assure you I don’t have the same opinions as some folk and whatever race you are I wish the best. For sure you won’t have to worry about abstinence.

By chuck

April 12, 2005 03:06 PM | Link to this

Akeya, In your previous post you said:

I did not realize that marriage is a given for everyone. NO one told me and all of the many other people I know who aren’t married that we are guaranteed in this life to get married.

I didn’t really make an assumption…you as much as said you hadn’t found anyone. If you are engaged, the question is even MORE ludicrous.

By Scott

April 12, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this

RS - Thank you…I also find it refreshing when peoploe such as yourself who have been married longer than I have prove yet again to me that marriage is not the end of the fun but just the beginning!!

By Akeya

April 12, 2005 03:08 PM | Link to this

Archie- Actually, none of my closest friends have problems meeting men and they are not married. Maybe they have extremely high standards? Okay, one of them is rather fickle…anyway.

By Tim

April 12, 2005 03:09 PM | Link to this

RS… yes they sure can… my mom learned the hard way… she gave my older sister a book when she turned 12 (I was 7) and told my sister to read it… that was my sister’s lesson on sex ed… which turned into my lesson as well… everything she read she would come to be and be like… ‘look at this’… or ‘can you believe this’… and my 7 year old mind made my own impressions about sex… for quite a long time I thought that babies were made when a man ‘went pottie’ inside a woman… made much more sense once I was older and learned the actual process… couldn’t figure out why adults would want to do that until I was taught what actually happens… so my mom realized that the responisible path would be to sit down with children and properly teach them sex-ed… not throw a book in their face or just tell them ‘don’t do it until your married’

By J. Morris

April 12, 2005 03:09 PM | Link to this

You don’t have arguments, Chuck. You quote Bible verses. That isn’t fact, it’s a belief system that has no bearing on my life. I don’t get whiny, Chuck. I get angry. You can’t handle that because you are so convinced that you are right. You can’t handle the fact that a gay man is daring to talk back to you. After all, we’re all wimps, right?

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I do hate you Chuck. I feel no remorse whatsoever for doing so. You are the enemy. I would be quite content to go through my life without ever having a conversation like this, but you and yours make that impossible. You make it impossible for me and those like me to live our lives in peace. You are like the Nazis, Chuck. I don’t hate anyone based simply on who they are, but you do.

You are dead-set on keeping me and all others like me second class citizens with no rights, keeping us in a position where you can treat us like you want with no legal protections, where we are denied basic civil rights. That makes YOU the bigot, Chuck. That makes YOU the hate monger. It makes me and every other politically active gay man and woman out there the downtrodden oppressed.

Yet again, you betray your ignorance. He would do everything he can to be straight, except change his behavior, Chuck? It’s funny. If I had a CHOICE, I would choose to be straight, yes. I would like a normal life with a spouse and kids and grandkids. That’s not the cards I was dealt however, and that’s fine by me. I don’t hate myself or my life. We can’t change our behaviors Chuck, any more than you could decide to start being attracted to men. That’s a fiction that you and the other bible-thumping hatemongers of the Religious Right continue to adhere to.

My pro-homo agenda is simple. To live out my life as a full member of this society without having to constantly defend my rights to the likes of you.

By Akeya

April 12, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this

Chuck- exactly, dear. I’m not married..I’m engaged. It’s not the same thing.

sigh, rolling eyes The question is not ludicrous. There is a good chance that I would never get married. It’s only a given in societies in which arranged marriages are still practiced, but we live in the good ol’ US of A.

By Jack

April 12, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this

Scott, I’ve been married 26 years and it keeps getting better and better as time goes on. (after a while you concentrate on quality more than quantity! When the quality is good quantity is not as important)

By Mara

April 12, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this

alrighty then. Here we go. Chuck posted to JM (?) asking “how many children are ready for empty, meaningless, sexual relationships?” Did it ever occur to you that it might be about the same number as are ready for deeply felt, loving, sexual relationships? Children aren’t really ready for any kind of sexual relationship which is why we call them “children”. Young adults and teens aren’t really ready either. Unfortunately, hormones rage whether we want them to or not. It is expected and natural that teens will rebel in some way to individuate themselves from their parents. Some drink, some use drugs, some have sex and some find religeon. All can be distructive in their own way. Now to Tony and his FCC/sex ed analogy - OK. In one sense you are correct in your assessment. Both the FCC and Abstinence only advocates are prepared to censor what information is available to young adults. Parents are allowed to remove their children from the Sex Ed class if they want. So there is your parental responsibility right there. Just like the TV, if you don’t want to hear it (or have your children hear it) turn the damn thing off (take the kid out of the class)! Look! You talked me into agreeing with you! It’s all parental responsibility! And since the educational system is there to, well, educate then it makes no sense to hide half of the information. It is, however, the parents choice on whether they have ignorant children or educated ones.
It seems that a lot of the AO (astinence only) folks can’t see the difference between providing health information and condoning sex. They reject anything other than one or the other. I advocate comprehensive sex ed that includes a generous dollop of health info showing exactly how and why their bodies are not yet ready for sex. Given that, pragmatism (and reality), dictates that if they are having sex, it’s better that they have safe sex.

By Scott

April 12, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this

Jack - Congrats! Sounds like you and your wife have got a good handle on it!

By chuck

April 12, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this

So Akeya rolling eyes you are not REALLY engaged, just shacking up?

By Archie

April 12, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this

If men aren’t going to abstain perhaps we can get cut. In other words have a procedure done so that we don’t produce babies that we can’t take care of. I don’t want the women to get mad so I am sure some of the more progressive women on this blog will talk about what women need to do. There is another reason to abstain since most of us(men) don’t want to get cut. I am being jovial on purpose but the subject of a vascectomy came up on a radio program. I just mention to keep the discussion going…

By Jack

April 12, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this

I had one. Best thing I ever did. (except give up cigarettes)

By Euniculus

April 12, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this

Ok Rocky, I’ve seen both gay and straight people making out with tongue in public and walking each other on leashes. FYI, many of the freaks I saw were heter, icluding the uber religious family decked out in their 104 FM Fish stuff. Their 4 year old child came up and started talking to my 2 year old daughter asking her if the devil talks to her. The 4 year old then said that sometimes the devil talks to her when she’s bad. Luckily her mom came over and took her away. Poor kid, makes me wonder what her parents are filling her head with.

By RS

April 12, 2005 03:52 PM | Link to this

Archie, I’d have NO problem getting my tubes tied, if my insurance paid for it, but it won’t. In the meantime, there IS such a thing as being careful & responsible. Wow, men who’ve been married to the same woman for a long time & speak highly of her; that’s a beautiful thing! Tim, my parents told me the “facts of life” when I was 8 & I couldn’t have imagined anything that sounded more disgusting, but, hey, I guess if that’s what you have to do to get a baby…Just goes to show how drastically our idea of what is pleasurable & what is distasteful changes as we get older; at age 8, I used to enjoy squashing big, fat, live worms in my bare hands…(today’s 8 year old girls are shopping for bras & making “booty calls” to high-school boys..)

By chuck

April 12, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this

Mara, c’mon, surely you don’t believe that drivel you just spouted:

Unfortunately, hormones rage whether we want them to or not. It is expected and natural that teens will rebel in some way to individuate themselves from their parents. Some drink, some use drugs, some have sex and some find religeon. All can be distructive in their own way.

That is the liberal excuse for EVERYTHING. We all know they are going to do it anyway so let’s make it easier for them. That is such a tired, trite, useless argument. The fact is we are sending kids a MIXED MESSAGE. All of us with sense are telling them that sex outside of marriage is wrong and destructive. We are telling them that while they may have urges, they also have the ability to control those urges because they are not ANIMALS.

Your message is don’t do it, but since you are going to anyway, wink, wink, this will make it LESS FATAL. It is a self-defeating premise. The worst message comes from the culture itself “EVERYBODY is doing it”.

Kids don’t have to be led around by their sex drives. They understand the word NO if they have been taught it from a young age.

Finally, you missed the point of that post COMPLETELY. Kids are not ready for any kind of sexual relationship. You wouldn’t want to give kids the keys to the car at 12, but you are perfectly willing to give them the keys to something they are even less prepared for. It is BEYOND STUPID.

By RS

April 12, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this

Oh, Tim, oF COURSE you’re a thousand times more fabulous than a bunch of grunting, belching, crotch-scratching, beer-guzzling, gas-passing, baggy-pants-wearing jocks! (Why, I just described several of my ex-boyfriends!) Jack, Jack, jack, you don’t know the half of it…my female friends/co-workers with teenage sons are always telling me how the phone rings off the hook with aggressive young girls on the other end..some of these gals have mouths like truckdrivers, too! And I may have told this story on this blog, in another forum (I apologize if so) but back in November I was at a local dance club & happened to see a skimpily dressed young woman approach a young an she clearly did NOT know, smile at him, press her backside against the front of his pants & proceed to rub up against him! Not the first time I’ve seen this either. Plus, girls “dance” like that with each other for the benefit of

By Netbanker

April 12, 2005 04:01 PM | Link to this

Chuck of course the stats you cite on gay people are realistic. Look at your personal attitude toward us and the statements you make. Can you image what it’s like to be on the receiving end of that kind of venom from people who don’t know you? Or being raised in church that sends you a message that you’re evil and going to hell? That’s a hell of a thing to carry around especially at the ages of say 12-15 when you know you’re gay, but haven’t even had sex yet.

Of course the sad thing is that it goes against the advise and sage wisdom of walking a mile in another man’s shoes. There is a police department that makes all their police offers team up with a same sex partner and has them hold hands and walk through various venues to experience what it is like to be verbally assaulted. Maybe you should try that experience sometime and you might just gain an understanding of the struggle it can be to just make it through one single day.

By chuck

April 12, 2005 04:04 PM | Link to this

BTW JMarissa, It really doesn’t bother me that you hate me. In fact it makes me feel pretty good. The BIBLE says:

Matthew 5:10-12 (King James Version) King James Version (KJV) Public Domain

10Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

12Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

So hate away. It eats away at your insides, NOT MINE.

By Akeya

April 12, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this

So chuck, are you really married or do you want us to think someone actually puts up with you?

By J. Morris

April 12, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this

Interestingly enough Chuck, all the lines about persecution and being reviled and persecuted apply a hell of a whole lot more to gay people than they ever will to you. Guess that means that we’re the ones who will be rewarded.

Besides, I doubt there’s anything left inside you to be eaten away.

By Akeya

April 12, 2005 04:08 PM | Link to this

Once again with the ASSumptions, Chuck? I don’t remember stating that my fiance lives with me. Did you just pull that out of your toupee?

By chuck

April 12, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this

Well you know NetB, if you don’t like it CHANGE. You are in bondage to a sin. I have never met a gay person (including JMorris) who hasn’t said that he would RATHER BE STRAIGHT. If that is the case, my advice to you is BE STRAIGHT. If that is “who you are” my question is, why does it make you so miserable. Don’t answer that it is because of people like ME. Nobody can MAKE you feel miserable unless YOU let them. If you don’t like who you are, change.

By J. Morris

April 12, 2005 04:12 PM | Link to this

NetB, Chuck doesn’t care about understanding, or compassion, or tolerance, or anything other than the narrow definitions of humanity that his Bible gives him. It does no good to try to convince him otherwise. He lacks the ability to think for himself. He needs Jesus to think for him.

He loves to quote the Bible, but when it comes to Judge Not, quotes about motes and beams, Love thy neighbor…all the POSITIVE things about Christianity, he has lots of reasons for why they don’t actually mean what the words say.

I don’t know why I continue to pay attention to him.

By J. Morris

April 12, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this

Chuck again, you are so bloody stupid. You can’t just decide to “be straight”. It doesn’t work that way. Sexuality isn’t something you choose, it just is. What is your problem?

By Thomas

April 12, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this

I agree with Boscoe, Randy, and Zack. I think that we should do away with everything but the Christian Channel. Girls and guys should have to wear black robes year around with veils that only come off when they are at home. All language should be English circa the King James Edition print of the bible. All curse words will be removed from the languge. At the ripe age of 17, everybody should be forced to marry. Sex will only be allowed during the time when a woman is allowed to get pregnant, otherwise it will be forbidden. School will be taught by the church. Science will only focus on the studying of plants. Evolution will be on the forbidden list of words. All news will be given from the pastor in the evening. There will be one church. All pastors have the right to decide who will be president, vice president. No need for judges since there will be no conflict. No divorce. No illegitimate children. No adultery. There won’t be time because men and women do not work together (though allowed to do what work they want. If the man stays home with the children, that is fine.) If not at work, you are at church. Tattoos, piercings, pornography, and everything will be banned. Ah, the world would be so much better.

By norman

April 12, 2005 04:16 PM | Link to this

Tim is correct. MOst cases of rape of children are by fathers of daughters. Christian fathers to be precise.

Chuck does quote scripture instead of thinking. That is the purpose of the Bible, to give mental defectives an answer when they haven’t a real clue.

By chuck

April 12, 2005 04:17 PM | Link to this

You may be persecuted JMundane, but it certainly is not for RIGHTEOUSNESS SAKE

By J. Morris

April 12, 2005 04:17 PM | Link to this

And YES Chuck, it is people like you who make being gay so difficult.

By J. Morris

April 12, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this

Right Chuck, because only you decide what is Righteous.

By Tim

April 12, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this

Chuck… here is your first gay guy that wouldn’t change who he is if given a choice!! so now you can say you have ‘met’ one… I love who I am and I wouldn’t be me unless I were gay… so no if I had a choice I wouldn’t change… and you know what… I know (you can disagree all you want… I couldn’t care less) that God wouldn’t want me to change either cus he/she made me this way for a reason and I don’t blame him/her cus he broke the mold with me! :)

now of course I am sure you will probably use this to say then I chose to be gay… whatever go ahead… I wouldn’t expect anything less from someone with your brain power

By chuck

April 12, 2005 04:22 PM | Link to this

Glad I can be of service JMuffin

By J. Morris

April 12, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this

Tim, thanks - I guess I should clarify that rather than “wanting” to be straight, I regret the things that I can not have because I’m gay, like children and grandchildren. I regret having to put up with the Chuck’s of the world, who think they have a lock on truth, and think that God commands them to judge, and who do everything they can to persecute those who don’t fit their orthodoxy.

I regret nothing about my own life, and you’re right. If I weren’t gay I wouldn’t be me.

By J. Morris

April 12, 2005 04:28 PM | Link to this

Chuck, please die a horrible, tragic painful death. Right now.

By RS

April 12, 2005 04:28 PM | Link to this

Oops! Premature Altzheimers must be setting in; I forgot to complete the last sentence of my 3:54 POST.”…for the benefit of males standing around & drooling”. There! Was it worth the wait?

By kimberly

April 12, 2005 04:33 PM | Link to this

Oh Chuck… you’re leaving out such an important part of the equation. When a gay man CHOOSES to be straight by denying his gayness, and hooks up with a woman he claims to love, he makes her life MISERABLE! So many women suffer the pain and humiliation of marriage or relationships with men who don’t really love them the way they need to be loved, but who claim to love them because they can’t admit, for whatever reason, “moral” upbringing, etc., that they’d rather be hanging out with men, and they’d rather not see her naked, EVER. Oh… Chuck… do you have any idea how much women in this situation HURT? The agony of wondering, “what’s wrong with me? why doesn’t he love me?” No no no… Be who you are! Be the person God created… whatever that entails! Don’t let right-wing bullies or your family’s prejudice lead you into ruining someone else’s life!

By Tim

April 12, 2005 04:34 PM | Link to this

JMorris… I knew exactly what you were trying to say before ;)

By RS

April 12, 2005 04:36 PM | Link to this

Right on, Tim! You are mondo fabulous JUST AS YOU ARE & yes, the Creator agrees, otherwise He wouldn’t have made you-YOU!

By Seaborn

April 12, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this

I doubt if Chuck has really met that many gay people, but his question of gays changing their sexuality has been circulating among us gays for years. It’s the “would you take the pill” question. If you could take a pill and make yourself straight, would you? Like Tim, I would not. I can’t think of anything more depressing than living a life similar to Chuck’s.

By J. Morris

April 12, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, please refer to my comments about Chuck lacking anything resembling compassion for anyone other than fellow fundies.

By RS

April 12, 2005 04:38 PM | Link to this

Kimberly: A true voice of reason! I couldn’t have said it any better! Tim, J MARVELOUS, Seaborn etc…you’re all fabulous the way you are!!!!

By Tim

April 12, 2005 04:40 PM | Link to this

RS… and you are just as FABULOUS ;)

Kimberly… excellent point and very well said

By J. Morris

April 12, 2005 04:45 PM | Link to this

Thanks RS. After all the nastiness from the ILK, it’s nice to hear a kind word.

By Seaborn

April 12, 2005 04:47 PM | Link to this

I don’t know about the rest of you residents of Georgia, but I had a pretty big state tax burden last year. Maybe someone can enlighten me…don’t state taxes go to pay salaries of public school teachers? and to pay for computers in schools? and to pay for internet access in these schools? And shouldn’t these resources that are paid for by state taxes only be used for official school use?

I recall that Chuck is an eighth grade school teacher. That’s public school isn’t it Chuck? Is that your own computer you are using to spread your religious doctrine? Are you paying out of your own pocket to get access to the internet, or are public funds paying for that also? Just curious…I apologize for bringing it up if you are paying for all of this yourself.

By J. Morris

April 12, 2005 04:52 PM | Link to this

An interesting survey given the current discussion. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/magazine/04/12/survey.expanded/index.html?cnn=yes

By Sandy

April 12, 2005 04:55 PM | Link to this

Chuck, how can survival be self-defeating? Unless you mean that death is the fitting punishment for premarital sex.

You’re assuming that a child understanding the word “no” will never make a mistake. There is no guarantee that a child will not “sin” even if a parent is able to control this child’s every move, every relationship, and keep them in their direct supervision at all times. Of course, this kid will grow up twisted and never fully develop.

As the mother of a 14 year-old, I hope my child will wait for maturity before engaging risky sexual activity, but I think it’s unrealistic to wait until marriage, and frankly, not all that healthy in terms of compatibility. Sure, my kid may make mistakes, but I would rather have him/her survive and learn than die from ignorance.

When children make mistakes, their need for parental love increases. They’ll follow the footsteps adults try so hard to cover up. They’ll make mistakes;it’s part of the learning process. But if their lives are on the line, provide them with a life preserver and save their soul later. The spirit can be willing, but the flesh is weak.

It’s ironic that you’re using that scripture that you claim to hold most holy as a weapon to destroy and dehumanize. Remember, live by the sword, die by the sword.

By RS

April 12, 2005 04:57 PM | Link to this

Tim, J Man-Among-Men, etc, it is my pleasure to defend you against the venomous bile-spewing of the ilk-monster contingent. Hugs & kisses!

By Zack

April 12, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this

J. Morris—Well, you are. You made a horrendous comment against me yesterday, and it’s all because I get to you with my facts. I guess you’re the type who wants Michael Jackson set free. I guess you think pedophilia is simply the product of one’s environment. What nonsense.

Taking you to court for disagreeing with me? That’s not what I said. Would you not put words in my mouth, please?

I wish we’d get back to having a country where things were run right: No more abortion, no more mention of gay marriage, no ACLU, no lies about evolution and safe sex in schools, just freedom and facts, essentially.

Not propaganda.

By Jack

April 12, 2005 05:13 PM | Link to this

Mr. Morris - You shouldn’t wish a horrible death on ANYONE. I don’t agree with Zack and the ilk but that last comment makes me sick. May YOU rot in Hell.

By Boscoe

April 13, 2005 07:55 AM | Link to this

James, I wanted to answer your question from yesterday. Pope John Paul II apologized because Judaism and Christianity share a common root. Mistakes -All men fail James. The only one who Catholics consider infallible is the Pope – Only in matter of faith though. You CAN speak directly to God – with prayer. The reason Catholics pray to Mary is because She is an advocate for all of us here who are sinners. As the Mother of God she is the most perfect of all of God’s creations. Surely Jesus would not deny the requests of his own mother of whom he loves so dearly. Thus we pray to her to intercede for us before God. As far as reasons why things are the way they are – that I don’t have all the answer to and there’s not enough room on this forum to discuss. Would it be easier if God just showed Himself to us and said NO! NO! NO! You’re doing it all wrong! ? Sure it would but He sent His own son to die on a cross, I shouldn’t expect anything less for myself.

By Tony

April 13, 2005 08:02 AM | Link to this

Morris, the exact same narrow-mindedness you claim Chuck views everything, you sir are the same. Allow me to explain. As in Homosexuality, Science just doesn’t know. They can’t tell you whether you where born that way or you choose to be gay. There’s plenty of speculation, but when it comes right down to it, they just don’t know. This holds true in the Schiavo case. Science just doesn’t understand the brain. There was plenty of speculation, but when it came right down to it, they just don’t know. In fact, people diagnosed PVS are alive and speaking today. Science estimates that up to 60% of the time, they get it wrong. As in many executions, sometimes an innocent man is put to death. Terri’s civil rights where placed in the hands of her husband, a husband with a wagon full of conflicts. Narrow-mindedness?

Many yesterday continue to claim that it is not black and white, that there’s a million shades of gray. I beg to differ. Words do mean something. Abstinence shouldn’t be a word that evokes smirks from gum smacking teenagers. Marital fidelity shouldn’t be dismissed as a Victorian-sounding relic. It should be held up as a worthy goal. What can be more direct and to the point than listening to what God has to say? Note these examples: Pride, lust and evil actions are all sins. The wise man saves for the future but the foolish man spends whatever he gets. A man is known by his actions. An evil man lives an evil life, a Godly man lives a Godly life. God loathes all cheating and dishonesty. These are direct statements, aren’t they? No equivocation, no spin. Anytime you feel the world has polluted the simple meanings of words, turn back to the real Word. We can be confident that when the Bible tells us God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, that means He never changes. We have his word on that. God doesn’t mince words. He doesn’t play with words. He doesn’t twist words to alter their meaning. When He says He loves you, He means it. When He says He has forgiven you, He means it. God talks straight. And so should Godly men.

It won’t work teaching abstinence and alternatives and expect children to understand. If you believe that abstinence is the correct teaching, you can’t follow up and say, “just in case, here’s a load of rubbers” and expect the desired results. It’s either abstinence or your wasting your time. Some claim that children are naïve, that they need to know about other alternatives, again, there maybe some children who believe soap will wash out everything, but most children get it. Stop twisting your meaning. Either you want your children to abstain, or you don’t. Children will get it!

Oh and Tim, hypothetical. They found the gene that causes homosexuality and developed a pill that will make you straight. Would you take the pill?

By Brian Curtis

April 13, 2005 08:26 AM | Link to this

Sigh… more religious ravings from people who just don’t understand: your religion is not the law of the land, nor should it be. If you want to teach YOUR kids abstinence-only before marriage, fine; that’s your call. But public schools have to teach kids of all faiths and backgrounds, and demanding that they all accept YOUR personal take on what’s “sinful” just isn’t gonna happen. Get over it.

Rather than comparing sex to drugs and alcohol (as Shaunti cluelessly does), it might be better to compare it to driving: a perfectly normal activity that millions of adults do every day, with the proper knowledge and precautions to do it safely. Sure, the only way to be SURE you’ll never be in a car crash is not to drive—but realistically, most people start driving in their teens or (at most) early twenties. So it only makes sense to teach them the rules of the road, the hazards, and how to do it safely.

If you consider premarital sex (or drivign) somehow Evil, that’s your bizarre superstition. It imposes no obligations on the rest of us.

By Akeya

April 13, 2005 08:31 AM | Link to this

Brian- that was a good analogy.

By Boscoe

April 13, 2005 08:34 AM | Link to this

Michael H, are you impaired in some way I haven’t noticed? You said “I seriously doubt you ever took the time to engage with them, rather than engaging in more confirmation bias in reading only what Catholic writers have to say in an effort to further shore up your preexisting beliefs.” Michael did you engage me just to show me or everyone else how smart you are? Why would I read about anything BUT those that shore up my beliefs? The Catholic faith is so imbedded in me that the only way to remove it would be to remove me. Take a number on that one I think Norman has the first crack at it. What your great French academic fails to recognize is that what is possible is that we do not know all things; there are many things which you might know right now that would be practically or absolutely no value in your relation to God. But when you look at the immensity of the truths proposed by God, you ought not be disappointed to admit that they must be beyond you in all the wealth of their meaning. That there are certain things difficult to understand, which the unlearned and the unstable distort, just as they do the Scriptures also, to their own destruction. As I have said before religion gives a standard for moral excellence. Humanism lets man decide those standards for himself subject to his own whims. There is no consistency, thus the standard is not met.

By Boscoe

April 13, 2005 08:46 AM | Link to this

Brian Curtis that is the most bizarre analogy I’ve ever heard. If someone chose to avoid cars and ride a bicycle instead couldn’t they still be killed by a car? Even if the driver of the car is operating the vehicle as cautiously as possible that person could still cause death or bodily injury to an uninvolved party. Two people having sex will not cause a third to die regardless of whether or not they do it “safely” or not. Abstinence is not just a religious concept. It is the only 100% foolproof way to avoid STDs and premature pregnancies. No other method provides that amount of protection.

By Brian Curtis

April 13, 2005 08:48 AM | Link to this

quote: “Why would I read about anything BUT those that shore up my beliefs?”

Well Boscoe… isn’t that the very definition of willful ignorance? If you’ve already decided beforehand to ignore anything that might challenge, or even make you question, your beliefs… why debate at all? Heck, why even READ anything at all?

And beyond that, how does your unshakable confidence somehow make your beliefs more “true”? Plenty of people have been wholeheartedly, stubbornly devoted to ideas that turned out to be wrong. Their failure to notice the error didn’t make those ideas any less false.

By Brian Curtis

April 13, 2005 08:53 AM | Link to this

quote: “Two people having sex will not cause a third to die regardless of whether or not they do it “safelyâ€? or not.”

So you’re saying that sex is actually safer than driving. Cool! Glad you liked the analogy.

And I didn’t say abstinence was a purely religious concept; the notion that premarital sex is somehow “evil,” however, IS a religious concept.

By Tony

April 13, 2005 08:54 AM | Link to this

Mr. Curtis, The LAW of the land is different, depending on what state you live in. For example, in the state of California, anyone under the age of 18 caught having Sex are breaking the law. In Georgia, it’s 16. So Mr. Curtis, when in 7 through the 10 grade you teach children an alternative, your teaching them to break the LAW!

By Thomas

April 13, 2005 09:01 AM | Link to this

agree with Boscoe, Randy, and Zack. I think that we should do away with everything but the Christian Channel. Girls and guys should have to wear black robes year around with veils that only come off when they are at home. All language should be English circa the King James Edition print of the bible. All curse words will be removed from the languge. At the ripe age of 17, everybody should be forced to marry. Sex will only be allowed during the time when a woman is allowed to get pregnant, otherwise it will be forbidden. School will be taught by the church. Science will only focus on the studying of plants. Evolution will be on the forbidden list of words. All news will be given from the pastor in the evening. There will be one church. All pastors have the right to decide who will be president, vice president. No need for judges since there will be no conflict. No divorce. No illegitimate children. No adultery. There won’t be time because men and women do not work together (though allowed to do what work they want. If the man stays home with the children, that is fine.) If not at work, you are at church. Tattoos, piercings, pornography, and everything will be banned. Ah, the world would be so much better.

Americans should really work towards this goal.

By smithy

April 13, 2005 09:01 AM | Link to this

Brian, you said But public schools have to teach kids of all faiths and backgrounds… which is true, but public schools do NOT have to teach kids about sexual behaviors and preventions. That’s the job of the parents and NOT the public schools. The government needs to step away from the entire topic and leave it to the parents. It’s none of the government’s business what people choose to teach their children about sex, and if someone wants their child to learn about abstinence only, that is THEIR PEROGATIVE. The government needs to BUTT OUT.

By Tim

April 13, 2005 09:07 AM | Link to this

Tony… if they found the gene that caused homosexuality and somehow made a pill to where you could become heterosexual then I would absolutely not take the pill to change… if they found the gene then that would obviously mean it was biological… the people who would need to change are those like chuck… why should I have to change because they aren’t intelligent… if they found a pill that would make a black person white would you expect them to take it?

like I said before(whether anyone wants to agree or not)… God made me me for a reason (and would may even be ticked if I tried to change) and NONE of y’all can convince me otherwise

By Akeya

April 13, 2005 09:17 AM | Link to this

Boscoe- How is the analogy bizarre? Someone can choose to abstain from sex and be raped or molested, possibly contracting an STD or getting pregnant.

By Sandy

April 13, 2005 09:25 AM | Link to this

If one takes an ecumenical or inclusive approach to faith, there is some common ground between major religions, lesser religions, philosophies, and ethical systems. These include fairness, integrity, honesty, human dignity, growth, service, patience, and encouragement. Many accept these as the natural law of the human condition and part of the human conscience. One could add faith, hope, and love to this list without engaging wrath from reasonable folks. (Incidentally, this is how I define political correctness, with deference to good manners at the very least, inclusion and acceptance at best).

If one expands this idea of natural law in terms of global geography, the human condition seeks some sort of guiding principle, orienting the person to oneself, one’s neighbor, and the universe. Just as there is a degree of variation in finding magnetic north on the globe via one’s location, one could make same argument in terms of evolution of individual souls in regard our search for the divine. We need to get close enough, (with room for variation) to make the final leap of faith to close the gap between the divine and ourselves. Some call this leap of faith grace, some call it transcendence.

One’s starting point may be fear or guilt, or it may be expanded awareness, but it doesn’t really matter where one starts: Saints and sinners are on the same road in their quest to close this gap, but the gap will eventually be closed because this end of separation between God and us is preordained. It was set in motion by the creator, until we become co-creators. In the meantime, we get a limited view of God that is trapped within our perceived boundaries and just to keep things interesting, that limited idea keeps shifting, sort of like walking to the horizon.

Our intention to end suffering makes us spiritual and moves our souls through this evolution. My personal experience is that rigid doctrine rarely alleviates suffering on the same scale as inclusion and acceptance.

As the saying goes, religion is for people afraid of hell. Spirituality is for people who have already been there, and I would add, want to alleviate universal suffering.

To make this manageable on a day-to-day scale, perhaps instead of asking how many souls we saved today, or how many people we’ve converted, we should ask ourselves how much suffering we’ve alleviated.

Namaste.

By Akeya

April 13, 2005 09:27 AM | Link to this

Tony- I believe the law is anyway over the age of 16 having sex with someone 16 or younger is illegal, not a 16 year old having sex… I’ll have to double check, though

By Bruce

April 13, 2005 09:29 AM | Link to this

Tim,

As a Christain how can you say that God made you the way you are when God so adamantly spoke against homosexuality?

By Tim

April 13, 2005 09:41 AM | Link to this

Bruce… God never adamantly spoke against homosexuality… I have already gone throught this during other discussions… short version… NO WHERE in the ORIGINAL text of the Bible does it state the homosexuality is immoral

By Michael H.

April 13, 2005 09:45 AM | Link to this

Boscoe,

Well, you finally identified the source of the problem in your inability to rationally respond to an argument by confessing your own dogmatism: “Why would I read about anything BUT those that shore up my beliefs?” If that isn’t a definition of dogmatism, despite the awkward syntactical construction, then it is very, very, close. After manifesting that attitude in virtually every statement you make, it is nice to hear you explicitly acknowledge it. Thanks for the candor.

Why shouldn’t you read, think, or consider the possibility that the beliefs you were raised to believe are possibly wrong? This attitude renders religious belief arbitrary, (the sort of thing you ascribe to non-religious ethics) immune from rational criticism, and an accident of whichever culture one was born into. If you were born in Saudi Arabia, then the same “argument” would hold for remaining a Muslim and reading nothing but those that shore up Muslim beliefs. That is just the bare beginning of the many problems that stem from such an attitude.

Given you are so fond of quoting passages from the Catholic Church as if they were arguments, rather than instances of the inappropriate appeal to authority fallacy (you can look it up), and letting the Church do your thinking for you, here is one from a philosopher that I taught last week in my intro class. W.K. Clifford, who in a classic essay, “The Ethics of Belief,” warned against the dangers of forming a “credulous character” which leaves one vulnerable to accepting false beliefs as true ones:

“If a man, holding a belief which he was taught in childhood or persuaded of afterwrds, keeps down and pushes away any doubts which arise about it in his mind, purposely avoids the reading of books and the company of men that call in question or discuss it, and regards as impious those questions which cannot easily be asked without disturbing it—-the life of that man is one long sin against mankind.”

But Clifford has an argument for that conclusion, and I am sure that you won’t read that essay either since it may not shore up your beliefs. And rather than present Clifford’s views to my students as if are the only ones, I always follow his essay by presenting William James The Will to Believe, in which he offers a partial defense of faith. It’s called being open minded and intellectually responsible, the remedy to dogmatism.

This is the last time that I will read or respond to anything you say. But thanks for the material; I will use your comments to illustrate what Clifford is warning of the next time I teach that essay, your diatribe against “humanism” provided some nice instances of persuasive definition, and examples of the straw man fallacy for my informal logic class. These are the main reasons that I read these postings. (I even used one of Ms. Feldhahn’s arguments, with her permission, on one of my logic exams as an instance of the fallacy of false dichotomy.) So, thanks again and no need to respond, you don’t get the last word, this time.

By norman

April 13, 2005 09:48 AM | Link to this

Tim, Bruce: why does it matter whether homosexuality is or is not mentioned in the Bible? That collection of primitive books is no guide to life in the modern world. And it certainly was not written by God or under his direction. Get a life!

By RS

April 13, 2005 09:56 AM | Link to this

Brian, that was a STELLAR analogy! You make lots of sense, always did. Folks, read the article in today’s AJC on the INNEFFECTIVENESS of pro-abstinence programs. Yeah, in a perfect world, NO teens would have sex but this is hardly a perfect world. many teens are ruled by their hormones & if you tell them “don’t”, they will even if just to rebel & experience the lure of the forbidden. Remember when y’all were that age? You thought you were indestructable. Anyone who “thinks”(?!?) telling teens “just say no” & that will keep kids from having sex, subsequently getting pregnant & contracting STD’s probably believes in the Tooth Fairy too. Get your heads out of the sand…

By Jack

April 13, 2005 10:00 AM | Link to this

Sandy has more sense and logical posts than most on this blog.

By Tim

April 13, 2005 10:06 AM | Link to this

woohoo norman is back… his post always give me a good laugh… then it gets REALLY funny when others start arguing with him… let the games begin :)

By Eirik

April 13, 2005 10:29 AM | Link to this

Norman,

I’ve followed your comments for awhile, and while you present them a bit more abrasive than I would, I pretty much agree with much you have posted about the falsehood of Christiananity.

I ran across an article the other day that suggested that Jesus Christ may never have really existed at, as a single person that is. The article suggested, with some interesting supporting statements, that Jesus Christ was actually a morph of several biblical figures, basically John the Baptist combined with Paul, and maybe a little Mark thrown in. It seems to me that the myth of such a man would survive much longer than an actual historical figure. Have you come across this theory before?

By Thomas

April 13, 2005 10:30 AM | Link to this

Why not tell the kids that if they have sex before marriage then they will get flogged or caned or any other severe punishment like that? If it works in Singapore and chewing gum, it can work to prevent teens from having sex.

By Jack

April 13, 2005 10:36 AM | Link to this

The problem with flogging them is they have to be caught doing it first.

By Tony

April 13, 2005 10:37 AM | Link to this

No Tim, I would not expect a black man to take a pill to turn him white.

Tim, your a fine young man, however and please forgive me, but your misguided. Sex is an act, a moment of pleasure, something we choose to do. Some people let it control their lives, I like to believe most people live within moral guide lines. Your sexual preference does not define you, your character defines you. Your correct when you say God made you and has plans to prosper you and not to harm you, the only obstacle to enjoying that plan is running away from it.

Character matters Tim, so does integrity, virtue and truthfulness. An example of a life, guided not by the capricious winds of culture but the rock-solid promise of Christ. Today where talking about abstinence, all hypocritical arguments to the contrary are a lie. We will ALL be judged by our virtues, either you live by them or you don’t.

By Bruce

April 13, 2005 10:39 AM | Link to this

Tim,

I have never read the ORIGINAL TEXT before but have attended MANY studies on the subject and I cannot find one Christain that justifies homosexuality because it wasn’t in the ORIGINAL TEXT. I will research it though, thanks.

Norman,

That post was between two Christains but thanks for your comments. I have tried in the past to get you to show me how you come to the understanding you have but all you could do is give me names of people that wrote books years ago. You have your primitive books I have mine. Have a great day.

By RS

April 13, 2005 10:40 AM | Link to this

Erik: That’s very interesting; I never heard that but it’s certainly something to think about. Thomas, I only hope & pray that you were being sarcastic because it scares the stuffing out of me to think anyone actually feels that way in this day & age! Michael & Tim, you are both right. Tim, of course God made you the way you are & you have so many wonderful qualities, I can tell that without ever having met you in person (although maybe I did, living in midtown & being in contact with gay people all the time)so why would you be condemned to H—- for being the way the Creator made you? And if someone is born into a non-Christian culture (Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim) & they are a good person, follow the tenets of their born faith, etc, does it make sense they’d be penalized for having had no exposure to Christianity? Sorry but anyone who maintains that THEIR religion is the ONLY valid one because a bunch of long-dead fanatics decreed it so is an arrogant, hateful, intolerant, bigoted ignoramus with !”@%$# for brains.

By Sandy

April 13, 2005 10:50 AM | Link to this

Eirik,I have seen that theory before and find it intriguing. St. Christopher is mixed in there, too. Separating the man from myth is tempting, from my ego’s point of view and in the truth-will-set-you-free kind of thinking, especially when I get the urge to debunk narrow quasi-religous rants.

One of the first things I learned as a Sociology major (can you tell?!) is that it doesn’t really matter whether something is actually true. If people believe it to be true, it becomes true in its consequences. That thought still gives me tingles 20 years later, sometimes tingles of discovery, sometimes of fear…

I guess I would add the caveat of “true in consequences on some level of enlightenment” just so I don’t overpower my limited and feeble mind.

By norman

April 13, 2005 10:56 AM | Link to this

Eirik: there is no doubt there was a Jesus, we know his brother James led a group of Jewish messianists in Jerusalem which believed Jesus was a great prophet whose return would announce the restoration of Israel and freedom from Rome. James was murdered in 62Ad by the agents of the high priest and Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD. Remnants of the Jewish Christian belief found its way into various sects, ultimately into Islam, especially Shiite Islam. Yes, there was a Jesus, but he was a Jewish messianist, cared little for the heathen world, never claimed his death and return would have some salvific meaning for sinners, only that it would mean the restoration of Israel. The book of Acts has the disciples ask Jesus, their first question, after his reappearance: Will you now restore the kingdom to Israel?

Christians believe in a Jesus who never exited: a god-man saviour interested in bringing all men to eternal life. That Jesus is a myth.

Bruce: MY BOOKS ARE SCHOLARLY, YOUR BIBLE IS SUPERSTITION.

Tim: you amuse me too. You want your bible and your gay sex. Having it both. Well Christians for the most part don’t want you to have gay sex and the Bible. You will have to choose as far as they are concerned. I don’t know why you don’t just choose to screw and forget the bible.

By Tim

April 13, 2005 11:03 AM | Link to this

Tony… after reading what I wrote yesterday I realized that someone would probably take that to mean that I believe I am who I am solely because I am gay… I apologize because I certainly don’t believe that… but it did play a big part in who I have become… and because of that I would not change my sexuality because I would be a different person… and I have become pretty darn good

I do agree with you that sex is an act… but like I have said before being gay isn’t only about sex… I am emotionally attracted to the same sex as well… the love that you feel for your wife I could never feel for a woman… but I have found an AMAZING person whom I love more than I ever imagined possible… that person just so happens to be a man as well… so why would I take a pill when I know that I have found ‘the one’… God made me so that I am physically and emotionally attracted to men… God wanted me like this for some reason and now has brought someone in my life… why would I want to change that

I agree with you that character, virture, integrity, and truthfulness certainly do matter… probably the most improtant qualities a person can possess… and if I denied who I am then I would lose all of those qualities

Bruce… that was the short version… would take more than a little post to fully explain… there are plenty of Christians out there who don’t believe homosexuality is a sin… that is why they welcome gay men and women into their congregations every Sunday

RS… thank you!! :)… you share those same qualities :)

By kimberly

April 13, 2005 11:04 AM | Link to this

If you believe that God created the entire vast universe, and in it, our entire huge world, and in it, all life that springs forth, then you have to believe that He did create each and every one of us, either intentionally, or by the design of process. THEREFORE, how likely is it that God, with all this creation at hand, had decided that He ONLY loves and valuess a relatively small number of individuals, out of tens of thousands of years of human existence, who follow one little narrow interpretation of a set of ancient books, and summarily dismisses the ENTIRE rest of His creation as rubbish for the furnace? Doesn’t make sense. Sorry. It doesn’t. But to those non-thinking fundamentalists, I have to say, HE gave me a brain and the ability to reason, and I won’t dishonor Him by rejecting those gifts.

By Bruce

April 13, 2005 11:08 AM | Link to this

Norman,

Just because you say you books are scholary doesn’t make it any more the truth than me telling you the Bible is the truth. Jesus is alive and doing well. How do I know? Because He lives in my heart and I talk to him daily. Your Scholary books will never change that they too were written by MEN as you put it.

My suggestion to you is beat your head against another wall. You have NO credibility with me at all. You spread lies straight from Hell. Any man that wishes another to die as you did yesterday and in other discussions should not be taken seriously.

By Tim

April 13, 2005 11:13 AM | Link to this

norman… I am sure I and many others do amuse you… glad I could give you a good laugh (even if it is to laugh at me and not with me)… you are obviously correct in saying that most Christians would want me to choose between being gay and having the Bible… well the good thing is that I don’t answer to any of them… so it doesn’t matter to me what anyone wants me to choose… as long as I am living the best life I can possibly live then that is what matters

Sandy… psych major… can you tell… Lord help I am starting to sound like Dr. Phil!!!

By J. Morris

April 13, 2005 11:17 AM | Link to this

I’m returning to the fray, having calmed myself down from yesterday. Kimberly, that is much the same argument I have presented to fundamentalist friends of mine. They never really had an answer for it, other than “I don’t know, that’s a good point”. That was almost always followed up by “But I’m scared of going to Hell so I can’t think that way”.

Fundamentalism always comes down to fear - fear of an authoritarian God, fear of straying from narrowly defined rules, fear of making ones own moral choices. I also like to ask “If God is so powerful, loving, knowing, capable, wise, etc., then why would he demand to be worshiped to the exclusion of all else, like some kind of spoiled child?” It’s an awfully petty view of God that doesn’t make much sense.

By J. Morris

April 13, 2005 11:23 AM | Link to this

Actually Bruce, I was the one who wished Chuck dead, and while that was an inappropriate comment made in the heat of the moment, I wouldn’t expect someone like you to understand what it’s like to live with people like you and Chuck every day. Trust me, if you put up with the kind of naked hatred that we do on a daily basis for every day of your life, you’d be wishing people dead too.

It’s easy to sit in judgement of others when you’re a member of the privileged class, Bruce.

By Sandy

April 13, 2005 11:36 AM | Link to this

Our spirituality is based on our interpretation of reality which is in turn rooted to our biology.

Are people born one relgion or another? Most of the fundamentalists here seem to believe that they accepted Jesus as their personal savior, which implies that they were not born doing so. I find it ironic that many of them are so aggressive about this, and yet believe that sexuality, which is more clearly biologically rooted than religion, is a choice.

Each side claims truth. Each side is correct.

If God is everywhere, then all things contain the highest truth. This seems contradictory, but God is beyond opposites. This is where the gap between opposites closes, where the gap between God and humans close. These ironies and conflicts are all moving us to the same approximate place, because God, does indeed work in mysterious ways. I think this blog is living proof. I’d like to think we are attempting to appeal to our own and other’s higher natures, albeit in a comic-tragic kind of way.

By RS

April 13, 2005 11:40 AM | Link to this

Tim: THANK YOU! What a compliment! Kimberly, you are so right! J. Marvelous, this is quite true & no exaggeration. I’ve always had gay friends (& now have 2 gay in-laws) so I know, believe me, about the unwarranted hatred & bigotry heaped upon you by intolerant ignoramuses. Plus, even as a straight person who’s never been your conventional June Cleaver type, I know firsthand about discrimination.

By Bruce

April 13, 2005 11:45 AM | Link to this

J Morris,

I do not sit in Judgement of you, I am trying to UNDERSTAND you but when I try to reach an understanding by asking questions I get this kind of flack. And another point, how can you change our minds if you aren’t willing to understand our side either. For the record I do not HATE you or anyone like you.

For two weeks in a row you have lost control with people on this forum. Funny thing is you blame them for it and all the while it is you that controls your anger. You allow yourself to get angry no one makes you do it.

Norman,

My apologies for my last post, however I have read where you have said death to all Christains.

By norman

April 13, 2005 11:46 AM | Link to this

Bruce: thanks for your loving Christian comments.

By Archie

April 13, 2005 12:05 PM | Link to this

RS, I am glad you referred to the today’s article on abstinence. People here don’t seem to care that much, as the article has stats to back up the opinion. The talk about religion is a waste except for when Brian says it’s not the law of land. Right on Brian. I say that even though I plan to go to church this Sunday. People definitely need driver training because christian folk I know break the speed limit regularly and you can make a strong inference that people will not follow the rules as far as when to have sex. I agree the view on no premarital sex is a religious one and I gave my view as to why that was put in place. It’s not the worst viewpoint to have but since some folk don’t believe or don’t follow even if they do believe in God you need to get some solid sex education which will include training about condoms. Condoms do break but as many have said no one is advocating that people in general have sex beyond control. I am from the safety group that believes in training about condoms and other devices but I abstinence is the best policy for teens and for some adults because their emotional makeup.

By J. Morris

April 13, 2005 12:06 PM | Link to this

Forgive me, Bruce, but I have never seen any kind of attempt for you to understand me or any other gay man or woman on the ‘blog. Mostly, you try to “understand” why we don’t come around to your point of view, which you believe is so apparent.

If you ask us questions they are along the lines of “Don’t you know that you are wrong?” or “Why don’t you change?”.

If you really wanted to understand, you would. You know, I have a number of fundamentalist friends who long ago came to the realization that I wasn’t any different, in ways that really matter, from them. They have sought understanding. They don’t let the tenets of their faith prevent them from believing that basically good people are still good people. I don’t think you can make that leap.

You say that only we control our anger, and to a point that is true, but in the face of unrelenting prejudice and, yes, judgement, we sometimes lose our tempers. It seems that you and your conservative friends like to ignore the nastiness that comes out of your own mouths, but react in horror if I give a little of what I get.

You know Bruce, I would LOVE it if you would really try to understand. It would make the world a much better place if we all tried to understand each other, but I don’t think you’re capable of it. As long as you hold to the idea that I am fundamentaly sinful, you will never be able to see me as anything other than a gay man who is going to Hell. You will never be able to see a person. That is the truth.

By Boscoe

April 13, 2005 12:19 PM | Link to this

Michael H, Why shouldn’t you read, think, or consider the possibility that the beliefs you were raised to believe are possibly wrong? Because by doing so I would be doing nothing but wasting my time. If this is dogmatism, so be it. Are you telling me honestly you have tried religion? Isn’t that willful neglect as Brian Curtis pointed out? Brian, have you made an honest attempt at religious life? Michael, your philosophers all have one thing in common - * They don’t believe in religion.* They are guilty of the very thing they, you, and Brian accuse me of, and that is not looking hard enough to determine if what I believe could possibly be wrong, when the reality is they don’t know for certain themselves that my beliefs are not indeed correct. What your philosophy suggests is that I haven’t looked hard enough until I have come o the conclusion that it is wrong. That’s a no win situation – either I’m wrong or I haven’t searched hard enough to convince myself of that. One way or the other I’m guilty. I can assure you by this point in my life I have asked enough questions to assure myself that I am correct, and yet I am not done searching to find out more which causes more questions, the answers of which strengthen my beliefs ever further. Michael, do you fail people who take this stand in your classes or are they nothing more than a forum to convince others that your beliefs, or lack there of, are correct?

By norman

April 13, 2005 12:24 PM | Link to this

Boscoe pays, prays, and obeys. He doesn’t think thinking is necessary. In other words, a fine Christian.

By J. Morris

April 13, 2005 12:25 PM | Link to this

Archie, good points. Though, I think that religion does have an impact on the argument. The Religious Right has launched an assault on condom use. You may have noticed Zack’s earlier comments, where he declares unequivocally that condoms have been proven not to work on almost all STDs. Baseless claims, but the more the RR shouts it, the more people who are uninformed start to believe.

As with everything else, if the facts don’t support their arguments, the Religious Right manufactures them.

By RS

April 13, 2005 12:28 PM | Link to this

Archie, I’m glad you read the article, as well as responding to it with an extremely high level of understanding, but having read your posts for a long time, I’d expect no less from you. I agree with everything you said but let me also add that aside from emotionally, teens are also unable to handle the consequences of sex, for practical purposes, i.e. raising the children born of their unions. J Magnificent, give up; there is no way you, or any of us, will ever convince the “ilk” that you are a human being & not some depraved sex maniac doomed forever to the pits of H—-. I do not think that wishing someone dead makes you a horrible person; after all, are you ACTING on it? No. It makes you an honest, human person. We all have these feelings from time to time but few of us are man/woman enough to admit to it. And as you’ve stated, if you have to deal with blatant hatred on a daily basis just for being the person God made you, who can blame you for feeling the way you do? Oh! Lola, if you grace us with your presence again on this particular forum, which I hope you do, I’d like to comment on something in a post of yours from yeterday that I’d forgotten to mention; you’d stated that while you don’t feel it’s always necessary/practical to wait for marriage, it’s a good thing to save that “first time” with someone you love and who loves you. I AGREE! Unfortunately, that is not always feasible. I wasn’t with anyone who loved me till I was 39. The (relatively) few I’d been with until then had been men I loved, or at least, thought I did at the time. Because my feelings were not returned, I was hurt, yes indeed. But I was feeling what I was supposed to feel & am not responsible for what anyone else feels toward me. That is something beyond my control.

By zack

April 13, 2005 12:31 PM | Link to this

Since gays spread AIDS why not put them in concentration camps?

By JohnR

April 13, 2005 12:32 PM | Link to this

Why should the Government teach sex education? Because it has a responsibility to protect the health of the community. No one seems to have a problem with anti-drug propaganda, or anti-smoking propaganda, and indeed both are health related issues. Teaching abstinence alone is not only absurd, but unrealistic. The reason we need to teach kids about sex in a frank, open manner is because it apparently doesn’t get taught at home. It’s also an economic issue as a percentage of unwanted teen pregnancies will end up being paid for and supported by the government. That means you and me. And even without the Government’s paternalism, disease, and unwanted pregnancy winds up costing all of us. This issue is not about morals, it’s about public health. Shaunti and her ilk would be wise to take off the blinders and see the world as it has ALWAYS been.

By J. Morris

April 13, 2005 12:32 PM | Link to this

If Michael is teaching a class on Philosophy and Ethics, he would be exactly right to fail someone who refused to even read the required texts. The mark of a good scholar is not that he holds to his guns, it’s that he’s willing to question.

It’s laughable that you think that because someone’s beliefs don’t match your own that they have none. How arrogant.

By Larry Fish

April 13, 2005 12:34 PM | Link to this

We make it up? WOW. You will say anything to convince yourself that your sick and twisted animal traits are OK won’t you? Medical science has proven that your actions as a rump ranger are detrimental to yourself and the rest of us. Made it up, what a moron!

By Scott

April 13, 2005 12:37 PM | Link to this

How does every topic at some point in this blog revert to Christian v. Non-Christian, Religious v. Secular, Gay v. Hetero?

Each side says they don’t hate the other but it is obvious that isn’t true by the statements.

While I can’t say I have ever agreed with Norman, at least he doesn’t try to whitewash his hatred toward Christianity. He’s honest if nothing else

By Eirik

April 13, 2005 12:41 PM | Link to this

Norman,

I have been reading more about this time period, but most of it has been on the web. You appear well read on the subject. Any unbiased books that you would recommend? By unbiased I mean unbaised as to Christian or Jewish influences. I’d really like to find a purely historical take on what was going on with these people.

The reason I ask, is that the article I read (I need to find that website) also noted that there is no historical evidence to the existence of the Christian version of Jesus..no writings, no Roman records, nor artistic depictions that can be dated to the actual time of Jesus Christ. All of these, aside from the Gospels, appeared a few hundred years later. I’ve also read that James, Joseph, and even Jesus were common names of the time. I’m also under the impression, perhaps incorrect, that there are no documented writings that can actually be attributed to Jesus himself.

You state that Jesus, albeit a non-deity, did exist as a historical figure…what leads you to believe that?

By the way, I have no personal investment in this, just intellectual curiosity, and I am sincere in my questions, which anyone reading is welcome to address (Since you can’t discern intonation, voice inflection etc from a post, I don’t want to appear as if I’m being snide)

And yes I realize it’s off topic…sorta.

By J. Morris

April 13, 2005 12:41 PM | Link to this

Thank you Larry. You have continued a long-standing trend of hatred and prejudice. By the use of phrases like “rump runner” and sick and twisted, you have proven to be a truly compassionate Christian. And, by the claim of “medical science has proven” you have proven my point.

Keep up the good work, Larry. God loves you, I’m sure.

By Lyrazel

April 13, 2005 12:44 PM | Link to this

Ok, would I watch the Dr. Tim Show? Cant stand self-help gurus, sorry. They always remind me of laid off Human Resources people who making a living off suckers by giving their PT Barnham imitations. Now I might watch the show the day Boscoe, chuck, norman and all ilk were brought on because the rip roaring goat bleating insults that continue to be a laugh-a-minute exercise in futility. Would be curious Dr. Tim to hear your opinion some time about the Bishop from the Episcopal Church and the Angelican backlash. Europe cant take such liberalism. Interesting twist for most here believe Europe as left of the left.

I guess, to be blunt, I do not care what anyones belief is. I step into this fray to discuss current events and try to stay on topic—relent every week because of this thing ya-all have about one-uping other peoples belief systems. In its own way reading the hate and hurtful comments it has enlightened me about tribulations of people who have turned their lives toward jesus—and congregations who shout—FOUL. Wrong type of person to believe in MY GOD>AT MY CHURCH>MY o whatever, constantly chewing out other believers of said gospel for not being perfect. You are like cats running in circles chasing their tails…its fun to watch…but silly.

Here is a statistic I pulled out of todays AJC. Anyone care to still debate the issue?

A sex education course used for the first time in DeKalb County middle schools this year emphasized the importance of just saying “no.” But “no” is also what a band of DeKalb parents said to school officials after discovering that the Choosing the Best sex-ed curriculum focused only on abstinence, ignoring any mention of contraceptives and their critical role in preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. …DeKalb school officials listened and have dropped the program. Repeated studies have found that abstinence-only programs are ineffective in either delaying sexual experience among teens or protecting them from disease. To the contrary, several studies link the programs to higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases among teens. A study in the April issue of the Journal of Adolescent Health, found that teens who pledge to remain virgins until marriage are more likely than others to engage in oral and anal sex, which increases their risks of sexually transmitted diseases. Teens taking the pledges were also less likely to use condoms during their first sexual experience or undergo testing for diseases once sexually active. …the Bush administration, which is pouring $131 million into such programs this year. Choosing the Best, for example, received a three-year federal grant for nearly $1.5 million in 2001 and won another three-year grant for $2.4 million last year to serve eight Georgia districts, including DeKalb. Thank you.

By Akeya

April 13, 2005 12:45 PM | Link to this

I can only assume that Larry attends the same elementary school as Rocky and Chuck.

By norman

April 13, 2005 12:47 PM | Link to this

Eirik: there are so many books……..

Try Karen Armstrong, The History of God. Paul Johnson, History of Christianity.

By Seaborn

April 13, 2005 12:51 PM | Link to this

J Morris,

I believe Limpy like a fish said “Rump Ranger”.

I think I might use that as a screen name on a few other “select” web sites.

Kidding…I’m just kidding….but how else to you respond to such an idiot? (Larry the fish that is, not you J)

By Akeya

April 13, 2005 12:51 PM | Link to this

Lyra- Add the millions of dollars that the gov is using to fund that program to the millions of dollars per year used to pay for the food stamps, Section 8 and TANF benefits families receive and we could build a whole new America.

I have one family in which we pay 1500.00 per month for her rent, send her a check for 169.00 per month for utilities, and she receives 1571.00 per month in food stamps. She’s 35 with 14 children! She’s not the only one that we have like that. WE have several more who have passed the 5 child mark with less than 6000.00 per year income.

By Scott

April 13, 2005 12:53 PM | Link to this

JMorris - It would be reasonable to fail someone who did not read the required text for any class they took, including Philosophy and Ethics. Having taken classes like that before as part of my college major, I read the texts, did well in the class, and answered the questions correctly based on the info given to me. But that doesn’t mean that I bought in to every philosophy. Philosphy is not an absolute science but a discussion. Yes a student should learn the material, but that shouldn’t mean they have to agree with it.

By Sandy

April 13, 2005 01:00 PM | Link to this

Not believing in religion is not the same as not believing in God, divinity, creator, or intelligent design, etc. Religion is a human institution, subject to the frailties of being human. In Buddhism, this is referred to as confusing the finger pointing at the moon with the moon.

Religion is the vehicle, God is the destination. If your vehicle is used to wound others (karma running over dogma, so to speak), or not used to alleviate pain and suffering, then it’s not going to get you to God any faster (especially if you leave a body count).

The antidote to conflict is to try to understand that everyone is using their own truth and reality as best they can, with whatever they’ve got at the place that they are at. (Good sentiment, bad syntax.)

Even a broken watch is correct twice a day (assuming it’s not digital…) and God’s grace is going to reach for us on those rare occasions we are correct, even if it’s only by accident and for a microsecond, if our intention is to alleviate suffering in a selfless way. “How unwittingly we fall into God’s reach.—Chopra”

Perhaps this blog needs to differentiate the difference between compassion and pity.

I could (and have) taken an ego-based approach and say that I am trying to protect the fundamentalists from being manipulated by a governmental administration who will dump them and their causes when they are no longer useful. It’s insulting to phrase it like that. I make the effort to find the middle ground, to find out how we can alleviate suffering from both sides of the equation. It’s a way of thinking that is rarely considered or rewarded. Awareness and respect for others’ beliefs won’t come from slapping the crap out of each other… but by lifting each other up with understanding of what suffering is, the ways it is universal. To do this we need to dispense pity and/or disdain because one does not share our opinions. The dialogue begins when we can acknowledge another’s suffering without judgment.

By Jack

April 13, 2005 01:04 PM | Link to this

Though I don’t agree with many of Zack’s posts, unlike “J. Magnificent” Zack has never wished a horrible death on anyone as long as I’ve been reading this blog. JM you are an angry hateful man. You blame your hateful posts on the “bigots” of this blog. You really should look in the mirror. You can dish it out but you cerainly can’t take it. Its nice the ladies all love you but I hope none disagree with you or you will turn on them as you did with Crystal. By for now, don’t want to waste anymore of my thought processes on you.

By Bruce

April 13, 2005 01:05 PM | Link to this

J Morris,

OK have it your way and I’ll have it mine. We can agree to disagree. I do not think you are a bad person and as you said your friends had to come to that point so what makes you think I cannot. What brought them to an understanding? Did they just wake up one day with that wisdom or was it that they talked to you, listened to you, spent time with you, or was it that the light just came on? Do you really think getting angry with us will bring us around. Where is the tolerance you so demand of us J Morris?

By Tony

April 13, 2005 01:07 PM | Link to this

IT IS AGAINST THE LAW. No one can give permission to break the law. http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm

By Jack

April 13, 2005 01:20 PM | Link to this

Up until a couple of years ago, the age of concent in Georgia was 14. (Marryin Age, Uncle Jed)

By RS

April 13, 2005 01:20 PM | Link to this

J. Magnificent, God may love Larry Fish but I personally think he’s an ignorant doofus. Akeya: You poor dear; how frustrating to have to deal with that at work on a continual basis; how do you manage?? Always an eye-opener to know you & I work our posteriors off to support baby-popping trash like what you just described. Now you KNOW that’s the only reason she has so many kids, for the welfare benefits. Wouldn’t be surprised if they were by 14 different fathers either. Now THAT type of rampant, irresponsible rutting is what I call animalistic behaviour, not 2 consenting adults, either gay or straight, in a loving, committed relationship.

By Tim

April 13, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel… honestly I wouldn’t even watch Dr. Tim… I don’t watch Dr. Phil either… most the things I have heard on the show sound like common sense anyway

my thoughts on V. Gene Robinson are that I didn’t find any of the events very surprising… I was encouraged to see him become Bishop… but wasn’t surprised by the backlash… I honestly was more surprised to find a charasmatic church in the Atlanta area that accepts gays and lesbians (as well as see Carlton Pearon… from Oklahoma… begin to open doors to gay people)

By Michael H.

April 13, 2005 01:30 PM | Link to this

Hello Scott,

Neither Morris nor I ever claimed that one should have to “agree with” any particular philosopher or philosophical view as a course requirement or expectation. Let’s please be careful with the strawman arguments and not attribute views to people that they did not state and in fact reject. Given, that in any decently constructed philosophy course, the selected readings are on all sides of every philosophical issue that is discussed, it would be impossible to agree with everything that is required reading.

Philosophy is not a set of doctrines to be imparted to students. What is required of students is that they demonstrate that they understand the readings, the arguments, the issues, and why they matter. But if a student cannot tolerate the possibility of having some of their beliefs questioned in some assigned reading, then they should be discouraged from taking a philosophy course from anyone.

I tell my students from the first day of class and repeatedly throughout the semester: you aren’t required to accept anything you read here, in the end think for yourself and decide for yourself what to believe. The answers to philosophical questions are not in the back of the book (nor a sacred text I would add here for Boscoe’s benefit) and many students find that maddeningly inconclusive.

By Tony

April 13, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this

16-6-3. Statutory rape. Aug 8, 1997 (a) A person commits the offense of statutory rape when he or she engages in sexual intercourse with any person under the age of 16 years and not his or her spouse, provided that no conviction shall be had for this offense on the unsupported testimony of the victim.

(b) A person convicted of the offense of statutory rape shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 20 years; provided, however, that if the person so convicted is 21 years of age or older, such person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than ten nor more than 20 years; provided, further, that if the victim is 14 or 15 years of age and the person so convicted is no more than three years older than the victim, such person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

By rocky

April 13, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this

Yep. I’m back. Thank you to Akeya for requesting my return.

Larry, while maybe a bit more blunt than I am, makes a good point. If it weren’t for some degenerate in Africa feeling like he needed to “rump range” with a monkey, AIDS would have never been unleashed on the human race.

By Scott

April 13, 2005 01:43 PM | Link to this

MICHAEL H These are the statements I was refering to….

Michael, do you fail people who take this stand in your classes or are they nothing more than a forum to convince others that your beliefs, or lack there of, are correct?

If Michael is teaching a class on Philosophy and Ethics, he would be exactly right to fail someone who refused to even read the required texts.

Therefore, while the question was pointed to you, JMorris responded. Boscoe did not ask you if you would fail a student for not reading the required text, he asked you if you would do it for their beliefs. I am not putting words in anyone’s mouth and did not accuse you of forcing doctrine on anyone. If you re-read my post, you will see that I agree with your assessment of what should be required to succeed in a philosophy class. My point, while it seems to have been overlooked by you, is that disagreement was not the same as not reading the required text, as JMorris implied in response.

If you feel the need to rebuke me, I would appreciate it if you read the whole post.

Thanks

By Sandy

April 13, 2005 01:47 PM | Link to this

Monkeys bite. (First time I’ve ever needed to post that…)

By Scott

April 13, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this

Sandy - so do women if you can find the right one! LOL (sorry, couldn’t resist)

By Lola

April 13, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this

RS - I read your post about not finding a man who loved you until you were 39, and I understand where you’re coming from. It isn’t always realistic to wait until you find a mutual love, and as long as you felt giving up your virginity to the person you did was the right thing to do, then it WAS the right thing to do. As I mentioned yesterday, my first time was with a guy who turned out to be gay, so I’m certainly not one to preach about how important it is that someone saves it for the person they’ll marry! And you know, looking back, I should have probably figured it out when he wanted to highlight my hair and do my makeup for prom. :)

By Stan

April 13, 2005 01:55 PM | Link to this

You guys kill me with the rump ranger scenario. I have quite a few female friends that talk about how their ex-boyfriends have asked them to participate in some rump ranger activities. How many porn movies contain a scene that involves rump activities? It is not just the gays who participate in this activity.

As for AIDS, some medical lab created that disease. A huge mistake in germ warfare. People have been having sex for centuries.

By rocky

April 13, 2005 01:55 PM | Link to this

I don’t think the ranger was on the biting end of the monkey, if you know what I mean.

By rocky

April 13, 2005 02:00 PM | Link to this

Stan - where exactly did you get your information about AIDS being created in a lab? I’d love to see that article.

By Chip

April 13, 2005 02:01 PM | Link to this

A lab created AIDS??? Monkies bite??? Those are two of the most pathetic excuses I’ve ever heard. Must be what the “gay club” of Atlanta would like you to believe. If all of your club members practiced abstinence, maybe it wouldn’t be such an epidemic now.

By Sandy

April 13, 2005 02:04 PM | Link to this

You’re right, Rocky. You don’t think.

By rocky

April 13, 2005 02:09 PM | Link to this

Wow, Sandy. That sure was a clever response. I feel so put-in-my-place.

By Stan

April 13, 2005 02:11 PM | Link to this

Rocky, its called thinking. Do you honestly mean to tell me that the Christopher Columbus, etc. when they encountered the women in Africa, the New World, that they did not have sex with them. Oh, that’s right, they were practicing abstinence. That’s why there were no mulattos, mestizos, etc. during that time. No Indian Syphilis, etc. If anything, don’t you think that they would have encountered those diseases way before now? Hell, Europe divided Africa up and made colonies. But they weren’t in Africa having sex. No, of course not. That’s why there are no mulattos there either.

By Crystal

April 13, 2005 02:14 PM | Link to this

Jack, this forum hit the bottom of the barrel long ago and I don’t care to roll in the muck. No point in trying to relate to childish temper tantrums, insults and other insensibilities. You are level headed so hang in there. Maybe I will try again next week.

By J. Morris

April 13, 2005 02:18 PM | Link to this

Actually, Scott, I was refering to Boscoe’s statement that he wouldn’t bother to read anything that didn’t fit his views. He then went on to accuse Michael of using his class to advance an agenda and asked if he would fail him because of it.

I extraoplated from that that Boscoe would have refused to read assigned texts, and therefore should be failed. Absolutely, a good teached should encourage discussion, not demand orthodoxy.

Jack, I honestly wonder what your deal is. Were you so offended by the joke about your masculinity being threatened last week? Because since then you have been nothing but an a*. If you think that Zack has wished love and affection on everyone, you are being extremely selective in your reading. My anger is directed at those who deserve it.

Bruce, I am tolerant of you and people like you. I am not trying to change laws to ban you. I am not trying to prevent you from worshiping privately as you see fit. I am not trying to have your civil rights curtailed. I acknowledge that you have every right to exist. I don’t tell you that you’re going to hell, or call you a degenerate. If I get angry, it’s beacuse you, or if not you, people like you, do that all the time.

Jack’s selective reading aside, the nastiness and name calling and anger has not been one sided. Please refer to the truly vicious posts by Rocky and Chip and others just today to see why I get angry.

By Jack

April 13, 2005 02:21 PM | Link to this

Thanks Crystal. BTW Chip, monkeys do bite. Ask that old couple that were attacked by the two chimps they were bringing birthday cake to. Poor old man had all of his fingers and his testes bitten off.

By rocky

April 13, 2005 02:25 PM | Link to this

I actually take exception to your statement, JMorris. I have not written anything vicious. The information I gave about AIDS was something I have read many times and heard many times. I didn’t insult any group of people and I certainly didn’t say anything to be warranted as “vicious”.

By Akeya

April 13, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this

Tony- yeah, that website looks real credible with an advertisement for brothel at the top. If that’s the case, why not just fill the detention homes with kids who are having sex? According to what you posted they are breaking the law, so why not just lock them up?

RS- when I think of the unprotected sex she’s had I can’t help but wonder if there’s more going on inside her pants. But, I digress…

By RS

April 13, 2005 02:28 PM | Link to this

Lola: Glad to see you with us today! Wish I’d had someone like you to confide in when faced with the betrayal of the man I’d given my virginity to; this bears repeating-your daughter is very, very blessed to have you! As for the man who turned out to be gay; I certainly understand the relationship did not have the ideal outcome for you, obviously, but I’m sure he considered his friendship with you very special and treasured it for what it was. Girl, you are a trip! Your comment about the aforementioned gentleman wishing to do your prom hair & make-up reminds me of a joke I heard a long time ago (Tim, Seaborn & JM, I mean this with the most sincere affection!) Q) Did you hear about the pair of gay men who gang-raped a woman? A)One held her down & the other one did her hair

By Scott

April 13, 2005 02:30 PM | Link to this

JMorris - thanks for clearing that up and speaking to me in a decent manner. Too often it seems in this blog people resort to an overly defensive posture in what should be a debate/discussion forum

By RS

April 13, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this

Fundies: When you use derogatory terms such as “limp-wrist”, “rump ranger” “carpet muncher” “fudge-packer” etc, yes, I’D call that vicious.

By Bruce

April 13, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this

J Morris,

If you treat people you meet face to face the way you have treated those on this blog the last few weeks no wonder people treat you with disrespect. Respect is something you earn you cannot demand it. I am just a simple computer nut but it sounds like you don’t even respect yourself so you blame everyone else for all your problems. When and who promised you life would be a bed of flowers and all the world would bow at your feet? If you want respect earn it stop trying to change laws to make people respect you.

By Tim

April 13, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this

RS… that joke was as funny as what Lola said prior to that… hahahahaha :)

By smithy

April 13, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this

Actually, JohnR, it is NOT the government’s job to teach Sex Education to our children. You said The reason we need to teach kids about sex in a frank, open manner is because it apparently doesn’t get taught at home. So? That still doesn’t make it the government’s responsibility and it CERTAINLY doesn’t make it okay to put it into our public schools. Teachers today have enough to worry about with teaching kids ACADEMIC things. Sex education should be taught at home, and if it is not, that is the fault of the parents. Don’t subject my kids to the GOVERNMENT version of what needs to be taught just because there are parents out there who don’t educate their children about it. The GOVERNMENT version of sex ed does NOT align with my own beliefs and ethics, and I and I ALONE will decide what is taught to my children regarding sex.

By Seaborn

April 13, 2005 02:36 PM | Link to this

That’s funny Rocky, I used to work at the CDC in the office of HIV/AIDS and I never heard anyone give any credibility to that version…I guess because it’s not scientifically credible. What you said was offensive, and considering that you are making light of something I personally know to be nothing but a tragedy, I think vicious is an apt description. To repeat another jerk on this blog “Be a man”, stand by your statements, what do you care if we think you’re an a*hole.

By Jack

April 13, 2005 02:38 PM | Link to this

The joke last week didn’t bother me a bit. Like I said, you can dish it out but you can’t take it. I may be an a** to you but I call things like I see them. With the horrible death comment you made, you lowered youself below all who post on this blog. You are putting out a lot of BAD karma and it may come back to bite you in the a*.

By Lola

April 13, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this

RS - LOL!!! I hadn’t heard that one! And the saddest part about what I said regarding my makeup and hair for prom is that it’s 100% TRUE!! As for having someone to confide in, I certainly could have used a knowledgeable friend during some of my most difficult times, but I see it like this: all the adversity and challenges I’ve faced through my lifetime have developed me into the person I am today, and I wouldn’t be the same if things had happened differently. That may be me just consoling myself, but it really seems to me that life is full of lessons and it’s up to us to not only learn from them but to become stronger because we lived through them.

By Larry Fish

April 13, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this

MEDICAL EVIDENCE FOR JMorris Can’t you see the risk your taking for yourself? Homosexuals experience a wide range of bacterial infections, including gonorrhea, syphilis, shigella, and campylbacter. One study of homosexuals in New York city found that “… 64.3 percent of the [homosexual] men reported a history of gonorrhea and/or syphilis. American Journal of Epidemiology, 1992; Vol. 136 No. 6 The heterosexual community has also experienced many of these sexually transmitted infections — however it is generally on a smaller scale. Gonorrhea is strongly associated with homosexual behavior at a rate higher than heterosexual behavior. In a study published by the Canadian Medical Association Journal, “…gonorrhea was associated with urethral discharge … and homosexuality (3.7 times higher than the rate among heterosexuals). One study published in the New England Journal of Medicine reported, “At least 80 percent of homosexual men presenting to our sexually transmitted disease clinic with anorectal or intestinal symptoms were infected with one or more sexually transmissible anorectal or enteric pathogens. Such infections were also found in 39 percent of homosexual men presenting to the clinic without intestinal symptoms. G. Lamblia is a flagellate protozoan that causes giardiasis, which is a disease characterized by diarrhea. Harrisonís Principles of Internal Medicine reports, “In one New York Study, all nontraveled immunocompetent males with giardiasis were, in fact, homosexual. Both G. Lamblia and Entamoeba histolytica parasites can be transmitted through oral-anal intercourse, as they live in the stool. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that “the most powerful predictors of E. histolytica and G. lamblia infection was homosexuality. An article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association stated, “These studies indicate that immunosuppressed male homosexuals have a high prevalence of anal human papillomavirus infection and anal intraepithelial neoplasia, and this population may be at significant risk for the development of anal cancer. Homosexuals’ sexual behavior places them at high risk for this disease. The International Journal of Dermatology explains why: “In this high risk group [the gay male population], the predominant portal of entry of free and cell-bound HIV as well as the brunt of associated cofactors and opportunistic infections can be traced to both ends of the gastrointestinal tract (mouth and anus) and also the genitalia, which happen to be common sites for KS lesions in addition to their lymphatic watersheds.

By Michael H.

April 13, 2005 02:42 PM | Link to this

Hello Scott,

My comments were not intended as a “rebuke,” For clarification, I was referring to your last statement:

“Yes a student should learn the material, but that shouldn’t mean they have to agree with it.”

That seems to insinuate that “agreeing with the material” was possibly a course requirement or expectation by the instructor, depending on how “but” is interpreted.

I didn’t read Boscoe’s last post, he refuses to listen to or acknowledge anything that he disagrees with, and responds with personal attacks, and sermonizing, the sort of thing that I strive to keep out of my classroom.

In any case, I think we are both clear and no harm done.

By Tim

April 13, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this

Jack… if you want to point out everytime JMorris calls someone a name that is your business… I am just curious why you are not calling anyone else out? (not trying to attack… just wondering why it is only JMorris)

By Akeya

April 13, 2005 02:48 PM | Link to this

Larry Fish- the only thing you proved with that post was that we need to be teaching children more about protecting themselves. Why don’t you post the statistics nationwide? And while you’re at it, post it for heterosexuals.

By Lyrazel

April 13, 2005 02:50 PM | Link to this

Akeya—I know the poorest of the poor started out like me, but just would not take control of their own body, instead chose to be stupid. Its sad to feel the only remedy is mandatory birth control for any recipients (would not work). I want to scream sometimes when kids show up pregnant, dropped out of school at 12-14 because their over-30 boyfriends want them to—be available. To contrast we get mothers who did everything right—waited, got married, had kids and now are on welfare, husbands gone…

RS…very few mothers I get to see gave birth to children from the same fathers. Our newest generation, fyi 13-16 year old kids having are meth babies…we have about 20 in the area near Jessup. Lots of crack/meth addicts dont care who—just want a fix. I work with many that cry because the state took their kids away—still so strung out they vibrate—forgetting the fact they had gone to jail for selling their baby-formula coupons for a fix. But of course, these lessons of life are so unfit for todays public schools, only evil people fail, I guess….but birth control and safe sex promotes scurrilous lifestyles…

Thanks Tim—stay courageous and remain an example to many who choose to worship as they believe regardless of the audience.

By Jack

April 13, 2005 02:50 PM | Link to this

He wished someone on this post to die a horrible death. Can’t let that one go.

By rocky

April 13, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this

Seaborn - I happen to know first-hand the tragedy of losing someone to AIDS. My cousin died of AIDS seven years ago. How did he catch it? IV drug use and homosexual behavior. It’s not pretty, it’s not nice, and it is absolutely a tragedy. Which leaves me boggled as to why there is still so much unprotected and anonomous “sex” that goes on in the gay community and the straight community as well, for that matter.

I stand by everything I’ve said, and I couldn’t give less of a rat’s a** about what you think of me. I just thought the label of vicious was more harsh than necessary. But that’s fine. Call me whatever you’d like.

I do find it humorous that I’m being told to “be a man” by someone who thinks he’s a woman trapped in a man’s body.

By Tony

April 13, 2005 02:55 PM | Link to this

Akeya, Surely you would want everyone to be informed to what is and isn’t against the law. Abstinence is the law for children under the age of 16, any other advise given is contrary to the State of Georgia.

16-6-3 G * CODE SECTION * 10/15/99 16-6-3. (a) A person commits the offense of statutory rape when he or she engages in sexual intercourse with any person under the age of 16 years and not his or her spouse, provided that no conviction shall be had for this offense on the unsupported testimony of the victim. Source: http://www.ganet.state.ga.us/cgi-bin/pub/ocode/ocgsearch?docname=OCode/G/16/6/3&highlight=statutory|rape Source: http://www.legalethics.com/intra.law?law=State+Statutes Source: http://www.prairienet.org/~scruffy/f.htm Source: http://www.ganet.org/cycc/ssr.html Source: http://www.ganet.org/cgi-bin/pub/ocode/ocgsearch?docname=OCode/G/16/6/3

By JohnR

April 13, 2005 02:59 PM | Link to this

The GOVERNMENT has an obligation to protect the health of the nation, read your preamble ” promote the general welfare” mean anything to you? The rise of SDT”S aids, and teenage pregnancy warrant the GOVERNMENT to take steps to protect the rest of us. Just because parents don’t do their jobs doesn’t mean that the rest of us should suffer their irresponsibility. The GOVERNMENT has to ultimately deal with the consequences of irresponsible behavior, and as we are all the GOVERNMENT we have a stake in it as well. Get your head out of the sand.

By Chip

April 13, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this

My definition of vicious is having the government forcing me to accept your club. I could care less what people do in their own free time. But when you flaunt your choice of lifestyle in my face, and expect me to treat you differently because of your choice, it strikes a nerve. To somewhat get back on topic, I fully support abstinence being taught in school….it makes so much more sense, both morally AND medically, that saying being gay is ok.

By Akeya

April 13, 2005 03:01 PM | Link to this

Tony- once again, if it is the law why are you not pushing for children to be locked up when they break this law? Teaching them abstinence when they are supposed to be abstinent in the first place but are not practicing (or are practicing-depending on the way you look at it) is not working. Maybe they need to suffer the consequences of breaking the law.

By Barry Ratt

April 13, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this

for Larry:

The findings appear in the October issue of the journal Sexually Transmitted Diseases. Nearly half of all young American women could suffer from genital herpes by the year 2025 if nothing more is done to stem the disease’s spread, a new study contends.

As for young men, a group of U.S. and Canadian epidemiologists is estimating they won’t be much better off than their female counterparts. In less than three decades, 39 percent of males aged 15 to 39 could have herpes, the researchers predict.

The researchers estimate that 49 percent of women aged 15 to 39 will be infected with herpes simplex virus type 2 by 2025 if present trends continue. The associated medical costs would rise to $2.7 billion in 2025, from $1.8 billion in 2000.

The researchers’ predictions could indeed come to pass, but figuring out the trajectory of a disease is tricky business, says Frank Myers, an epidemiologist at Scripps Mercy Hospital in San Diego who was not involved in the study.

For example, some health experts in the 1980s predicted the rates of tuberculosis in the United States would level off or increase slightly if prevention budgets were cut. However, tuberculosis rates actually skyrocketed as HIV entered the picture and made thousands of people more vulnerable to the disease, Myers says.

In another example, experts predicted the HIV epidemic would keep growing rapidly, but they didn’t anticipate that gay men would adopt safer sex practices, he says.

By Jack

April 13, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this

Lets just give the govt all of our earnings and let them take care of everything. Then we can all take a “soma” holiday.

By Tim

April 13, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel… amen :) (that goes from everyone… Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc)

Jack… I understand that… but you had been on him (for lack of a better phrase) before that comment… just wondering why you were only pointing his out

rocky… oh you poor thing… let’s all feel sorry for you because you think it is harsh that someone said you were vicious… hmmmm let’s see… you tell a man that he thinks he is a woman trapped in a mans body… do you enjoy showing how stupid you really are or does that just come out naturally

By smithy

April 13, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this

That’s fine, JohnR. So let the GOVERNMENT distribute fliers to the homes of all Americans. Then the parents can decide whether or not the information conicides with the values and moral structure they wish to teach their children. When my children are in school, I will demand to see the curriculum of all their classes, and if I see anything on there regarding sex education, my child will not be in that class. Plain and simple. It’s not the GOVERNMENT’s job to decide what MY children will learn about sex and/or abstinence. You must be a liberal since you feel the GOVERNMENT’s job is to take care of everyone, no matter how intrusive it is on the people’s freedom of religion and belief.

By rocky

April 13, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this

I thought all you guys felt you were women trapped in a man’s body and THAT is why you seek love from another man. Is that not the case? That was the only thing that made some sense to me in trying to figure out why a man would possibly want to be with another man. Now I’m confused again. If that’s not the case, why DO you want to be with a man if you already ARE a man? I don’t get it.

By J. Morris

April 13, 2005 03:14 PM | Link to this

Jack, you were doing nothing but attacking every post I wrote all day monday and tuesday. I didn’t make my post about Chuck until the very end of the day yesterday. At least be honest with yourself if not with everyone else. In fact, I think you’ll find that YOU started the name calling. I said “Duh” and you responded with “you IDIOT”. Things went down hill from there. The gay discussion started when Chuck made a snide remark about “your chosen method”. God forbid I respond in kind.

Chuck - The difference between this blog and my life is that my friends and co-workers DON’T treat me with the kind of disrespect you do. The DON’T tell me how evil I am and how I am going to Hell. They DON’T judge me because I’m gay. Of course I get along with them. It’s not the people I know I’m worried about - it’s the rest of you, the Rockys of the world, who don’t think that making comments about disgusting gay people is offensive, or the Chucks who calmly tell you how you should just change if you don’t want to be judged, or the Zacks who suggest you should be put in a concentration camp.

And Bruce, I never claimed the world should bow at my feet. I DO demand that it doesn’t treat me or anyone else as a second-class citizen.

And just for the record, Jack - back to you - you’re right. I shouldn’t have wished death on Chuck. That was wrong, and after I had time to cool down I regreted it. I’ll guarantee you that Chuck doesn’t regret a single, ugly homophobic slur that has ever left his mouth.

Rocky - It amazes me that you could post the things you posted about gay people and then act offended when someone accuses you of being vicious.

By JohnR

April 13, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this

If that’s what you choose great, more power to you. If all parents were doing that there wouldn’t be a need for this type of education, and this topic would be moot. Unfortunately you would be the exception and not the rule.

And anyway, regardless of political persuasion unprotected sex costs the government a hell of a lot more than teaching teens how to have responsible sex, or the dangers of unprotected sex, or the need to practice abstinence does.

By Seaborn

April 13, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this

Rocky,

Well then we both have something in common.

I do find it humorous that I’m being told to “be a man� by someone who thinks he’s a woman trapped in a man’s body.

That describes someone that wants to be a transexual, and those people are overwhelmingly heterosexual. Gay men don’t desire to be women…in fact, aside from a cultural thing, there really isn’t much of anything feminine concerning gay men.

Like heterosexuals, the best way to stop promiscuity is for there to be social pressure toward monagamy. In fact, within gay culture there is some subtle pressure to settle down, or at least avoid unsafe promiscuity, but it’s rendered useless when the larger society makes no distinction between promiscuous homosexuals and those that desire to be in monogamous relationships. I mean, if you think I’m a degenerate no matter what, then I might as well enjoy myself. I personally don’t share that philosophy and have enjoyed a long, monogamous relationship with someone, but many gay people do have a “I’m damned if I do, damned if I don’t attitude”.

By rocky

April 13, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this

I’ve never been a big one on political correctness, and maybe my posts sound more harsh and blunt than I think they do, but my questions are honestly something I don’t know anything about. I don’t know any gay people and have no knowledge of what drives people to BE gay. So yes, I guess I’m gruff but I’m truly sincere in my questions as to why you want to be with a man. I simply don’t get it.

By J. Morris

April 13, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this

Chip. It’s not a club, and it’s not a choice, and we’re not flaunting anything. We have every right to be who we are and to expect equal protection under the law. We don’t want to be treated differently, as you suggest. We want to be treated exactly the same, and we aren’t. Guess what. We’re Americans too. You aren’t the only ones! I know that’s a surprise to you.

Rocky. No one really knows why some people are attracted to their own gender, but trust me when I say that it has nothing to do with being a “woman trapped in a man’s body”. Why do YOU feel an attraction towards women? I don’t mean WHAT do you find attractive about women - I mean, other than “I just do”, can you answer that question?

By rocky

April 13, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this

I haven’t called any of you guys degenerates, and I don’t know all what all the the different labels you go by mean: transexuals, transgender, transvestites, bisexuals, etc. They’re all just branches of the same devient tree. I suppose I’m just not educated on this topic like the rest of you are, so cut me a little slack. I’ve never considered myself a bigot but I’m sure being treated like one here.

By Jack

April 13, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this

Tim - After he displayed his true self by attacking Crystal as he did I thought it appropriate to push his buttons. And it was fun until the death comment. JM - ever see anyone die of AIDS? I have and I know what a horrible death looks like. I wouldn’t wish that on anyone. Shame on you. I don’t plan on attacking again unless you do.

By J. Morris

April 13, 2005 03:29 PM | Link to this

Seaborn, that’s an excellent point. There is that philosophy. Like you, I don’t share it. Heck, I’m not even a part of “mainstream” gay culture. I don’t live in a gay ghetto, pretty much all of my friends are straight - I want the same things most straight people want - a single, long-term monogamous partner to share my life. But there are gay people out there (and frankly, there are straight people out there like this to) who think that since society doesn’t want them to have a relationship, that they shouldn’t bother.

By rocky

April 13, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this

That’s an easy one to answer, JMorris. I’m attracted to women because they have all the physical traits and characteristics I DON’T have. Why would I be turned on by the exact same things I can find on my own body? It’s the fact that women have so many things on their bodies that I find erotic, and all the things I don’t have on my own. Does that make sense?

By J. Morris

April 13, 2005 03:33 PM | Link to this

Well see, Jack. That’s the thing - Crystal had done nothing but attack, attack, attack with every post she wrote. She didn’t even attack based on issues - she would just pop on and randomly insult people. Yeah, I got ticked off about that and let her know. So again - why was I the bad guy? Why were you not all over Crystal for HER behavior?

My true self? My true self has a temper. If you goad me over and over, I’m going to get mad. I think that makes me human. My true self also has a sense of remorse. I think that makes me human too.

By Chip

April 13, 2005 03:37 PM | Link to this

J Morris - do you see “straight” people running around, having Heterosexual Pride Festivals? No, you don’t. But watch out for the Gay Pride festival - THAT is my definition flaunting. Much like Black Pride month is OK, but White Pride anything is illegal as hell. But I digress. I’m not arguing your American status at all. This is a free country, and much like you choose to live your life the way you do, so do I, and it doesn’t involve going out of my way for the gay community. Sorry!

By kimberly

April 13, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this

Who was it that said: “The truth shall set you free?”

Why shouldn’t we tell kids the truth about sex, relationships (and different varieties thereof), and protection in school? What possible justification is there for teaching “Just say NO” when it’s our [collective] job to impart truth and knowledge to the younger generations, that they may carry on intelligently and empowered with what we already know? What possible justification is there for telling people to deny their own feelings — the truth that comes from inside that tells them who they want to be with?

By Seaborn

April 13, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this

Rocky,

I meant “you” in the plural sense. I believe the guy posting as Chuck used the word degenerate.

As far as your question as to why…I can’t speak for others, but I spent years asking that question and never came up with anything but “I don’t know”. But I can tell you, for me anyway, it has little to do with the equipment.

Anyway, at some point you just have to live your life.

By Lola

April 13, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this

kimberly, I’m going to have to respectfully disagree with you. I don’t feel it is the “collective” responsibility of everyone to teach my daughter about sex, protection, abstinence, whatever. It is MY job as her mother. I will be the one to impart truth and knowledge to her, not others who may not share my same points of view and belief system. She will know about these things from me WAY before she ever gets to high school, but I don’t think it is right for the school to decide what children should learn when it comes to sex. That is the place of the parents, not the community. Building a house may “take a village” but teaching children about sex/protection/abstinence takes a parent.

By Jack

April 13, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this

For the record: I consider marriage to be a religious event. Not a govt event. if two people of the same sex find a church or pastor or justice of the peace to marry them thats fine by me. The state should have nothing to do with it. In the absense of marriage, civil unions should be permitted. What changed my mind was when I heard stories of gay partners not being allowed in the intensive care unit of the hospital where their signifcant other is because they are not part of the immediate family eventhough they lived toghter for 20+ years. That is not right. Not at all. I am a Christian but I don’t think it is my place to tell others how to live their lives. God may not approve, but that is for him to decide.

By rocky

April 13, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this

You do have to live your life. You are absolutely correct. And as with anything, I guess sometimes you just don’t ever get all the answers. I can respect that. Thank you for the straight forward and honest answer, Seaborn. It is appreciated.

By Lola

April 13, 2005 03:52 PM | Link to this

I agree, Jack. I think civil unions should be legal, and I think the word “marriage” is what gets all the religious people up in arms. If they would simply call it something else, I doubt there would be such an outcry. I personally don’t see why two people who love eachother and want to make a legal commitment aren’t allowed to do so under the guise of a civil union. Seems to me that solution would make both sides happy.

By J. Morris

April 13, 2005 03:52 PM | Link to this

Chip, I think you’ll find that most gay people consider the rest of the year “Straight Pride Festival” and that many African Americans consider every month but February “White Pride Month”. Why are you so threatened by a minority group empowering itself, or celebrating the things that make it unique?

And, really - we don’t care if you “go out of your way” for us or not. We just want you not to get in ours.

By Tim

April 13, 2005 03:52 PM | Link to this

kimberly… that was Jesus… Mark 8:32… you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you feel :)

By Seaborn

April 13, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this

Chip,

Gay Pride exits for gay people to come together and reinforce the idea that we are not bad. Since gays are a minority population, the majority population (you heterosexuals) often tell us that we are bad, and that makes us feel bad…and we don’t want to feel bad so we find people that don’t make us feel bad. Now maybe you think we should feel bad, but we don’t, so we seek affirming associations. I assume your only exposure to a gay pride parade is from the news, and I’m sure you know that the news goes out it’s way to show the most flagrant displays. Sure, there are some people, usually from small repressive towns, that go overboard during Gay Pride. And the floats with guys wearing next to nothing don’t really do much to advance respect for gays, but the conundrum the organizers have with those types of displays, is how can we ask people to not judge us when we ourselves are judging. It’s a big issue whenever gay pride here in Atlanta rolls around. However, most of the people are there just to hang around, buy overpriced t-shirts and stand in line for a greasy corn dog. I don’t think they really expect you to go out of your way for them to endure that.

By norman

April 13, 2005 04:02 PM | Link to this

I know you all prefer to talk about sex, both the Cristers and the gays, but today the stock market tanked again because of oil prices taking away purchasing power for other things. The housing bust is just around the corner. Maybe what we need is a good depresssion — then we can find someone good to replace Bush-Hoover-Hitler.

By kimberly

April 13, 2005 04:04 PM | Link to this

Lola, As a mother as well, I agree that it’s my responsibility to teach my daughter what she needs to know. When I wrote “we, collectively” it was in the context of society, and the responsibility of the public schools to give children the facts, as per the question in the forum. Of course we, the parents, have the additional, crucial responsibility to impart values and directions for our children — instruction that is not so much the responsibility of individuals without children.

But as a society that, for the time being, makes public education available to all its members, we should, in my opinion, inject fact-based education whenever possible. Obscuring facts in the interest of promoting certain behaviors and feelings of guilt is a tradition best carried on in the home.

By RS

April 13, 2005 04:05 PM | Link to this

Tim, I knew you’d find the joke funny, I just wanted to clarify to y’all that I meant it affectionately. You can “rape” me anytime, I need a new hairdo; LOL! Lola; Nah, not sad at all; I bet you looked wonderful at your prom (BTW, I didn’t get to go to mine; back when I was in HS, it was mandatory to have a date otherwise you weren’t allowed to attend, even if you were a graduating senior who was already accepted to a college. Can we all say “unjust”?.) I wish we’d had each other to confide in at the time; I agree there’s an element of self-consolation but you ARE correct nonetheless & it IS a healthy attitude to have. Larry, I used to work with a lady who had a part time job with the Board Of Health & she showed me stats proclaiming there is more AIDS in low-income hetero communities than among gays. Lyrazel & Akeya; EXACTLY! Problems such as illegitimate meth/crack/AIDS babies & welfare abuse can, in many ways, be laid at the feet of fundies; they truly believe its’ in everyone’s best interest to let teens wallow in ignorance because teaching birth control is a “sin” but allowing these horrible tragedies to happen isn’t. Rocky: Despite the fact that I consider you a rather de-evolved knuckle-scraping Vanillaville denizen, at best, I nonetheless express my condolences at the loss of your cousin; I’ve seen what AIDS does & yes, it is unspeakably tragic & yes, as I just stated, straights are certainly not immune; immunity is the result of avoiding risky behaviour, not what one’s sexual orientation is. I guess I should cut you some slack, seeing that you, by your own admission, don’t know any gays. If you did, you’d see the majority are just like the rest of us, except that they are physically & emotionally attracted to their own gender. You would also come to realize that gays & lesbians are NOT pathetic freaks “trapped” in the bodies of the sex they are not supposed to be..That is not the definition of a homosexual; a homosexual is, as I just explained, a person physically & emotionally attracted to their own sex. Let me help you out with the other terms you asked about: Transgendered mens sexual reassignment (“sex change” in laymans terms). A transvestite is a man who, um, gets his jollies by wearing womens’ clothing. BTW, transgendered & transvestite folks are often hetero. A bisexual is anyone, male OR female, who is attracted to both sexes. Hope I’ve helped.

By Jack

April 13, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this

Norman Do you think Uncle Jimmy did a better job than “W”?

By J. Morris

April 13, 2005 04:08 PM | Link to this

Seaborn, glad you brought that “years wondering why” question up. I wonder if it would change the minds of the “it’s a choice” people if they realized how many gay kids spend years wondering “why me” or trying to conform to the expectations of their peers. I wonder if they would reconsider if they knew how many of us tried to form “normal” relationships with women so that we could fit it with everyone else.

You’re right - eventually you have to stop trying to change and live your life. Want to know why so many gay teens kill themselves or turn to drink and alcohol? Because they can’t make that step and don’t have the support structure to allow them to make that step.

The whole concept of “choice” cracks me up. It’s kind of like that commercial with the two guys at the diner, where the one guy pours condiments and dumps various food all over the one sandwich and asks the other guy which one he’d prefer. Naturally, he says “I’ll take the tuna” (The clean - “normal” - sandwich”. The other says “Actually, the tuna is mine”. So let’s say being straight is the tuna - normal, no complications, no problems. Who is going to actually choose the sandwich covered in crap?

My father always poses this question to his Honors courses “Tell me when YOU chose to be straight”. They can never answer the question.

By norman

April 13, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this

No Jack, I didn’t vote for Carter either time and I don’t think he did a good job. That has nothing to do with W who has not done a good job on any front, including international affairs. But the real reason I hate Bush is of course his religion.

By RS

April 13, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this

P.S. Rocky, no one knows WHY some of us are born gay, others straight & others bi. I’m straight but I never viewed my orientation as being attracted to people who have body parts I don’t; I just like what I like. Chip; JM & Seaborn hit the nail on the head explaining why there is “Gay Pride” but not “Straight Pride”.

By Jack

April 13, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this

When my children asked me why there wasn’t a “White History” month, I told them every month was white history month.

By ravitchn

April 13, 2005 04:17 PM | Link to this

I also hated Carter’s religion. Reagan had no religion, I knew he was a secret non-believer. His son Ron has publicly said that he, Ron, was an atheist. Runs in the family, perhaps.

By Randy

April 13, 2005 04:19 PM | Link to this

Norman, You must hate every president we have ever had, they were/are all fundemental Christians, except for Nlxon who was Morman.

By smithy

April 13, 2005 04:19 PM | Link to this

I think the black people should be HAPPY they get an entire month to celebrate. I’m Irish and we only get one day!

By Randy

April 13, 2005 04:21 PM | Link to this

Reagan was one of the most devout Christians, we have ever had as president. Norman makes up stuff that he wants to believe. Norman do you even believe the stuff you post? If you do, you must live in la-la land.

By Jack

April 13, 2005 04:23 PM | Link to this

We can only handle green beer for 1 day! LOL

By Brian Curtis

April 13, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this

quote: “I’m attracted to women because they have all the physical traits and characteristics I DON’T have.”

Rocky, by that logic, you should feel an even stronger attraction to a female caribou. Or a maple tree. They have even fewer traits in common with you, after all. (Maybe all those Star Trek human-alien pairings were on to something.)

As for being labeled a bigot and the “I’ve never posted anything vicious” routine: Let’s review, shall we?

On this forum alone: ROCKY: “gays “flauntingâ€? their disgusting lifestyle” ROCKY: “raving flamers” ROCKY: “disgusting and unnatural” ROCKY: “you and your fairy friends” ROCKY: “If it weren’t for some degenerate in Africa feeling like he needed to “rump rangeâ€? with a monkey, AIDS would have never been unleashed on the human race.” (That would be a specific instance of you calling someone degenerate, which you recently denied.) ROCKY: “transsexuals, transgender, transvestites, bisexuals, etc. They’re all just branches of the same devient[sic] tree.”

Gee, where could someone have gotten the impression you were bigoted and vicious?

By kimberly

April 13, 2005 04:28 PM | Link to this

Reagan a devout Christian? HAHAHAHAHA! That’s a good one! Hahahahaa! “Homeless people in the park? Let ‘em eat CAKE!” HAHAHAHA!

By Brian Curtis

April 13, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this

quote: “Norman, You must hate every president we have ever had, they were/are all fundemental Christians, except for Nlxon who was Morman.”

Incorrect again, Randy. Just about all our presidents were religious to varying degrees—most of them Christians after the deist movement died out—but only a very few were fundamentalists (i.e., stupid, dangerous, and evil) like our current squatter in the Oval Office.

Carter, for example, was a Christian of fairly decent behavior. Ditto for Ford, Kennedy, and many others. They all recognized that their faith was a private matter and did not belong in government, or vice-versa. Even Reagan, for all his faults (and there were many), never tried to institute a directly fundamenalist Christian oligarchy in our government.

I can’t speak for Norman, but one of my personal disagreements with Gee Dubya is his religion—his specific, wild-eyed, raving fundamentalist religion, which has nothing to do with actual Christianity.

By J. Morris

April 13, 2005 04:33 PM | Link to this

Randy, Carter and Clinton may be Baptists, but they aren’t fundamentalists. Bush Sr. is an Episcopalean - also not fundamentalist. And Nixon was a Quaker, not a Mormon. Again, not fundamentalist. Ford is also not a fundamentalist. In fact, the only evangelical fundamentalist Christian President we’ve had as long as I’ve been alive is W.

By Jack

April 13, 2005 04:40 PM | Link to this

Norman - What turned you so dead against religion? Hope you weren’t abused by a member of the clergy. If you were whoever did it should join Satan.

By norman

April 14, 2005 07:29 AM | Link to this

Eric Rudolph says he did his evil deed to protest abortion. I am also against abortion but I don’t plant bombs. This case demonstrates the evil perpetrated by groups and ideologies, yes including religion, which incites people to violence on behalf of good causes. Many years ago Eric Hoffer in a book on True Believers observed that fascists, communists, Christians (and we may add Muslim and Jewish fanatics) all share one thing in common: a willingness to do evil for the sake of some perceived good. What they all have in common also is irrational faith. Faith of this sort is the most evil thing we have to fear.

Many of those posting here scare me to death. They are potential Eric Rudolphs.

By Tony

April 14, 2005 07:41 AM | Link to this

You don’t miss an opportunity do ya Norman? So ur fishing for some guppies today r ya, Good Luck. I sthink the anti-ilk crowd will agree with ya! Maybe not?

By Tony

April 14, 2005 07:52 AM | Link to this

Oh! By the way Norm, stink bait will only catch catfish! Too wormy for me! You might want to cast that broad net ur using on the other side of your fishing boat.

By Eugene Diamond M.D.

April 14, 2005 07:59 AM | Link to this

Men and women experiencing same-sex attraction may rightly feel that they “have always felt different,� but that doesn’t mean they were born that way. Children are born either male or female, but they have to learn what it means to be a man or a woman. They have to identify with � and be accepted by � their parents and peers. If they are going to grow up psychologically healthy they have to feel safe and comfortable with their masculinity or femininity. If, for whatever reason, they fail to pass successfully through this essential developmental stage, they may in adolescence develop same-sex attractions. There has been a massive campaign to hide this information from the general public and from those who sincerely wish to be free from same-sex attraction. In 2000, Dr. Robert Spitzer of Columbia University, who had been instrumental in the removal from the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of homosexuality as a diagnosis in 1973, was challenged by men and women healed of their same sex attractions (SSA) that change is possible. Spitzer interviewed 200 men and women claiming to have achieved significant change and found that 60% of the males whom he studied identified themselves as heterosexual 5 years after their treatment ended. Most of those who were successful also participated in faith based support programs (Throckmorton, 2002). The road to freedom, however, is long and arduous. For many individuals, it is often accompanied by other serious psychological problems and addictions. Three recent well designed studies (Fergusson, Herrell, and Sandfort) have shown that persons with SSA suffer from other psychological problems at a rate substantially higher than those without SSA. Some of these problems, such as pathological narcissism and borderline personality disorder are very difficult to treat. Additionally, men with SSA are more likely to suffer from substance abuse problems, sexual paraphilias, and sexual addiction. Such problems complicate recovery. Also, men with SSA are more likely than other men to have a history of childhood sexual abuse (CSA). While arriving at an exact percentage is difficult, some experts suggest that about 16% of all men have experienced CSA. Several studies of men self-identified as homosexual revealed that 40% had a history of CSA. Given the high level of long term psychological problems associated with a history of CSA, it is not surprising that men with SSA have numerous problems. Many people sincerely believe that scientific research has produced conclusive evidence that homosexuality is a genetically inherited condition, determined before birth, and cannot be changed. In fact, no such evidence exists. Several studies have been promoted in the media as providing the “proof,� but when one reads these studies, one discovers the authors do not even claim to have presented such proof. There is no verifiable evidence that same-sex attraction is genetically determined.

By Boscoe

April 14, 2005 08:02 AM | Link to this

Norman, Eric Rudolph never claimed any religious affiliation. He only said he was an anti-Semite.

By Brian Curtis

April 14, 2005 08:22 AM | Link to this

Gee, Dr. Diamond sure is an unbiased source, isn’t he?

Apparently, homosexuality (in Dr. Diamond’s view) is “psychologically unhealthy” and many people “wish to be free/healed of it.” In other words, he assumes it’s a disease or disorder. And what evidence does he present for this opinion, hmm? ZERO.

He trots out evidence that claims homosexuality may not be genetically determined, mind you… but he utterly fails to explain why it should be viewed as a DISEASE rather than a trivial difference such as red hair or left-handedness.

Why is it so hard for some to accept that being gay is not a sickness in search of a cure? We don’t try to “cure” left-handed people, or “fix” short people, or help Asians overcome their “terrible affliction.” Being gay should generate the exact same amount of concern and pity (or hatred and desire to exterminate it) as these other traits: that is, none at all.

By Brian Curtis

April 14, 2005 08:24 AM | Link to this

By the way, Dr. Diamond has once again strayed from the topic (as many have) to indulge in a little gay-bashing.

The topic, on the other hand, is about sex education and whether it should be abstinence-only. Not gays, not “activist judges,” not Terry Schiavo.

By Lyrazel

April 14, 2005 08:31 AM | Link to this

Sorry but I agree with norman. Watching the fundamentalists rant OUR WAY TO GOD has put a dread of believers in me. I dont see anything good coming from the fat cat fundies in Washington using their faith to bypass long established civil-liberties and social programs. Just what, please, has all these loud christian groups done beyond destroying a prosperous and compassionate country into making it as bipolar as a zoloft junkie? There is more hate—more intrusive laws—more legislators with shady ethics and they are playing their scams with a bible in tow just for PR. We have accumulated so much debt as a nation OPEC has abandoned the dollar/we owe trillions to Asia/closed most American factories and businesses; but the Levis, JP Stevens, Halburton and ilk still get major tax breaks. Pharmacutial and private interest now write legislation for Medicaid and Medicare—with policy so vague it benefits only pharmacutical companies not patients. Fearless Leader understands Americans will listen to flatulence based on theories rather than fact. As far as leaving America a better country the recent expansion of fundamentalists billionairs have destroyed the America I loved! At least before we didnt stage massive demonstrations at hospices, blow up clinics, nations and ……I just paid my taxed! Damn straight I am angry!

As far as fearing the folks in this forum, norman get a life!

By rocky

April 14, 2005 08:34 AM | Link to this

Spare us your sanctimonious blather, Brian. You haven’t exactly stuck to the topic either, as illustrated by your blog about me. Get back to us when you’re not a hypocrite. In other words, never.

By Brian Curtis

April 14, 2005 08:38 AM | Link to this

Feeling a bit stung, Rocky? Good; bigots deserve it.

Or is it just the fact that a fellow gay-hater’s getting criticized that bothers you?

By rocky

April 14, 2005 08:39 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel - The clinic bombing happened under Clinton’s administration, not Bush’s. And the “well established social programs” were enacted when the lefties controlled the senate and house. That’s no longer the case and yes, they are finally being undone. They have stopped taking from the productive to redistribute to the unproductive, which is NOT capitalism. And capitalism is what this country’s economy is based on. If you want a socialist society, move to France or Canada. They stand for nothing, but they will give everyone “free” healthcare.

By Lyrazel

April 14, 2005 08:44 AM | Link to this

*The road to freedom, however, is long and arduous. For many individuals, it is often accompanied by other serious psychological problems and addictions. *

So, dont let them be gay—let them be junkies, thats ok! What a load of malarky tooting for pharmacutical sales of zoloft! Who paid this for study? Pfizer?

60% of the males whom he studied identified themselves as heterosexual 5 years after their treatment ended. Most of those who were successful also participated in faith based support programs

Guess lebians never changed because these great statistics never bother quoting lesbian turnaround.

men with SSA are more likely than other men to have a history of childhood sexual abuse—no doubt done by other gay men with SSA—but not heterosexual family members, members of celibate clergy, or their ilk…

O its a laugh a minute at WtoW! Thanks! Doc!

By rocky

April 14, 2005 08:47 AM | Link to this

LOL! If you think your opinion of me means jack sh*t to me, you are sadly kidding yourself. Maybe being gay isn’t a disease, but it certainly isn’t normal by standards of society. I don’t understand it. That said, there are some very nice gay men on this blog (James, Seaborn, Tim), and I respect them for their honesty here, but you’re definitely not one of them and you disgust me. Take your ridiculous self-righteous attitude and stick it straight up where I’m sure you’ve had numerous other objects stuck before.

By norman

April 14, 2005 08:48 AM | Link to this

Boscoe: if Rudolph said he was an anti-semite then he was a Christian. At a YMCA convention in Budapest in the 1930’s Dictator Admiral Horthy gave a welcoming speech in which he said it was wonderful to see so many anti-semites gathered together!

By Lyrazel

April 14, 2005 08:51 AM | Link to this

I aint moving anywhere Bubba Rocky…staying here to elect a socialist liberal president who ends the massive pentagon war machine and funds libraries, clinics schools, and senior care! Yeah the bombing happened—back then—but Clinton didnt bring deaths of thousands of americans citing false information—Clinton should have been arrested for sexual-harassment in the workplace. Nuff said.

By smithy

April 14, 2005 08:53 AM | Link to this

Actually, norman, you’re wrong. Anti-semites are not necessarily Christian. There are plenty of muslims who are anti-semites as well. The majority of them, as a matter of fact.

By Brian Curtis

April 14, 2005 08:54 AM | Link to this

Thanks for making your bitterness and hatred more obvious, Rocky. It makes it easier for the intelligent posters to ignore you.

“It’s not normal and I don’t understand it.” While I don’t doubt your lack of comprehension for a moment, why exactly should anyone give a damn whether it’s “normal by society’s standards”?

And do you have any comments about sex education, just for a breather between your gay-hating rants? Didn’t think so.

By Jack

April 14, 2005 08:58 AM | Link to this

Norman is right about the need to fear zealots. more people have been killed in the name of God than for any other reason.

By Randy

April 14, 2005 08:58 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel, If you can’t see that Christianity is a good positive move for anyone who accepts it, I for one don’t want you to do anything against your will. What do you people think Christianity is, something that restricts your thoughts, liberities etc? It has never restricted my thoughts, liberties etc. What it does do is, make it so I don’t need things that are not good for me in the long run(alcohol, drugs, disfunctional family,). Can I still do these things and Jesus forgive me? YES, I can, his love is unconditional, but I don’t need them. I am completely happy and satisfied. Will my life be perfect, No, but it’s close. We Christians don’t discuss with non-Christians on this site to control them, we do it out of love. Sometimes it may seem like hard-love, but it is love never the less.

By Brian Curtis

April 14, 2005 08:59 AM | Link to this

Good comment, Lyrazel! Yes, liberals need to stay right here and elect a properly liberal, progressive president who will stamp out these fundie idiots once and for all—by sticking to the actual laws of the land, rather than trying to overthrow them and set up a “Christian nation.”

Liberals are the real patriots—AND the true Christians, for that matter. I seriously doubt the patriotism of any self-identified Republican, and I know for damn sure that “Christian conservative” is an oxymoron. It’s long past time for REAL Americans and REAL Christians to be heard.

By rocky

April 14, 2005 08:59 AM | Link to this

You liberals crack me up. You have no concept of prevention, only reaction. The war in Iraq wasn’t only about WMDs, which Saddam DID have and which were moved into Syria before we got there. It was also about removing the threat of what MIGHT happen BEFORE it happened. That means getting rid of those who fund and train terrorists (i.e. Saddam). But all we ever hear from your side is that our beloved President lied, which is in itself a lie. The definition of a lie is purposely giving false information while having a full knowledge that it is not true. That is not what happened and no matter WHAT the reasons were, going into Iraq was the right thing to do, and has brought freedom to MILLIONS of people who otherwise would have remained oppressed. Not to mention the WAVE of democracy that is now spreading through not only Iraq but the entire Middle East. If that endeavor cost us the lives of a thousand Americans who served their country proudly and felt honored to be a part of such a noble mission, then it was worth it.

By Randy

April 14, 2005 09:00 AM | Link to this

Norman, I’m a Christian and I am not a anti-semite. Violence is never right.

By Chip

April 14, 2005 09:01 AM | Link to this

Brian - I think I see how this works. You ram your philosophies down peoples throats and when it doesn’t sit well with them (not everyone approves of homosexuality, me included), then suddenly everyone is a bigot or gay basher. It is ok to NOT like agree with a lifestyle choice, you know.

By rocky

April 14, 2005 09:02 AM | Link to this

Sure I do. I think it’s not the business of the government to educate my children about sex. It’s my busines and I will handle it. It doesn’t matter. My children won’t be in public schools, so it’s a moot point. And yes, my children will be taught abstinence.

By Stan

April 14, 2005 09:09 AM | Link to this

Rocky, you mention prevention and reaction. Hey, last time I checked, Bush was a reaction kind of guy. We get bombed by people from Saudi Arabia (not one of the people on the plane was Iraqi), and we invade Iraq. Uh, okay. Let me get this right. If my neighbor to my left blows up my toolshed. I know that he did it. But I go to my neighbor on the left, beat the crap out of him. What sense does that make?

Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, they all hate americans. Why was it Iraq that we invaded?

By Eugene Diamond M.D.

April 14, 2005 09:09 AM | Link to this

Excuse me, Ms. Lyrazel, but I, unlike you, AM a medical professional. The post was an attempt to mitigate false information about the nature of homosexuality. I participate in an organization which attempts to reach these people, both homosexual men and lesbians, and assist them with their problem. This was not a plug for Pfizer.

By Stan

April 14, 2005 09:10 AM | Link to this

Rocky, you mention prevention and reaction. Hey, last time I checked, Bush was a reaction kind of guy. We get bombed by people from Saudi Arabia (not one of the people on the plane was Iraqi), and we invade Iraq. Uh, okay. Let me get this right. If my neighbor to my left blows up my toolshed. I know that he did it. But I go to my neighbor on the right, beat the crap out of him. What sense does that make?

Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, they all hate americans. Why was it Iraq that we invaded?

By Jack

April 14, 2005 09:10 AM | Link to this

The democrats lost the election because they think the general public is stupid. It was quite obvious when their main man would say whatever he thought would sound good at the time. No new ideas. Anybody but Bush. Bush may not be the best man for the job as Hannity & his folks say but he was the best of two evils.

By norman

April 14, 2005 09:10 AM | Link to this

When I hear a Christian talk about love I want to reach for my gun. (But I don’t have a gun, not being a Christian.)

By Brian Curtis

April 14, 2005 09:12 AM | Link to this

quote: “You ram your philosophies down peoples throats and when it doesn’t sit well with them (not everyone approves of homosexuality, me included), then suddenly everyone is a bigot or gay basher.”

Yes, exactly. I’m glad you understand. Why should it be OK to “not approve of homosexuality,” exactly? What would you think of someone who says, “I don’t approve of blacks” or “I don’t approve of Mexicans”? That’s bigotry, and bigotry is NEVER okay.

Being gay has NO bearing on what kind of person you are. There are generous gays and stingy ones; friendly and unfriendly gays; pleasant and annoying gays; open-minded and narrowminded gays. Homosexuality has NO relation to whether someone is a good person—except in the eyes of a few raving, fundamentalist bigots. (And yes, fundamentalism DOES affect what sort of person you are, unlike being gay.)

If only Jesus had taught “live and let live” more explicitly, we wouldn’t have this constant sniping and screeching about the supposed Evils of Them Durn F*. But for now, we DO have such bigotry—and it should be confronted, opposed, and ridiculed at every opportunity.

By vince

April 14, 2005 09:16 AM | Link to this

Dr. Diamond,

The only testimony regarding the origin of homosexuality are homosexuals. Just as only women can honestly debate abortion. Men debating abortion is absurd.

You referenced men and not women in your posting. Is that because lesbian sex is routine in heterosexual porn, and therefore hidden from the spotlight? When homosexuality is debated, why are gay men the reference point almost all of the time?

Regarding a genetic determination, this is another example of using anything to excuse the quietly acceptable hatred and violence against gay people from the religious right.

Why aren’t there any studies trying to locate a heterosexual gene? Where is the documentation about why a person develops traits for heterosexuality?

And, the nonsense (which I’m sure you can provide footnotes) suggesting extreme circumstances of sexual abuse against a young child has yielded homosexuality again moves the myths forward, clouds the actual human element, and allows people that want to go out and beat up a f* to do so. Why? So, the child was abused. Get over it and stop choosing to be gay.

I do not know of a single gay man or woman that made a choice of sexual orientation. Also, I do not know of any gay person sexually abused as a child. Contrary to the posting, the gay people I know have very healthy stable homes, and have siblings raised under the same conditions that are heterosexual.

Side note: A woman was arrested for selling her 14 year old daughter’s body to help keep her car. Another shining example of the benefits of heterosexual marriage and how it’s better for the child.

By rocky

April 14, 2005 09:16 AM | Link to this

Actually, Stan. The hunt for Bin Laden is the REACTIONARY part. The PREVENTIVE part was the attack on Iraq and their funding, training and educating of terrorist cells. Yes, those other countries are a threat to us, and there may very well be a plan in motion as we speak to address them. The attack on Iraq was NOT meant to be a strike back for September 11th. Saddam didn’t plan the attacks on us (although there is speculation that he helped fund it). It was simply the first step in taking the fight against terrorism to THEIR territory rather than waiting for it to come here again. It’s called a LONG RANGE PLAN - BIG PICTURE.

By rocky

April 14, 2005 09:20 AM | Link to this

Don’t waste your time, Dr. Diamond. There are people on this blog who simply don’t want to face the truth about their own mental illness. Your research and information was very interesting and useful to some of us, though. So thank you.

By Whiley

April 14, 2005 09:20 AM | Link to this

Schools should be teaching sex ed ! Don’t they teach anatomy? What, you want your kids to know everything about the human body & organs except the reproductive organs? When I had sex ed it was just as clinical as anatomy class. WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL HERE?? Parents teach your kids about sex & relationships between males & females. But tell the truth why don’t you ! No guilt ! And tell the truth about how little boys will try to get some & teach our girls how not to fall for it all. (one example)

Fact is, parents don’t tell the truth about sex. Don’t give kids enough info. Kids have always been on their own about the opposite sex. Always have & always will.

Pardon me but I absolutely love gay men ! They dress well, know how to have fun, are the best hair dressers, & you can hang out with them & there is no threat of sexual assault!

There should be more gay men available to heterosexual females! lol

By Tony

April 14, 2005 09:24 AM | Link to this

Hey Brian, Tell me what you think about Clinton? You know, what he said about Arthur Finkelstein’s “private life”. Here’s a guy that can’t control his urges at work and wants everyone to mind their own business, but gets into Arthur’s business. But I guess he gets a gay pass.

For the benefit of y’all who don’t know, Arthur Finkelstein quietly married his partner several months ago in Massachusetts. Arthur is organizing an effort to defeat the hildabeast. Bill Clinton on Monday took a cheap shot at Arthur and stated he “may be blinded by self-loathing.” You’d think it would be beneath the former President to comment on someone’s personal life after all he has been through in his own life, you’d think he’d know better. Guess not.

By vince

April 14, 2005 09:25 AM | Link to this

OK. Some reaction, preventive stuff. Goody.

Can anyone prove a Boeing 757 slammed into the Pentagon on 9/11? I can’t find any evidence. NORAD sat still. And on the OFFICIAL website for The White House (yes, its still there today) you can read and listen to a speech Bush made in Nov.01 discussing how he witnessed the first plane hit The WTC.

If Bush is preventative, why he is doing nothing about N. Korea? Oh, silly me. There ain’t no oil over there.

And, anyone else notice how “terrorist” stories always seem to pop up when the media is talking about items which are unfavorable to Bush? Where have these stories led? Oh, and 9/11, how come not one person has been arrested? How come nobody has an answer about the anthrax letters?

By Lola

April 14, 2005 09:26 AM | Link to this

I’m going to have to side with Vince on this one, Dr. Diamond. I know of several people who were sexual abused or molestated as a child by either clergy or someone else, and none of those people are gay. They’re pretty tormented and carry internal scars from their experience, but they never “turned” gay.

By Sandy

April 14, 2005 09:27 AM | Link to this

Ignorance is not normal by the standards of society either, or at least it shouldn’t be. Our government has the responsibility to educate our children in various areas, including science, which includes sexuality. If you disagree with the values you feel are being forced on your children, which include basic tolerance, (also a normal standard of society), by all means, take your children out of class or school, and while you are at it, take your “creationism” and controversial pseudoscience and textbook stickers, too. I for one will be relieved that you educate your children outside of my kids’ public school so that my kids do not have to be harassed by your kids’ ignorance and intolerance.

Your pseudo-christianity, pseudo-science, and ignorance are by far the most damaging things to be shoved anywhere.

By Eugene Diamond M.D.

April 14, 2005 09:27 AM | Link to this

Brian and Vince, a number of researchers have sought to find a biological cause for same-sexual attraction. The media have promoted the idea that a “gay gene” has already been discovered (Burr 1996[3]), but in spite of several attempts, none of the much publicized studies (Hamer 1993[4]; LeVay 1991[5]) has been scientifically replicated. (Gadd 1998) A number of authors have carefully reviewed these studies and found that not only do the studies not prove a genetic basis for same-sex attraction; the reports do not even contain such claims. (Byne 1963[6]; Crewdson 1995[7]; Goldberg1992; Horgan 1995[8]; McGuire 1995[9]; Porter 1996; Rice 1999[10]). If same-sex attraction were genetically determined, then one would expect identical twins to be identical in their sexual attractions. There are, however, numerous reports of identical twins who are not identical in their sexual attractions. (Bailey 1991[11]; Eckert 1986; Friedman 1976; Green 1974; Heston 1968; McConaghy 1980; Rainer 1960; Zuger 1976) Case histories frequently reveal environmental factors which account for the development of different sexual attraction patterns in genetically identical children, supporting the theory that same-sex attraction is a product of the interplay of a variety of environmental factors. (Parker 1964[12]). A number of therapists have written extensively on the positive results of therapy for same-sex attraction. Tripp chose to ignore the large body of literature on treatment and surveys of therapists. Reviews of treatment for unwanted same-sex attractions show that it is as successful as treatment for similar psychological problems: about 30% experience a freedom from symptoms and another 30% experience improvement. (Bieber 1962[58]; Clippinger 1974[59]; Fine 1987[60]; Kaye 1967[61]; MacIntosh 1994[62]; Marmor 1965[63]; Nicolosi 1998[64]; Rogers 1976[65]; Satinover 1996[66]; Throckmorton[67]; West [68]) . Reports from individual therapists have been equally positive. (Barnhouse 1977[69]; Bergler 1962[70]; Bieber 1979[71]; Cappon 1960[72]; Caprio 1954[73]; Ellis 1956[74]; Hadden 1958[75]; Hadden 1967b[76]; Hadfield 1958[77]; Hatterer 1970[78]; Kronemeyer 1989[79]) This is only a representative sampling of the therapists who report successful results in the treatment of persons experiencing same-sex attraction.

By Tim

April 14, 2005 09:32 AM | Link to this

rocky… you wonder why people are calling you a bigot… you say ‘some people don’t want to face the truth about their own mental illness’… you can’t possibly be that stupid to wonder why people would be ticked with you… WE ARE NOT MENTALLY ILL… when was your last psychology class???? you probably think Freud is a way to cook chicken… I am sure ‘Dr. Diamond’ works for ‘Focus on the Family’ or one of those other ‘well respected’ (YEAH RIGHT) groups out there

Whiley… I am here whenever you want to hang out :)

By vince

April 14, 2005 09:32 AM | Link to this

Hi Rocky,

You said that people on this blog do not want to face thier own mental illness. Such a sweeping generalization.

In my book anyone who categorizes a group of people and stamps either a positive or negative label ought to consider mental therapy. Am I stooping to your level? Not at all. However, two people in love and minding their own business is very different than bigotry.

By Jack

April 14, 2005 09:36 AM | Link to this

Anyone who DOESN’T believe a plane crashed into the pentagon probably believes that Clinton didn’t inhale, had no extra marital sex, and there really is a tooth fairy. Geez.

By rocky

April 14, 2005 09:40 AM | Link to this

Sandy - I never said I was a Christian, so none of what you said applies to me. Neither do you know my children, so your sweeping description of them as intolerant is also misguided. Get back to me when you have a clue about anything.

And I said “there are people on this blog who don’t want to face their own mental illness”. Never did I say those people were gay, nor did I say it applied to one ENTIRE group. There ARE people on here who need mental help, and those are the ones I was talking about. Who’s making generalizations now, hypocrites?

By vince

April 14, 2005 09:41 AM | Link to this

Thanks Doc. As I predicted, the footnotes would be next. Thank you.

Where are the studies supporting a heterosexual gene? Or are you suggesting that everyone is born heterosexual, but bad parenting and/or social conditioning can lead a child to resisting their nature?

Again, the only people who can testify to homosexuality are homosexuals. And, why is this even an issue? Who cares what people do in the homes? If you don’t agree with homosexuality, then don’t date one, and leave them alone.

I am unable to comprehend why heterosexuals allocate so much time to speak out against gays. What is that about? Makes no sense to me when there are so many things happening in this world which can have a negative impact on everyone. Radiation, epidemics, wars, inflation does not discriminate.

And, I guess my question about why lesbians are not included in most debate against homosexuality is largely due to the fear that lesbian sex could vanish from heterosexual porn? So, could one conclude that because our society is run by white heterosexual men, the driving force behind this absurd anit-gay material comes from man to man sex? But, keep the lesbian sex in the porn, as that is a turn on. So, are these debates more about protecting the boys club and nothing else?

By vince

April 14, 2005 09:43 AM | Link to this

Jack,

I’m not talking about beliefs, I’m talking about actual proof. If it actually happened, how come there is no evidence?

By Seaborn

April 14, 2005 09:45 AM | Link to this

Are you the real Eugene Diamond, pediatrician, pro-life catholic, ultra-conservative author or just someone posting as such?

It has always amazed me, especially working among medical professionals how putting an MD behind your name somehow makes you an expert on everything.

I can go out and cut and paste as many studies that show how unsuccessful reparative therapy is and how damaging it can be to many people, and how many people fell “off the straight wagon”. We are not talking about phsychological change, only motivation.

There are many people, not burden by religious pressure, that live their whole adult life as a homosexual without it being one long life of dispair…myself included.

As far as the nurture vs nature argument over homosexuality…who cares?

By Randy

April 14, 2005 09:46 AM | Link to this

We as Christians are on this site because we think some other people want to know the truth. They may not. We are on this site because we think non-Christians want to be happy and their eternal soul(and Life) is important to them. They may be living for what they can get out of today. Evil, is the father of all lies and they may want to listen to him. He has convinced them that they can do what they want(as long as the police doesn’t arrest them), that they know everything(did the universe just appear out of thin air in the beginning?) etc. Lesson, we can’t help people who don’t want to be helped. Let’s let God be God and he will bring them to a point in their life where they realize they need him, then they can make a decision on their eternal life/soul. We can however, pray that they are smart enough to make the right decision and see the forest for the trees.

By Jack

April 14, 2005 09:50 AM | Link to this

I guess you were under a rock on 911 Vince.

By Randy

April 14, 2005 09:52 AM | Link to this

On judging others, I must apologize to others(expecially Tim). It’s not my place to judge others, that’s God’s job. You don’t have to answer to me, just Jesus. I’m sorry.

By Chip

April 14, 2005 09:54 AM | Link to this

Vince - people speak out against your “group” because all you do is B*TCH! You rarely hear lesbians trying to stir up mainstream america (and for clarification, by ‘mainsteam’, I do mean Heterosexual). If your ‘boys club’ would just do your thing and try not to hog the spotlight so much, it’s likely less people would care. I know I wouldn’t…I could care less what people do in their own time, it’s when your little gay pride “hey look at us..we’re here, we’re queer, treat us special” stuff that turns me off.

By Tim

April 14, 2005 09:56 AM | Link to this

Tony… I thought what Bill Clinton said was great… it honestly boggles my mind to how gay men and women could have voted for Bush… my parnter has a friend who actually did though… and the other day when a group of them were discussing politics and someone mentioned that Bush was a very polarizing figure this gay guy who voted for Bush said ‘I don’t think he is polarizing I just think the people were voting for God’ (including himself)… Lord help… there is just proof that there are dumb gay men out there too

as far as what Clinton said about Arthur Finklestein… I think he was right on and has a right to make statements about elections… especially when they invovle his wife! I don’t know Finklestien personally but from what I have read I think he needs to do a little bit of searching… he sure wouldn’t be legally married to his partner in Mass if it were up to Republicans (I know that judges made the decision but it was Republicans who were trying to stand in the way)… I mean good grief the Republican governor of Mass Mitt Romney did and is still trying to do all he can to stop it… I am just amazed at people like Finklestein… I am glad that Bill had the (for lack of a better word) balls to say what I and I know many others believe!

(sorry I know the question was not posed to me but wanted to put my two cents in)

Hillary in 2008!! lol

By vince

April 14, 2005 09:58 AM | Link to this

So, non christians listen to evil, do what they want as long as they stay out of jail, and could possibly not be smart enough to see the light. And, yet, the evil makes them think they know everything. Wow.

So, I guess you can tell me for a fact how the universe was created? I am assuming you have actually had a face to face chat with the Creator. Did you see any story boards? Blue prints. Seems to me that anyone who thinks they know everything applies to folks who think differently from you. I mean, I could accuse you of thinking you know everything, and surmise you can prove it.

I am a christian, by the way. My walk with my higher power is very personal. And, I have learned we have such an incredible variety of people on this planet, all blessed with talents. But, suggesting anyone who does not share my views is to be written off as merely another soul snared by evil shows no compassion, no understanding, no willingness to open the mind, and no respect for others.

Again, bigotry (or whatever you want to call it) is far more dangerous than two people loving each other privately in their home.

By Brian Curtis

April 14, 2005 10:01 AM | Link to this

Some quick replies:

Dr. Diamond: I agree that you’re presenting evidence that homosexuality may not be genetically determined… but the question remains, Why are trying to find a “cause” of it in the first place? Why are you treating it as a disease to be cured? We don’t try to cure red hair or left-handedness… so why homosexuality? And when it comes to regarding homosexuality as a disorder (rather than simply a trait), you’ve presented NO evidence for that perspective.

Texas Tony: I don’t think much of Clinton at all. Why should I? There’s no rule requiring all liberals to worship Clinton; in fact, I think he’s one of our less successful presidents in recent decades (but NOT because of his personal life, which is irrelevant to his actions in office).

Randy: We non-theists are on this site hoping a few radical Christian fundamentalists might want to hear the truth. We are on this site because we want to defend everyone’s right to be happy in life, and because so many fundies seem sad and desperately angry all the time. But we can’t help everyone; all we can do is hope they’ll make the right decision and see the truth one day.

Now, did any of that strike YOU as arrogant and self-righteous, Randy? Because that’s exactly how you sound when you’re preaching here. Once you accept that people can be happy and fulfilled even though they don’t share your beliefs—and that they don’t need you to “fix” or “educate” them—, maybe you’ll learn to live and let live.

By Akeya

April 14, 2005 10:03 AM | Link to this

Brian Curtis- I must admit that you are hysterical the last couple of days! The maple tree comment was classic! :)

By vince

April 14, 2005 10:03 AM | Link to this

Hi Jack,

No, I was not under a rock. But, that is a typical reaction. The current administration loves to toss aside anyone asking a real question as being “under a rock”. Find me a website or a picture showing the plane at the site and I’ll put that to rest.

Chip,

Boy, you really got upset about the prospect of losing lesbian porn. Gay women speak up and have just as equal presence, however, the media chooses not to report the women. And, I never b*** at all. As a matter of fact, I am strongly against gay pride parades, and haven’t supported one since 1993.

By Jack

April 14, 2005 10:18 AM | Link to this

Not even going to try to explain inertia or physics to you Vince. Just keep being stupid.

By Seaborn

April 14, 2005 10:20 AM | Link to this

Eugene Diamond is a well known pediatrician that leads a number of causes based on his Catholic background and I am rather skeptical that he would be wasting his time on this blog…

I wonder if another well known poster mired in catholicism, who does a good bit of cut-and-paste may be posing as Dr. Diamond.

For those who care, this is the position of the American Psychological Association on ex-gay therapy:

Recommendations:

http://www.psych.org/psych_pract/copptherapyaddendum83100.cfm

By Tony

April 14, 2005 10:20 AM | Link to this

Okay Tim. So in the ClintonWorld only Bill may humiliate his wife. What does Aurther’s personal life have to do with elections Tim? If Chuck said that you’d be on it like white on rice, but SlickWilly PASS. Go figure!

By Chip

April 14, 2005 10:21 AM | Link to this

Vince - I applaud you for not supporting the parades! I wish more people would just enjoy their lives and do what they want, without trying to drag everyone else into their tastes and preferences. But alas, it will never happen.

By Randy

April 14, 2005 10:25 AM | Link to this

Vince, The universe being created was a easy one, but I had to think it through in real terms. There was a beginning to the universe(2nd law of thermodynamics)and things don’t appear out of thin air without help(creator). It’s as simple a it can be, when one thinks it through. I really didn’t think it through until a few years ago and I am 49.

By Randy

April 14, 2005 10:29 AM | Link to this

Brian, I knew you would try to reverse the truth, that’s a easy game, why don’t you hit us with some facts? All we get are opinions of what you want to believe, no rock solid evidence.

By Eugene

April 14, 2005 10:31 AM | Link to this

The Centers for Disease Control & Prevention report that men who engage in homosexual behavior are 860% more likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease (STD), increasing up to 500% their risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. Men who have sex with men “have large numbers of anonymous partners, which can result in rapid, extensive transmission of STDs,” the CDC warns. “Control of STDs is a central component of HIV infection prevention in the United States; resurgence of bacterial STD threatens national HIV infection prevention efforts.” Any questions Brian?

By vince

April 14, 2005 10:32 AM | Link to this

Thank you Jack for your evaluation. I understand inertia and physics very well.

So, I am not going to write you off with an insult. I am going to ask for your wisdom.

At the point of impact, there is no evidence of a Boeing 757 anywhere. Now, as I understand from physics, when a big plane crashes into a building at ground level, pieces of the plane are left over. No plane has ever vaporized.

Also, as I understand from inertia, the construction trucks placed out from of the impact point (as that wing was being refurbished at the time) remained untouched. Wouldn’t the wing span of a 757 at least scrape those structures?

And the Virginia Department of Transportation, The Sheraton Hotel (directly facing the impact point) and the Exxon station on the property video tape that spot on a 24 hour a day basis. So, where is the footage? Wouldn’t the government want to show us? They sure showed us the tapes of the WTC hits over and over and over. And, on the topic of inertia, the lawn showed no evidence of being touched either. Wouldn’t a plane flying that low, that fast, hitting the structure projectile pieces that would tear up the lawn?

Also, you ignored my question regarding why the White House website quotes Bush discussing how he watched the first plane fly in to the WTC. Now, since I was not under a rock, I remember footage of that hit was not available for weeks after 9/11.

Thank you for helping me not be, as you say, stupid.

So, skip the lessons on physics and inertia, and just supply me the evidence. Certainly, someone, somewhere has a photo showing the plane parts.

By norman

April 14, 2005 10:33 AM | Link to this

Whether homosexuality is genetic or not, moral or not, bible condemned or not, a disease or not — could we at least not agree that it is no blessing to the individuals involved? It is a misfortune, period.

By Tim

April 14, 2005 10:34 AM | Link to this

Tony… when did I say anything about it being ok for Bill to humiliate his wife… (I assume you are talking about his infedility… which I have never condoned… so not sure what you were trying to get at there)… but let me say if they would have divorced I am sure people like you would have been screaming about the sanctity of marriage… and criticizing that fact that they got a divorce… but since they stayed married people criticize Hillary for not leaving Bill… I would think y’all would be happy that a couple was aple to save their marriage… and did you not read what I wrote… I agreed with what Clinton said… I thought that BEFORE he said it… if chuck or you or anyone else would have said it I would have said… ‘well there is one place where we agree’… fyi I was not old enough to vote when Clinton was elected for either of his terms… so he didn’t get a ‘free pass’ (I didn’t have a pass to give him)… nor does he now… he said something that I agree with though… do people normally come out against people who say things they agree with?

in refernce to Finklestein’s personal life… I simply commented on what you mentioned about him marrying his partner in Mass… I think it is sad that someone would campaign against the type of person who helped him earn the right to marry

By Jack

April 14, 2005 10:36 AM | Link to this

Like I said, keep being stupid.

By vince

April 14, 2005 10:38 AM | Link to this

Eugene,

More likely is not the same as actual. Why is the argument of disease spreading and having multiple partners always used?

After living in NYC for nine years, I met one gay couple in an open relationship. After four years in Atlanta, I had to write in my online profile, do not contact me if you are married to a woman. The only men approaching me for an encounter were married to women. But, since that would threaten the boys club, I’m sure that issue will be ignored.

By Tim

April 14, 2005 10:39 AM | Link to this

Eugene… I just curious if you have those same statistics for lesbians????

By Jack

April 14, 2005 10:40 AM | Link to this

Vince - Do you think the moon landing was also a fake?

By Sandy

April 14, 2005 10:41 AM | Link to this

Rocky, if what I posted does not apply to you, why respond? You say you’re teaching your kids, I assume they’re learning what you’re teaching. No hypocrisy there. You say you don’t understand. Is that not ignorance? No hypocrisy there. You say you didn’t say you’re Christian, so therefore nothing applies to you? Okay, maybe you have a point. Begs the question, though, are you renouncing Christianity?

At any rate, I agree that your sending your children to private school is a good thing, a win-win, assuming that your children are learning what you’re teaching them; your children, if they’re like mine, are learning that which is untaught as well.

As far as clues go, I say what I mean, mean what I say. I also walk the walk. To have a real dialogue, a good first step is to stop namecalling.

By Seaborn

April 14, 2005 10:43 AM | Link to this

Norman (is this the anti-religous Norman?)

Misfortune? Can you elaborate?

By vince

April 14, 2005 10:43 AM | Link to this

Jack, you know, asking for evidence has nothing to do with intelligence. If I am incorrect, and you are so correct, then why resort to name calling? Just provide the proof.

But, since there is no proof, I guess your frustration leads you to name calling.

Rather than calling me stupid, why don’t you prove me stupid and provide the evidence?

Better hurry and find it Jack, calling me stupid over and over without any substantial backing may make readers here wonder why you are name calling.

By vince

April 14, 2005 10:45 AM | Link to this

Jack,

Changing the subject to the moon landing is not helping your case against me. Stick to the subject and prove me wrong.

By Tony

April 14, 2005 10:46 AM | Link to this

A man, his wife and mother-in-law went on vacation to the Holy Land. While they were there the mother-in-law passed away. The undertaker told them, “You can either have her shipped home for $5,000, or you can bury her here in the Holy Land for 150.00.” The man thought about it and told him he would Just have her shipped home.

The undertaker asked, “Why would you spend $5,000 plus funeral expenses to ship your mother-in-law home, when it would be wonderful to be buried here and spend only $150.00 total?”

The man replied, “A man died here 2000 years ago, was buried here, and three days later he rose from the dead. I just can’t take that chance.”

By Jack

April 14, 2005 10:47 AM | Link to this

Ididn’t call you anything Vince. i just said you were stupid. I could have called you a moron but I choose not to.

By Jack

April 14, 2005 10:49 AM | Link to this

Tony, I just received that joke in my e-mail. Hope our bosses don’t get big brother to check our key strokes!

By Lyrazel

April 14, 2005 10:49 AM | Link to this

Being a red-headed lefty I dont want to be fixed. PS, even Dr Phil is a Dr…

Doc, please show me new statistics completed in the 21st century and dont backtrack to the Kennedy era to show data. Certainly your organization is up to date.

Why not discuss child pornography, Dr.? Dont you feel purveyors of child porn are a much more disturbing influence on todays children than men involved in adult-only lifestyles. I do remember the battle against gay boy scout troop leaders—and the arrest of the Head of Troops Leader for having volumes of child porn. Now, as a non-parent I would be more inclined to want a gay troop master than a man who snaps candid photos of my sons peepe…I would rather have the principal of my non-existant kid be gay than be arrested for child porn archives (see Peachtree City) I would rather have my non-existant child get taught dodgeball by a gay coach than one arrested for childporn/aggravated sodomy against a minor… And, for all the lesbians who never get counted in your hurrah-Im-straight-now clubs it must mean women are still irrelevant in religious organizations and medical organizations. Thanks.

Randy, I have no quarrel with your beliefs and wish you a very wonderful spiritual life journeying with your god. May your church open its arms to all people and close their coffers to political organizations.

By Eugene

April 14, 2005 10:53 AM | Link to this

Vince the stat says they are “860% more likely to” it’s a common phrase, why all the denial? BTW, there are photo graphs of plane parts at the pentagon. Just look on the web.

By vince

April 14, 2005 10:54 AM | Link to this

OK, thank you Jack. I am being stupid. Got it. Now, care to prove me wrong, or should I expect more of the same. (no proving me wrong)

By vince

April 14, 2005 10:55 AM | Link to this

Thank you Eugene. What website?

By Jack

April 14, 2005 10:57 AM | Link to this

I agree with Lyrazel. I would fear my child being taught by someone who is gay. They are probably more compassionate & caring. Pedophiles should be strung up in the town square. (I think red-heads are great)

By Tim

April 14, 2005 11:03 AM | Link to this

Jack… you would fear your child being taught by someone who is gay… or you would not fear your child being taught by someone who is gay?

By gene

April 14, 2005 11:04 AM | Link to this

There are several. There’s a shot of a piece of aircraft debris at the pentagon. Lyrazel, is data from the twentieth century no longer valid?

By Akeya

April 14, 2005 11:11 AM | Link to this

Eugene- That doesn’t make sense. Think of all of the parents that do everything in their power to masculinize and feminize their children when they feel as though their children are going in “the wrong direction.” The children may still be gay come adulthood.

Rocky- and what prevention has Mr. Bush come up with? The war we’re currently involved in is reactionary, is it not?

Chip- If you feel that way about Brian, then it should only make sense for those who don’t agree with Brian to be shoving their beliefs down people’s throats. Because I don’t believe that absitnence only is a safe, intelligent, and progressive program I’m a gay-loving, anti-Christian whore? That’s just my interpretation of what’s being goin on the last couple of days.

By Lyrazel

April 14, 2005 11:17 AM | Link to this

Well Gene, just remember in 1964 oral sex was also illegal. Dont you feel a medical-based organization ought to be using data from up-to-date sources yes? Sure I can go back to the 1890s for statistics—but are they valid?

By Brian Curtis

April 14, 2005 11:18 AM | Link to this

Randy: I’d be glad to. Evidence of what? (I’m assuming that the original topic is dead in the water by now.)

The universe had an origin? Of course; that’s a solid conclusion based on what we know of physics and cosmology. There must have been a creator? Sorry, that’s an assumption, not a fact.

And by “reversing” you, all I’m doing is pointing out that unsupported assertions (such as you make all the time) don’t have much substance. You can declare your faith “the Truth” all day long, but until/unless you can support that with facts, it remains an opinion, just like mine or anyone else’s.

Of course, I DO try to ensure that my opinions are at least marginally supported by some logic and/or evidence; and I don’t think that mere repetition constitutes an argument. But if you want to go in for facts for a change, let’s do it! So what is it you’d like to prove?

By Akeya

April 14, 2005 11:19 AM | Link to this

Eugene, they are contracting these STD’s for lack of use of barrier protections!! Hello? Do you not see the key information being left out here?

By Tony

April 14, 2005 11:19 AM | Link to this

Forget it Tim. Bill makes a comment about a mans politcal expedinecy or is in self denial because he’s gay and calls him sad because of it, and you agree? Ahhh politics.

By Brian Curtis

April 14, 2005 11:24 AM | Link to this

Eugene: Yes, I do have a question. What do those statistics of illness have to do with diagnosing homosexuality as a disease or disorder that needs curing?

Skiers often suffer broken bones; does that mean skiing is a mental disorder? Schoolteachers come down with dozens of colds every year; is the “schoolteaching drive” a psychological defect?

You’re still operating on an underlying assumption you can’t support. And perhaps it’s so ingrained an axiom that you can’t even spot it. So I’ll spell it out for you: Why should homosexuality be regarded as a disease, rather than a descriptive trait?

By Jack

April 14, 2005 11:29 AM | Link to this

SORRY I MEANT TO SAY NOT FEAR MY CHILD BEING TAUGHT BY SOMEONE WHO IS GAY. (trying to type fast so I won’t get caught)

By Tony

April 14, 2005 11:30 AM | Link to this

Hey Lyra ORAL SEX is STILL illegal.

16-6-2. Sodomy; aggravated sodomy. (a) A person commits the offense of sodomy when he performs or submits to any sexual act involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another. A person commits the offense of aggravated sodomy when he commits sodomy with force and against the will of the other person.

(b) A person convicted of the offense of sodomy shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 20 years. A person convicted of the offense of aggravated sodomy shall be punished by imprisonment for life or by imprisonment for not less than ten nor more than 20 years. Any person convicted under this Code section of the offense of aggravated sodomy shall, in addition, be subject to the sentencing and punishment provisions of Code Sections 17-10-6.1 and 17-10-7.

By J. Morris, MBA

April 14, 2005 11:34 AM | Link to this

Chip, do you ever walk out in public holding hands with your wife or girlfriend? You’re forcing your lifestyle on me.

Let’s explain it to you again. Gay people do not wanted to be treated “specially” we wanted to be treated equally. So, really sorry if you think we should hide in our closets so we don’t offend you, but it ain’t gonna happen.

Ever been to Music Midtown, or Big Day Out? Straight people carry on there just as “flagrantly” as gay people at Pride festivals. That’s OK for you, isn’t it though.

Let me repeat this again, since apparently you’re having a hard time. It’s not a “preference” and it’s not a “choice”, it’s an orientation that is deeply ingrained as heterosexuality. It’s not a “Club”, it’s not a “lifestyle”. It’s not something that’s limited to “our own time”.

As long as we are denied the basic civil rights extended to every heterosexual in this country, we’ll continue to be “in your face”.

By Tim

April 14, 2005 11:35 AM | Link to this

Tony… yes I do think that man is sad!!! he takes advantage of rights that have just been given to him and then turns around and works against the same type of people who helped him get those rights… yes I think he is VERY sad… and would have agreed with ANYONE who said it!! Republican, Democrat, gay, straight, black, white, man, woman, etc etc etc

has nothing to do with politics… has to do with the fact the what was stated is something that I have felt for a long time… I don’t know why it is difficult to understand that I would not be upset with someone for saying something I agree with… no matter who it is or what political affiliation they have

By norman

April 14, 2005 11:35 AM | Link to this

Seaborn: do I have to really spell out why being gay is a misfortune and not a blessing?

By J. Morris, MBA

April 14, 2005 11:39 AM | Link to this

Tony, in case you weren’t aware, the Supreme Court struck down all sodomy laws a couple of years ago. Regardless, Georgia no longer had a sodomy law at the time. Maybe you need a new legal code.

By Tim

April 14, 2005 11:40 AM | Link to this

Jack… I thought that is what you meant to say… just wanted to make sure everyone else did too :)

By Lyrazel

April 14, 2005 11:43 AM | Link to this

Beautiful comment Akeya! Maybe its a lack of education…I mean, why tell a heterosexual man that if he engages in a multiple partner relationships without protection he might contract a disease…since AIDS happens only to homosexuals. Sounds like some folk could use a sex-ed class…

By Jack

April 14, 2005 11:44 AM | Link to this

Thanks Tim. I need to do a better job of proofing. This blog certainly is addictive.

By Chip

April 14, 2005 11:48 AM | Link to this

Actually, J Morris, you are comparing apples to oranges. Find me the “Heterosexual Pride Parade” - you know, the one where everyone is chanting “we’re straight, don’t hate”. Doesn’t exist. Music Midtown is a celebration of music, not lifestyles. No one cares if you hang out with your significant other…it’s the flaunting and the “treat me special because i’m with someone of the same sex” attitude that hurts your cause. Deep down you know it’s not right, too, I suspect.

By Tim

April 14, 2005 11:54 AM | Link to this

Jack… no prob… I have that same problem alllll the time

By Akeya

April 14, 2005 11:58 AM | Link to this

Lyra- it amazes me that Mr. “MD” does not see the error in using these stats.

It is the same problem as with teaching abstinence-only. Ignorance may be bliss, but it’s damn sure dangerous!

By Scott

April 14, 2005 12:19 PM | Link to this

I have to say, it’s scary to think where this country and world is headed. Sometimes it seems like not only are we headed to “hell in a handbasket” but that we’re FedEx’ing it overnight!

As a society, whether religious or not, we resort to violence too often to get our point across. Even organizations that don’t hide behind a religious banner (e.g. PETA, ELF, etc) will resort to violent opposition. My recent favorite has got to be the anti-war student organization at U of Washington that attacked military recruiters so violently, they had to be escorted of campus by police. Nice message. Sounds like they figured out peace through war pretty well.

As far as the liberal social programs go, well, they simply don’t work. Personally, I have no problem helping those less fortunate and in fact think we have an obligation to help them as Americans. Having said that, however, I think it would be much more benefical to the USA not to have a welfare system. Rather, programs like FDR instituted during the Great Depression would fare better and grow this country into being less dependent on the rest of the world than it currently is today. If someone is going to get a govt. support check, then why not work for it? Sure, we’ll employ you, but not just hand you money. The roads need to be fixed so earn the money you get. That’s just one example but there are literally hundreds that could be implemented. Get rid of the foreign debts and then do away with NAFTA, and various other trade agreements that don’t help the USA

By kimberly

April 14, 2005 12:20 PM | Link to this

While we’re all on here sniping at each other, is anyone paying attention to exactly how Congress is SCREWING US

By kimberly

April 14, 2005 12:23 PM | Link to this

While we’re all on here sniping at each other, is anyone paying attention to exactly how Congress is SCREWING US today? Yep. Right now they’re busy providing federal protection to profitable credit lenders.. You know, the ones who send us offers every day, and who have no accountability for their predatory lending rates to high-risk individuals? The ones who write the fine print and stick you with an extra $30 when your payment arrives after 2:00 pm? Yeah, they’re getting your Congressman’s love, while most of us are just one medical disaster away from complete financial ruin. Our recourse has been further slashed in favor of these suit-wearing loan sharks who bombard us with adverstising, then blame us for biting. Yes, people, this forum is entertaining. How bout we all watch CONGRESS for a few days and really be enlightened?

By Akeya

April 14, 2005 12:28 PM | Link to this

Scott- the welfare programs are a joke. Most of our clients would enjoy nothing better than to wallow in the arms of welfare programs so that they have less money for rent, food, utilities, and medical care and more money for SUV’s, hair and nail salons, and new clothes.

By Jack

April 14, 2005 12:31 PM | Link to this

Scott I agree. When you pay a man to do nothing, that what he’ll do…nothing.

Kimberly - Yes we’re being screwed by the govt. The dems. are trying to bring back the death tax and will probably succeed. Better spend the inheritance or Uncle Sam will get it.

By Lyrazel

April 14, 2005 12:32 PM | Link to this

Akeya, I dont think he was the real Dr. Diamond! We have a plethora of diabolical posters who love using other peoples names just to prove a point their character does not really want to argue considering unrelenting backlash opinions. One would think Dr. Diamond would have been following the original debate about sexual abstinence education…

Tony, those laws are no longer enforced. The cops have stopped busting down my door looking for illegal sex toys. Now let me enjoy my husband in the way we see fit and lets keep those legislators from peeping in our bedroom windows, shall we?

By Scott

April 14, 2005 12:35 PM | Link to this

Akeya - That’s my point. It needs to be a give and take…we provide money for services only. No service..no money. I am happy to give my tax dollars to pay people for working but not to sit on their butt and watch Jerry Springer

By J. Morris, MBA

April 14, 2005 12:42 PM | Link to this

Lol Chip. You’re so right. Deep down I know that your kind of ignorance and prejudice is wrong.

You keep ignoring the fact that no one wants to be treated specially, dontcha Chip. We just want to be treated equally.

By Eugene

April 14, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this

Brian, if you were to suddenly develop smallpox, wouldn’t you be considered a public health risk and be quarantined? The majority, not all but the majority of AIDS patients are homosexual. AIDS is now a WORLD health risk isn’t it? It goes with out saying that homosexual behavior then appears to put the public at risk. JMorris MBA, how does your sexual preference entitle you to extra privileges and rights?

By norman

April 14, 2005 12:44 PM | Link to this

Justice Antonin Scalia was speaking before a college crowd about the sodomy law in Texas he supported last year or so. One student asked him if he didn’t sodomize his wife. He replied that the question was unworthy. Notice he did not answer the question.

Scalia is undoubtedly a brilliant man but a flawed man. He has the same medieval view of things as Boscoe. There is something particularly frightening about intelligent devils like Rudolph, Kaczynski, Boscoe, and Scalia. The dumb ones, like the fundies on this site, are no threat to anyone but themselves. But the smart ones like Mussolini, Goebbels, Ralph Reed, etc. are dangerous.

By J. Morris, MBA

April 14, 2005 12:49 PM | Link to this

It doesn’t Eugene. I only deserve the same rights as you.

And just so you know, the VAST number of worlds AIDS cases are heterosexually transmitted. Please do a little reading on the epidemics in Africa and the former Soviet Republics before you make false claims.

By Alex

April 14, 2005 12:50 PM | Link to this

Norman you said you were dangerous. Are you one of the smart one or one of the dumb ones?

By kimberly

April 14, 2005 12:54 PM | Link to this

The POOR PEOPLE have your hard-earned money? Really? Hmmm.. I was looking at where MY money goes, and why there’s less and less of it in my account. Well, there’s the INSURANCE companies. The premiums go up every single year, at a higher rate that my pay. Does my service go up too? No. Medical costs: keep going up. Service? No. Price of pharmaceutical drugs: keep going up. Utilities: How ‘bout those [deregulated] natural GAS bills? WOW! Keep going up. Service? No, not so much. Communication: phone, cable, & internet: More money out of my pocket EVERY year. Service improving? Um… not so much. Has “wider competition” improved prices for me? Not so much. City and county services: yep, those prices go up every year too. Service any better? Nope. Can’t say they are. My salary? Hahahaha! Not going up enough to cover the increase in insurance coverage, let alone the gasoline it takes me to get to work.

So the POOR people have YOUR money? How did you do that? I’d rather give mine to the poor people than to these rich, greedy insurance executives who sit in board rooms thinking of ways to deny claims, raise premiums, and stick their money in the Caymans before it might get taxed to pay for body armor for some working man’s kid in a uniform.

Hahaha… FOLLOW the money trail. It probably won’t lead to some poor Mexican man with a jet pack on his back blowing the pollen around on your nicely-manicured street.

By Seaborn

April 14, 2005 12:58 PM | Link to this

Norman,

I disagree with your statement but I can’t argue with you unless you clarify what you mean. Do you mean misfortune for individual homosexuals, misfortune for society…what?

Misfortune is not an apt description of my personal situation, so yes…you do need to spell it out.

By Scott

April 14, 2005 01:00 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel - you made me laugh because you reminded me of a story when you mentioned the “cops busting down your door looking for illegal sex toys”…reminded me of a story. Many years ago, while attached to a local drug task force, we executed a search warrant on a house. Wanting to impress my co-workers, I was assigned the master bedroom and wanted to be very thorough. I located a very large duffle bag in the closet and, based on the shape of it, thought I had hit the mother lode!! I called another agent in the closet with me to winess as I pulled down the bag containing the prize. You can imagine the shade of red I turned when I opened the bag to find every conceivable sex toy known to man kind! Needless, to say the team got quite a laugh out of that one.

By Scott

April 14, 2005 01:10 PM | Link to this

Kimberly - I was refering to government spending, not private industry (which I agree is out of control) The examples you cited, with the possible exception of utilities, are not govt. entities. I think you missed my point, but I can’t say I am surprised

By rocky

April 14, 2005 01:13 PM | Link to this

Actually, Kimberly, it IS the poor people who typically cause the raise in insurance, pharmaceutical, and healthcare costs, because they DON’T pay for their own meds, healthcare and don’t usually have insurance. Yet they still drive, get their meds and seek medical care. The costs of all those things has to be paid by someone, and that someone is those of us who DO pay premiums for those services, and our rates are raised to cover the lack of money they get from the poor.

By norman

April 14, 2005 01:16 PM | Link to this

Seaborn: misfortune to be gay. No children, worry always about acceptance, perception by many that you are weird, unhealty, engaged in disgusting practices, etc. etc. Clearly that you are programmed differently from the greater number of your gender, that therefore something is wrong. I did not say immoral or bad or dangerous, just marginal, unconventional, etc. Those who are different are usually unhappier than those who fit in.This is not true of all, some gays are able to overcome difficulty but still it would be more of a blessing to be like everyone else — straight, “normal,” in the conventional sense. Is there anything about this which does not ring true?

By kimberly

April 14, 2005 01:19 PM | Link to this

Sorry for missing your point, Scott. Just agitated today ‘cause I’m paying attention. BTW, those private industries are getting your Congressman’s love today. Are you? BTW and FYI: the inheritance tax repeal has just passed. Okay, so I can see not wanting to be taxed on Dad’s money when he goes (if mine had any…). I just have to wonder why ANYONE is getting tax cuts right NOW when we have a $4 trillion deficit AND an expensive WAR going on. A deficit IS a tax! Who’s going to pay for what we’ve BORROWED and spent? Not the guys who can afford the $$$$ to get their buddies elected to Congress, that’s for sure! Fiscal conservatives, are you ALL numbed out on Prozac? Is anyone else paying attention today?

By Eugene

April 14, 2005 01:19 PM | Link to this

I would suggest you provide some credible sources for that one. The initial cases reported by the CDC were all gay men. Same rights? JMorris, if you were to beat me up you would get charged with Assault & Battery. On the other hand, if I were to beat you up. Not only would I get charged with Assault & Battery but I would also get charged with a hate crime simply because you’re gay. Aren’t you just as capable of hate? The scales of equal rights are most definitely tipped.

By Chip

April 14, 2005 01:19 PM | Link to this

Rocky - don’t forget all of the ambulance chasers who will sue at the drop of a hat. How about the lady accusing Wendy’s of the finger in her chili??? 6th lawsuit for her. I couldn’t have been happier with Wendy’s calling BS on her and her dropping the suit. Too many people wanting something for nothing.

By norman

April 14, 2005 01:19 PM | Link to this

s I speak the Dow Jones Industrial Index is the lowest it has been since last November, the lowest in 5 months. Keep your eyes open, the oil problem will tank the economy and hopefully Dubya’s legacy.

Capone was gotten on tax evasion not murder. Bush will be gotten for economic evasion not murder. Both Capone and Bush, in a better world, would be gotten for murder.

By norman

April 14, 2005 01:22 PM | Link to this

Seaborn: another way of saying it, gays have been dealt a funny hand by God.

By Lyrazel

April 14, 2005 01:23 PM | Link to this

Scott, almost as funny as a mr. buzzy going off in a suitcase and shutting down a major airport for 3 hours…

By Chip

April 14, 2005 01:23 PM | Link to this

Bravo, Eugene! Well put.

By rocky

April 14, 2005 01:23 PM | Link to this

Just when you think norman has gotten as ridiculous and idiotic as is possible, he manages to outdo himself again. Way to go!

By rocky

April 14, 2005 01:28 PM | Link to this

Don’t you actually have to KILL someone to be convicted of murder? Or has that changed since the last time I looked?

By kimberly

April 14, 2005 01:31 PM | Link to this

Why is Norman ridiculous? Because he pays attention? Because he thinks? I must be ridiculous too, because I agree with him. Sorry. If someone would just teach me to make BISCUITS and stop trying to think, I’d be in the kitchen where I belong!

By Seaborn

April 14, 2005 01:31 PM | Link to this

Actually none of it rings true…

I love kids, but don’t desire to have my own. I have a loving family and lots of accepting friends so that’s not really an issue. What you find disgusting, I find attractive (and by the way, it’s only a different visceral response to the same emotion…easily transferred for some people). I am programmed differently perhaps, but I personally enjoy that, not being normal is not always a bad thing. So no, I’m not distressed at not being like everyone else. I imagine if you dig deep enough you will find that everyone has something that makes them different. I see it as a blessing acutally because I obviously would not be in a heterosexual relationship, which would just leave me alone. Fortunately, I’m not. I do find that this blog raises my blood pressure but I can honestly say, aside from this blog, I have never really encountered any anti-gay people, although I have made sure I work, live, and play in places I’m comfortable. The plus side is that I have lot’s of disposable income, lot’s of time to selfishly pursue my and my partner’s interests, and since he and I are the same size I get an extra wardrobe for free. All in all I really can’t complain.

By Tony

April 14, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this

AAAH sigh Tim, your totally amazing. What is all this screaming ITS NOBODIES BUSINESS WHAT YOU DO IN THE PRIVACY OF YOUR OWN HOME about? Tim, Arthur is doing his job. It has nothing to do with his personal life. How many times have we heard that? If I disagree with you, is it okay to start bashing your sexual preference? Bringing up your personal life? I don’t think so. If its not okay for me, why is okay for anyone else? Don’t answer Tim. I get it.

By Seaborn

April 14, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this

I had a friend (a straight woman actually) that had a theory that gay people were actually incarnations of angels (no, not fairies ).

Norman, God and I get along just fine.

By kimberly

April 14, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this

Rocky, (BTW, like the name dude. Still turned on by that macho stuff…. but I digress.) If you KILL someone but are not convicted of anything, are you any less a murderer? If you initiate an action that kills innocent people, but are never prosecuted, but use the opportunity to help your friends get rich, are you any less a murderer? If so, then perhaps Bush is not a murderer.

By Lola

April 14, 2005 01:39 PM | Link to this

Your life sounds very enriched and joyful, Seaborn. I think that’s wonderful. You actually made me wish I were a gay man. :)

By J. Morris, MBA

April 14, 2005 01:41 PM | Link to this

Eugene, that is actually false. First, to be honest, I have no idea if sexuality is included in Georgia’s Hate Crime definitions. It certainly isn’t included nationally. Second, you would only be charged with a hate crime if you committed the act because I was gay - there is a substantial burden of proof associated with hate crime cases.

There is a substantial difference between attacking someone because, say, he insulted your mother and attacking someone because you see him walking down the street holding hands with another man. I hope the distinction doesn’t escape you.

And seriously - if you think that the legal scales are tipped in the favor of gay men and women, you are not only crazy, you are seriously misinformed.

Here’s a link to the NIH Aids stats. You’ll see, for instance, that 75% of infections among women result from heterosexual sex.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/aidsstat.htm

By the way, the AIDS argument was specious 10 years ago and it’s specious now. AIDS infection is caused by behavior - behavior that occurs in both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Unsafe sexual behavior with multiple partners, period. It is not inherent in sexuality.

By Scott

April 14, 2005 01:41 PM | Link to this

Kimberly - No biggie. I understand your frustration, as I feel it too. Maybe once upon a time, Congress acted on behalf of this country and for its well being. That isn’t the case now, just another way to each build their ego-centric, overstuffed kingdoms of hypocrisy.

With the world like it is going today, and our unending need for whatever reason to be involved in all of it, it seems less and less hysterical to just say to heck with it and pull every American interest abroad back inside the borders of the US and it’s territories, strictly observe the 12 mile limit, wall up the Northern and Southern borders and lock down immigration entirely. Then tell the rest of the world to jump off a bridge and fix their own dang problems.

Sorry for the rant, but like Kimberly, Iget a tad frustrated

By rocky

April 14, 2005 01:43 PM | Link to this

If you have a problem with my name, Kimberly, you’ll need to talk to my parents about that. It’s a family name, dumba*s.

And the soldiers who have given their life in the war on terror were volunteers, and nobody made them enlist. They weren’t innocent bystanders. They were honorable men and women who knew how important it was to take the battle over there so it didn’t have to be fought here.

You lefties with all your conspiracy theories and Bush bashing make me laugh. Hatred didn’t help you win the last two elections, and it sure isn’t attractive. But then, neither are you, so it’s appropriate.

By norman

April 14, 2005 01:45 PM | Link to this

I am trying to say that we should have compassion not hatred or disdain for gays.

I think the general hatred for gays can be based on many different things. A large cause is fear of being gay onself.

By Brian Curtis

April 14, 2005 01:47 PM | Link to this

Answering Eugene: “Brian, if you were to suddenly develop smallpox, wouldn’t you be considered a public health risk and be quarantined?”

If you want to consider people with AIDS a health risk, go right ahead. That’s not the same as “all gays,” any more than sickle-cell anemia describes “all blacks.” And yet being black isn’t considered a deformity or disorder, despite the increased risk of a severe health problem. Why is that, I wonder?

You’re confusing a disease with a trait that increases the probability of exposure, which is why I mentioned the example of skiers and schoolteachers. Do you have an answer for that? Is being a skier a mental disorder? Do schoolteachers need to be “cured” of their desire for teaching, even though it increases their health risk?

By J. Morris, MBA

April 14, 2005 01:48 PM | Link to this

Why is it so funny that Rocky has the gall to accuse anyone of being hateful?

By Lyrazel

April 14, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this

Rocky, while hanging on at your terminal why not take a look at the Pentagon budget?

the Defense Department, is seeking $419.3 billion for its fiscal 2006 budget. Hmmm 419.3 billion in ONE year….

Cant say all those sobs sitting around at the welfare office ever got to spend that much in one year, Rocky.

Cant say education ever got 419.3 billion to spend.

Hmmm, can we afford our Pentagon, Rocky?

By kimberly

April 14, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this

No, um, I said I LIKE the name, Rocky. Not into the Ad Hominem personal diss tactics*. Apparently you’ve been harrassed about it before and are sensitive about it. Sorry. *like limbaugh calling 13-year-old Chelsea Clinton the “white house dog” — a petty hate thing if ever there was one. Call me names all you want. People enjoy being distracted from the truth, as it IS ugly.

By Scott

April 14, 2005 01:58 PM | Link to this

JMorris - The Georgia Supreme Court threw out the last hate crime law for “unconstitutional vagueness”, citing that it was too broad, not specifically naming groups to be protected, simply saying that any act motivated by “bias or prejudice” was a hate crime. So if you as a Braves fan goes out of slugs some guy for wearing a Marlins hat, then not only would you be guilty of battery but also of a hate crime. Which is silly, but you see where they were going with it. Supposedly, the Georgia State legislature is rewriting it this year with a list of protected groups

By Tony

April 14, 2005 01:58 PM | Link to this

Rocky! Rocky! Rocky! My father’s name was Rocco, my brother’s name was Rocco, we called him Rocky. Any way Kim was flirting with ya Rock. But on the war Sometimes you have to make a decision to act based on the possible consequences of a failure to act. That’s the way it was in Iraq. Your leftist Mynah Birds will sit on their perches and squawk “no weapons of mass destruction, no weapons of mass destruction” for hours on end. They think this passes as deep social commentary. The fact is we know for a drop-dead certain fact that Saddam did have WMDs, and the best intelligence we were able to generate said that Saddam had all of the supplies and materials on hand to make some more, and to make them quickly once the threat of an American invasion was past. Only in the mind of an American liberal would this threat seem insignificant. We acted in Iraq because of the possible negative consequences of a failure to act. It was the only responsible course of action. You don’t pay big bucks for home insurance because you expect your house to burn down. You buy that insurance in case it burns down. We didn’t invade Iraq because we knew Saddam had the weapons. We ousted him, among other reasons, because he might have them; and if he had them they would eventually be used against us. Reason enough. Now it’s time to put that same logic to work against Iran. Time to take the stealth bombers out for a spin and make a little glass in the desert.

Not that ya needed any help Rock. You and Eugene are doing a great Job.

By Stan

April 14, 2005 02:05 PM | Link to this

Like I said before, most Americans are sheep. They want to be guided around by the nose, oblivious to everything. They want to be told things they want to hear, and choose to block out things that don’t want to hear. You can look at the responses on this blog. Several people ask questions about lesbians and porn. Never mentioned. Vince kept bringing up Jeff Gannnon a few weeks ago. Nobody bothered to mention that.

Bush won because he ran on the ticket of religion. Most people may not be educated, but the majority of them go to church. Karl Rove, the genius behind Bush, knew this and made sure to present him in a religious way.

When it all boils down to it, it is not the bible that Congress, etc. is concerned with, it is money.

By RS

April 14, 2005 02:06 PM | Link to this

Rocky & Chip, I actually agreed wholeheartedly with some of your recent posts (although, Rockmeister, you trashed your credibility by referring to Kimberly as a “dumb—s”. Not nice). Yes, this country is becoming SO lawsuit-happy; this could be nipped in the bud if more lawyers would stop being so darn greedy & be a bit more discriminating in the cases they accept. Rocky, I know what you mean. Granted, there ARE poor people who are poor through no fault of their own (loss of job, widowhood, illness, accident..) but I think the ones you’re referring to are the lazy slobs who abuse the system while WE pay out the nose to subsidize them while they pop out illegitimate babies, get drunk & stoned & sit in front of their TV (paid for by welfare checks) watching soaps, in their Section 8 subsidized hovels stuffing their faces with junk food paid for by food stamps..which come out of the taxes from the jobs WE work at! Free medical care too. Well, free for THEM. WE foot the bills. So, you’re right, there. Lola, I’ll go a step further; I’ve always wondered if I’m really, in fact, a gay man in a woman’s body! Seaborn, the fundies don’t WANT you to be as happy, physically/emotionally healthy, productive & well-adjusted as you clearly are; that only destroys the image they so desperately want to have of you, i.e. a trenchocat clad degenerate, drug-addict pedophile, necropheliac practitioner of Satanism, incest & bestiality. Eugene, if a gay person assaulted a hetero for being straight, there’d be holy heck to pay, MUCH more so than the other way around! But, I’ve never heard of that happening…ever think of that?

By kimberly

April 14, 2005 02:07 PM | Link to this

Stan, A-MEN, brother. You’re SOOOO right!

By J. Morris, MBA

April 14, 2005 02:09 PM | Link to this

The Right has turned focused hatred and fear of minorities into an art form. Scare tactics, hot button issues - that’s how they win elections.

By Eugene

April 14, 2005 02:11 PM | Link to this

JMorris, of new infections among men in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 60 percent of men were infected through homosexual sex, 25 percent through injection drug use, and 15 percent through heterosexual sex. Male-to-male sex has been the most common mode of exposure among persons reported with AIDS (46%), followed by injection drug use (25%) and heterosexual contact (11%). Had you researched further you would have found that a portions of the heterosexual victims caught the infection due to a contaminated blood supply. Brian, you shouldn’t go off half cocked without thinking first. Sickle-cell anemia is present in a larger population that just “Blacks”. Sickle-cell anemia is inherited. You inherit the abnormal hemoglobin from your parents, who may be carriers with sickle cell trait or parents with sickle cell disease. You can not catch it. Aids is passed on as a result of a behaviour. It’s the behaviour that determines your risk of infection. As it happens male-to-male sex carries the highest risk, thus it presents the greatest risk to the public.

By Jack

April 14, 2005 02:11 PM | Link to this

I thought Kimberly was paying you a compliment Rocky. Take a chill pill.

By Tim

April 14, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this

Tony… I must have missed that part where Clinton was bashing someone because of their sexuality… hmmm let me go read that… oh wait he didn’t… pretty much what he was saying was that he couldn’t understand why a gay person would try to oust a person similar to those who helped him get the opportunity to marry… and then in turn help the political party who has gone out of their way to try and make it to where he wouldn’t have that right… I don’t see how that is bashing ones sexuality

fyi… I will answer any question you post because NO you obviously don’t get it

oh and yes I do know I am amazing (make me blush)

By rocky

April 14, 2005 02:14 PM | Link to this

Sorry, Kimberly. I misread what you had written, and you’re right. I took a TON of crap for it in school and had to hear yells of “Adrian!!” through the halls relentlessly. Guess some of that angst stuck with me. I completely withdraw my hateful name calling at you. It was uncalled for.

Thanks for the props, Tony. It is appreciated since the conservatives are grossly outnumbered on here.

By Akeya

April 14, 2005 02:18 PM | Link to this

Scott- Amen!

Kimberly- When you are poor because you are really trying and your resources are exhausted it’s completely different than someone who intentially makes themselves poor by making bad choice after bad choice and expecting big brother (the government) to take responsibility for your mistakes by making those of us pay for your laziness and stupidity. I don’t mind helping those that are truly in poverty, but when you purposelly put yourself in poverty it’s different.

By kimberly

April 14, 2005 02:18 PM | Link to this

Thanks y’all. As a HETEROSEXUAL woman, I am often plagued by an irrational, primal attraction to brutish, testosterone-driven He-Men types. Clearly, if I could CHOOSE my feelings of attraction, I’d be drawn to someone who would cook, clean my house, organize my closet with clothes that make me look fabulous, provide tasteful decorating tips, and sensitively discuss our feelings. Sadly, biology has left me no choice. If Rocky flexes his biceps for me and barks an order or two, I’ll become a dumb blonde in seconds, forgetting (briefly) all those disagreeable things he said.

It’s a dreadful burden, not a choice! {;->

By J. Morris, MBA

April 14, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this

Eugene, no one disputes the statistics of the CDC…but what makes you think that because an infection is slightly more prevelant in a particular group that the group as a whole has the infection, or is responsible for spreading it. There were what - 19,000 cases of AIDS reported last year? Do you know how many millions of gay people there are in this country? Your argument is absolutely and totally false. It’s compelling to a certain class of people who respond to fear and appreciate things that reinorce their prejudices, but it’s still false.

And just so you know, Eugene, the point of the GLOBAL statistics, since you brought up the GLOBAL nature of AIDS as a problem, was to show you that different groups in different parts of the world are affected to a greater or lesser extent than in other parts of the world. If, as you erroneously posit, homosexuality is the leading vector for the illness, that would hold true everywhere. It doesn’t.

By Scott

April 14, 2005 02:20 PM | Link to this

You know what I learned very quickly as a police officer in Atlanta in reference to domestic violence calls (the most common of any type call) or any other for that matter, when I dealt with gay/lesbian couples or individuals? That there is no difference I never had any more or less problems when I dealt with hetero or homsexual people.

Off duty jobs pay good money (the governments of the Metro Atlanta sure don’t ) so I took them when they were available. I have worked off duty in uniform at Pride weekend, PGA tournaments, NASCAR races, etc. Sure I got cat-called by men at Gay Pride but I have had the same thing happen with women at mainly straight events too. Big deal. Bottom line the same issues arise regardless of the event (with the exception of golf tourneys since mass drinking is kept out of there) Get drunk or high and people get stupid. My point is, as long as you treat people like people, you don’t have many problems

By Chip

April 14, 2005 02:20 PM | Link to this

Settle down, Rocky - not EVERYONE on this board is out to get you…haha.

By rocky

April 14, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this

JMorris - You can’t say the Right has exclusive rights on using scare tactics and hot button topics to win elections. The Left is killing a very viable Social Security reform idea by getting seniors terrified they’ll lose their benefits. They’ve enlisted the help of the communist Rock the Vote website from MTV to scare the youth as well. They’ve beaten the dead WMD horse to death, and yet I still hear the repetitive cries of that here today.

The only difference is that the Left hasn’t been able to win any elections with their constant hatred and socialist ideas, thank God.

By J. Morris, MBA

April 14, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this

Yeah, but you and Rocky ARE out to get a good number of US.

By rocky

April 14, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this

You’re wrong, JMorris. I’m not out to get anyone at all. I simply don’t want values that don’t jive with mine forced on me or my children.

By Akeya

April 14, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this

RS- are you sure you don’t work with me? You hit the nail on the head. We need to permanently attach condoms to the inside of some of these people’s v****!

Meanwhile, people continue to ignore that THE RATE OF HIV/AIDS IS INCREASING IN HETEROSEXUAL WOMEN BECAUSE THEIR HUSBANDS ARE OUT CREEPING!

By Jack

April 14, 2005 02:28 PM | Link to this

Here is the left’s campaign platform: Bash Bush, bash Bush, bash Bush, anybody but Bush. How bout Michael Moore for Prez. Let us stop thinking of the individual. Bash Bush.

By Tim

April 14, 2005 02:29 PM | Link to this

Scott… being in law enforcement and sounding like an intelligent person I am sure you know this… but I wanted to point this out to those who didn’t know… the reason why the hate crime legislation was so vague is because when they included gays and lesbians on the bill there were people (mostly republicans) who would not vote for the bill… guess they didn’t think we should be protected from people trying to harm us up because we are gay… so that is why they made it vague… and now they are obviously having to re-write it… honestly wouldn’t surprise me if gays and lesbians are exluded from the bill… we sure do have plenty of legislators in this state who don’t give a damn if someone is attacted, or worse, murdered simply because they are gay

By Eugene

April 14, 2005 02:30 PM | Link to this

JMorris it’s a simple concept. Are there laws in the United States that do punish hate crimes. 29 States have hate crimes laws for sexual orientation. Every hear of the Hate Crime Prevention Act 1999 that is a federal law! Don’t be so naive that the burden of proof is on the prosecution for determining a hate law crime.

By Larry Fish

April 14, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this

JMorris queen of DENIAL!

By J. Morris, MBA

April 14, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this

Rocky, you really should get out more. Any number of CONSERVATIVE economists have expressed reservations about the Social Security reform package. Greenspan himself is uncomfortable with it, not least because of its projected Trillion dollar cost. On top of that, no one is threatening Seniors with anything, because today’s Seniors wouldn’t even be affected, nor would the generation after them.

As for the WMDs thing - you’re right. We haven’t let that one go. That “Dead Horse” cost a lot of people their lives and our nation a hell of a lot of money. Y’all are still going on about Clinton and his affair. I think we can still legitimately get a little play from non-existant causes for war, don’t you?

And “Communist” rock-the-vote…do you actually know the meaning of the word Communism? Or even Socialism? I doubt it, or you would see how absolutely oxymoronic it is to refer to a voter initiative as communist.

No, typical of the average - and I do mean completly average - conservative, you get your anti-liberal dogma from Rush Limbaugh and his buddies. Buzzwords sound great when you’re sitting with your buddies, but you really should understand what your calling people before you do it.

By J. Morris, MBA

April 14, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this

Fishy, I’m not a queen of anything. You, however, are a King of Bad Arguments.

By Lola

April 14, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this

When are they going to change the blog topic? With almost 750 responses to this one, I think we’ve pretty much given every conceivable answer!

By Jack

April 14, 2005 02:36 PM | Link to this

Every crime should be a hate crime. What makes a crime against a black or gay person worse because thay were the victim. Is that not a form of discrimination? If I kill a straight man and then kill a gay man, why is it less evil to kill the striaght one? Its all about the votes.

By kimberly

April 14, 2005 02:37 PM | Link to this

Hey, just because somebody is paranoid doesn’t mean nobody’s out to get us!

By Scott

April 14, 2005 02:39 PM | Link to this

Tim - yes I do know that, but thanks for the input. The original law was enacted in 2000 and was only passed by leaving the sexual orientation clause out of it. So in order to pass the bill, the compromise was struck in the legislature, rather than not include it while including other groups, was not to include any. It was tossed out in 2004 for vagueness. The re-written bill is authored Sen. Vincent Fort. As for opposition, from what I have read, there seems to be opposition from both sides

By J. Morris, MBA

April 14, 2005 02:39 PM | Link to this

Jack, I’ll even agree with you on that one. We Democrats didn’t have a solid platform. We didn’t have a particularly charismatic candidate either. And yet, the election was still won by the slimmest margin in history. Much is made of the fact that Bush got more votes FOR than any previous candidate, but the fact that he also received the most votes AGAINST was glossed over. In fact, more people voted for Kerry than for Gore - and Gore won the National popular vote.

So, the whole “We are the Champions! We have a Mandate” approach of the Republican party is not only naive, it’s innacurate. Bush BARELY won. You do realize that his popularity is now at an all-time low, with a majority of the country disapproving of his handling of the economy and domestic policy in particular? Perhaps this is because he continues to behave as if he does have a mandate?

By Jack

April 14, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this

Beat me Captian, beat me!

By J. Morris, MBA

April 14, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this

Jack. Whether or not you agree with Hate Crimes legislation or not, that’s still a bad argument.

There is clearly a fundamental difference between a bank robber who murders someone in cold blood during the commission of a crime and someone who brutally bludgeons and tortures someone to death for several hours because there was something he didn’t like about him.

This doesn’t mean that the penalties should be different - I don’t know. If anything, the penalties should be bumped up for the non-hate crime to those of the hate crimes. I’m not a fan of permissive sentences for truly violent offenders. But - there IS a difference of intent.

By RS

April 14, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this

Tim, I MORE than suspect that those are in charge of law-making harbour quite the anti-gay agenda; You know, I can’t even THINK about that for more than a nanosecond at a stretch; it makes my blood boil! Ha, no Akeya, I don’t work with the welfare system but have known others who have & have heard the same stories. Also, where I used to live (South Florida) their rag of a daily paper used to print sickening stories glorifying that scum. Honey, if condoms were attched to these ladies’ (?!?) v****, they’d only give em to their multitude of illegitimate kids to play with! The reason why there is a lack of awareness of the danger of AIDS to hetero women is because the right-wingers are desperately trying to deflect attention from this problem by making gay men out to be their personal whipping-boy

By Tim

April 14, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this

Jack… it depends on if the gay person was killed because they are gay… if that is the case then it is a hate crime… if the person was murdered because say he punched your mom then it isn’t a hate crime… (does that make sense)

Scott… I knew you would know all that… probably know more about it then I do

By lozen

April 14, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this

The Roman philosopher Seneca saw into the future back in the mid-1st century AD and he had this to say about George Bush in our time, “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.”

By Michael H.

April 14, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this

To Rocky,  I would be happy to read any credible, non-advocacy group sources, especially primary sources, that you have to support the claim that WMD was moved from Iraq to Syria, as I am looking for articles on all sides of this issue in writing a paper, for my students, applying just war theory to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I read fairly widely on this and I have been unable to find much evidence for that claim. For example, there is a little in the preliminary report by David Kay, almost nothing in the final Dueffler report, and experts such as Blix and others evaluate the evidence in the former for such a claim as exceedingly thin. I am currently corresponding with a professor in Canada who is an expert on nuclear weapons and other WMD and who gave a talk at Berry College on this subject last month. I am awaiting more sources from him, but his view seems to be that there is little evidential support for the movement of WMD from Iraq and that they were destroyed in the 90s.

As a part of the research for this handout I reread all of the major speeches and interviews by President Bush, Dick Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, and others, and the main claim was that Saddam constituted an immediate or imminent threat to the security of the US, especially with respect to his nuclear program, which was virtually nonexistent according to the Dueffler report. There is reason to believe that these claims were deliberately exaggerated as in the inclusion of the assertion in the State of the Union speech that the Bush administration had “learned” from British intelligence that Saddam had tried to procure uranium from Africa. The administration had received two memos, including one from CIA Director Tenet himself, advising that the claim be left out of the speech, as the evidence supporting it was of dubious origin. (Later admitted by the Bush administration and everyone else to be forged. The documents were published in Harper’s magazine after that.) Instead, with plently of advance notice for effecting that change, the wording was simply modified: “from Niger” became “from Africa.”

Anyway, I am not interested in exchanges which refer to people who disagree as “you liberals� or “you conservatives� but I am interested in reading anything which furnishes evidence for the movement of the WMD to Syria, so please pass it along and I will read it.

It seems obvious that most of the responses to Dr. Diamond’s claims and arguments were ad hominem, dismissive, or silly. I have no ax to grind, nor view on that issue(s), but with the exception of a few posts there was little in the way of reasoned responses. It is lot easier to call someone names and ignore their arguments, make unfounded accusations about funding sources, than it is to read them and evaluate their contents impartially and objectively.

To say that one must be gay to talk about such issues or female to talk about abortion is an unjustified restriction on free speech and thought. It doesn’t matter whether one is white, black, Asian, gay, rich or poor, Catholic, Muslim, or nonbeliever, we can read, think, and argue about any issue whether it affects us directly or not.

By J. Morris, MBA

April 14, 2005 03:09 PM | Link to this

Michael, I agree with you to a point, but the general fundamentalist argument - It’s a choice to be Gay” is a particularly offensive one, given that none of the people making it are ever gay. In fact, when the same people are asked when the chose to be straight, they have no answer.

The point of the statement you find objectionable was that straight people are not qualified to tell a gay person that he or she chose to be that way. They simply have no framework from which to make such a judgement.

By J. Morris

April 14, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this

Michael, what are your ethical opinions on those who masquerade as an authority and plagarize that persons work? Obviously, you have a strong grasp of fallacy, critical thinking and structured argument. Surely you would consider this to be a greater failing than the things you mentioned.

By Seaborn

April 14, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this

Wow Lola…thank you for your kind words. Well I certainly have had my share of challenges but so do everybody. We all make our way the best we can I guess (but I wish we had more time :) ).

By rocky

April 14, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this

Certainly, MichaelH. I’d be more than happy to give you some credible sources, one of them being David Kay himself. January 25, 2004: “David Kay, the former head of the coalition’s hunt for Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, yesterday claimed that part of Saddam Hussein’s secret weapons programme was hidden in Syria.

In an exclusive interview with The Telegraph, Dr Kay, who last week resigned as head of the Iraq Survey Group, said that he had uncovered evidence that unspecified materials had been moved to Syria shortly before last year’s war to overthrow Saddam.

“We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons,” he said. “But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam’s WMD programme. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/25/wirq25.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/25/ixnewstop.html

March 3, 2005: “I am absolutely sure that Russian Spetsnatz units moved WMD out of Iraq before the war,” stated John Shaw, the former deputy undersecretary for international technology security.

According to Shaw, Russian units hid Saddam’s arsenal inside Syria and in Lebanon’s Bekka valley.

“While in Iraq I uncovered detailed information that Spetsnatz units shredded records and moved all WMD and specified advanced munitions out of Iraq to Syria and Lebanon,” stated Shaw during an exclusive interview.

“I received information from several sources naming the exact Russian units, what they took and where they took both WMD materials and conventional explosives. Moscow made a 2001 agreement with Saddam Hussein to clear up all Russian involvement in WMD systems in Iraq,” stated Shaw.

Shaw’s assertions match the information provided by U.S. military forces that satellite surveillance showed extensive large-vehicle traffic crossing the Syrian border prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/3/2/230625.shtml

By Akeya

April 14, 2005 03:27 PM | Link to this

Lola-good point. I’ll wait for Friday’s new topic.

By Scott

April 14, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this

JMorris - I guess what I don’t get is, what does it matter if you were born that way (as you assert) or you chose (as others have stated)? I don’t see how that non-choice or choice should relate to whether or not you are allowed to live as you see fit, provided it does not interfere with others rights or abilities to do so. Last I checked, being gay wasn’t illegal, anymore than someone being a jacka$$ is. If being a jacka$$ were illegal, I would have locked up A LOT more people than I did (and I had plenty to do otherwise)

By Lyrazel

April 14, 2005 03:29 PM | Link to this

My stupid solutions to people sitting around collecting welfare: 1. Education—mandatory highschool education completion while receiving public assistance. 2. Pay back all public assistance awards 3. Drug testing for all recipients of public welfare mandatory on monthly basis

Ludicrous but interesting…

By Lola

April 14, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this

I think your solutions are RIGHT ON, Lyrazel!

By Akeya

April 14, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel- also, I believe they should have to volunteer at least 35 hours per week (if they are not gainfully employed) Who will keep their children? The president wants to talk about faith-based? Alright, make it mandatory that churches care for children of welfare recipients while they do their volunteer work. Also, I don’t feel like they should receive more Food stamps and WIC when they have more children. My motto is if you can’t take care of them, don’t have them. The gov should not be resp for providing more space and food to these families that are doing nothing to add to society.

By Chip

April 14, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel - How about temporary STERILIZATION? Nothing permanent, but if you are relying on the rest of the country to foot your bill, the LAST thing you need are more kids to feed.

By Lola

April 14, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this

Akeya, I could not agree more. If someone is living off the taxpayers, they should be expected to be productive in return. And there should be no reward for having more children they can’t afford to raise. I think you and Lyrazel have the perfect plan.

By AllaboutME

April 14, 2005 03:42 PM | Link to this

…….rocky……blame it Iraq on Ted Kennnedy……those weapons were arleady been used on the kurds and on iran….our data was flawed and old even the republican admin. now admits it…remember Cutthroat…. if it helps the weapons got sent to syria……blame Ted Kennedy……

By Scott

April 14, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this

RIGHT ON LYRAZEL!!!

I agree that if you are not gainfully employed and you receive aqcheck from the government, then you should have to supply some service to compensate the government who is handing you the check.

I used tgo respond to calls from this one particular woman, I must’ve written about 12 reports for her over 3 months when her derelict, non-working boyfriend would yell at her. She never wanted to throw him out, even though that was the solution and it was her apartment. It just used to aggravate the crap out of me that she had thhis nice 3 bdr apt. with her 2 kids, big screen TV, stereo system, playstation, etc and every time I asked her for her job and work phone for the report it was always the “unemployed” reply!! While I was working 60 hours a week to keep my head above water..just used to drive me nuts…

By rocky

April 14, 2005 03:50 PM | Link to this

Did anyone understand anything that allaboutme just said? If so, please translate for me.

By Brian Curtis

April 14, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this

I see Eugene has failed to answer the “skiers and schoolteachers” question, although it does demolish his thesis that “health-risking behavior = mental disorder that needs repairing.”

Would you care to try again, Eugene?

By Lyrazel

April 14, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this

Akeya—yes I would agree. Might let them start working at Food Banks and other such agencies. Also residents of housing would be required to take basic home repair lawn maintenance programs and work with fire departments to make sure all tenaments have batteries in their alarms and fire extinguishers—-

Chip, as much as I would like to spay and neuter every 14 year old I dont think such a plan is practical considering how many religious denominations are served.

Lola, the people really living off the tax payers are giant agra-businesses who recieve subsidies, pharmacutical companies who recieve grand tax breaks for research but can escalate price for american tax payers, insurance companies who charge premiums so high 48% of americans cant afford coverage—why no American health insurance program? I mean, sure we like private hospitals, private doctors and yet, with the BILLIONS our gov puts into these two industries we dont have an insurance program designed for working-and I said-working families making under 30,000?

By Lola

April 14, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this

Everyone have a wonderful evening and I’ll see you back here tomorrow for the new topic. Cheers!

By J. Morris

April 14, 2005 03:56 PM | Link to this

Scott,

Being black during segregation wasn’t illegal either, but there were certainly many legal rights and protections enjoyed by whites and not blacks. While many African Americans today get angered by comparisons between the two, the fact remains that there are a number of key protections and rights enjoyed by heterosexuals and not by homosexuals.

For instance: Gays are not considered a protected class for the purposes of discrimination. A company can fire an employee simply for being gay; a realtor can choose not to rent to a gay person simply because they are gay.

Then there’s the marriage/civil union thing. It’s a big hot button issue, but you know what? Gay marriage has absolutely no effect on the lives of the people who are so adamently protesting it. We pay the same taxes as anyone else - even taxes for education for children that most of us will never have. Some people say - “You DO have the same marriage rights. You can marry any just like heterosexuals can.” Well, pardon me but that’s kind of like saying “You are entitled to religious freedom as long as you worship at my church.” It doesn’t wash.

Thomas Jefferson wrote that we are all equally entitled to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. To that end, we should not have to be content with being second class citizens. We should be able to marry the partner of our choice, absorb the marriage penalty just like anyone else, visit our partners in the hospital, adopt children, pass our estates on to our partners, estate tax and all, claim spousal privilege in courts - all of the things that heterosexuals take for granted that gay people are not entitled to.

It’s not enough, Scott, to not be arrested (though less than 100 years ago, we COULD be arrested. In fact, in many states we could be arrested for sleeping with out partners. Thanks to the Supreme Court that is no longer the case). It’s not enough to be second class.

Do you see what many people on here today have said? Have you read all of the hate-filled, spiteful, dismissive, condescending comments that people have made about gay people? I’m not talking about politically motivated comments - I’m as guilty of those as anyone. I’m talking about comments that are made by people just because they hate gays. And yes - I say hate, because even the people who say “I don’t have anything against them, I just wish I didn’t have to look at them” are expressing their hatred. Anything to the contrary is simply their effort to make themselves feel better about hating someone.

By kimberly

April 14, 2005 03:57 PM | Link to this

While you’re all dissecting the details of the POOR people who are spening your hard-earned money to feed their illegitimate children, the Congress has just made it harder for you to dig out if you become LEGITIMATELY impoverished through medical or other personal disaster. The bill they just passed makes no distinction between true disaster victims and Nordstrom addicts. This bill does not address the accountability of the profitable credit lenders, their predatory rates, etc. with regard to this “debt crisis” that they helped to manufacture, and from which they are enjoying the American dream: specifically, things most of us will NEVER be able to afford. But one bad car accident, and I can lose my house and my kid’s measly little college fund. FOLLOW THE MONEY! Into whose pockets is it flowing??? Go to the POOR neighborhoods and see if it’s there!

By Brian Curtis

April 14, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this

Scott: Could you clarify please? After all, every government employee receives a “check from the government.”

By Brian Curtis

April 14, 2005 04:01 PM | Link to this

As always, well said, JMorris!

By RS

April 14, 2005 04:01 PM | Link to this

Abolish welfare, PERIOD! No wonder people who are legitimately disabled can barely get by. No wonder why my best friend, who’s been desperately trying to find a job, has been panicking since his unemployment ran out. No wonder why hardworking folks are just about scraping by on $6/hour. No wonder why this world is so over-populated by crack-addicted kids who will shoot you over $5 in a few years….Grrr!

By kimberly

April 14, 2005 04:06 PM | Link to this

Thomas Jefferson rocked! Sadly, JMorris, most Americans aren’t interested in reading the principles upon which this country was founded. They’d rather listen to venom spewers on Cable “news” channels, or just numb their brains altogether watching a national karoke contest and pretending that matters. Sad.

By Lyrazel

April 14, 2005 04:08 PM | Link to this

Scott: We have 3, 50-60+ year old great & grandmothers. One has an infant by her great granddaughter who is 14 and in a meth clinic…she has AIDS as does the baby. we can bash the lazy on welfare recipients all we want but sometimes just…teaching facts in a sex education class would help!

By J. Morris

April 14, 2005 04:09 PM | Link to this

Thanks Brian Curtis - right back atcha.

Oh - my typing is bad today. “Any…just like heterosexuals can” should read “any member of the opposite sex, just like heterosexuals can”. Also, “Out partners” should read “our partners”, and obviously I meant to add “until just a few years ago” to the mix.

By RS

April 14, 2005 04:17 PM | Link to this

Sigh…in a perfect world, Lyrazel. When I lived in Florida, I knew a lady who did volunteer work counseling disadvantaged (?)inner-city teen girls on sex ed, birth control, self-esteem/respect etc but sadly, it mostly fell on deaf ears…

By Scott

April 14, 2005 04:19 PM | Link to this

JMorris - Wow! I really got you spun up, huh? Hopefully you didn’t misunderstand my comments as overly simplistic or derogatory.

My simple point is this, as it applies to you and those who have made the argument that being gay is genetic or it isn’t, that the argument is irrelevant. Perhaps I didn’t get my point articulated as well as I would have like to. I also may have erred in the “arrest” analogy.

Just to clear it up, what I was trying to convey is that whether it is a choice are not is irrelevant because in either case you are/should be Constitutionally granted the same civil rights as anyone else. Whether I agree with, approve of, want to participate in, abhor it, embrace it, whatever….I swore to defend your right to have it. period.

As for hate speech or just plain ole hate, I have seen both gay and straight on this blog fall into that pit at one time or another (with maybe the exception of Lola)

By RS

April 14, 2005 04:29 PM | Link to this

Ah, Scott, my dear, no disrespect intended at all, but whether or not homosexuality is innate (it IS) or a choice (it ISN’T) is very much the point because that is exactly the type of twisted, ignorant ammunition utilized by conservative rednck types to rationalize their relentless hatemongering; after all, those “evil, depraved queers” deliberately “chose” to live this “sinful, Satanic lifestyle” which involves “recruiting, corrupting, & molesting innocent children”.

By J. Morris

April 14, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this

It’s OK Scott - no offense taken. The problem is, the matter of choice IS key in this issue. When one side says the other shouldn’t have those civil rights you mention because they really aren’t different from everyone else, they just choose to act differently, they choose to act in a - shudder - “sinful” manner, the matter of choice becomes very important.

By Scott

April 14, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this

Brian Curtis - not sure what exactly you want me to clarify but I will try…What I meant by my post is that if you receive a welfare check from the govt then you shold have to work for it. Yes, every government employee receives a check, but they have to have a job there to get it.

remeber the TVA? It as a job creating program, not a handout

By J. Morris

April 14, 2005 04:39 PM | Link to this

Scott, I have a question for you. Apart from the philosophical basis of social programs, that a civilized, good human society has a moral obligation to provide at least the basics of survival to those who are a part of it, there is a distinct pragmatic component to them as well. To wit: What effect on society do you think the removal of welfare would cause? How much crime and even illness is avoided by spending enough money to lift up the lowest members of society enough so that they have a chance to fend for themselves? You obviously work in Law Enforcement - do you think that crime would increase if the poorest didn’t have welfare to keep their heads above water? Do you think that homelessness, shanty towns, vandalism, etc. would increase? We really don’t have to ask - we have only to look to the Depression to see what happened.

By Scott

April 14, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this

RS - That just reinforces my point…that it should not be part of the discussion since it has absolutely no bearing on whether they can or should be afforded rights spelled out in the contitution anymore than I should for choosing to play rugby (even though my wife thinks I am insane, she respects my right to choose that, thoguh I must say I was NOT born a rugger)

My point is that whether JMorris chose or not, he is gay. He is also an American citizen ( I am assuming here) and should be afforded all the rights and liberties that go along with that. For more on that refer to my post before.

By Tim

April 14, 2005 04:49 PM | Link to this

Scott… oh how I would love if everyone thought like you

By lozen

April 14, 2005 04:53 PM | Link to this

Abstinence only programs will work for some; it won’t work for all. It wouldn’t have worked for me back in the 1950’s. We can stick our heads in the sand and pretend teens/people won’t have sex until they finish college or grad school or whatever they do, but they will. They always have, because the sex drive is so strong. Even with the Puritans, most young women were pregnant when they married. We can continue living in a dream world if we want. Sex isn’t wrong and it isn’t a sin; it’s a natural part of life. Maybe someday humans will realize that and create a world based on real life.

By Scott

April 14, 2005 04:59 PM | Link to this

JMorris - Yes, I do think crime would increase if you completely cut welfare off. That is not what I am suggesting. I would just rather see, refering to the great depression, people given jobs that would not only benefit them in the form of financial compensation/benfits, but would contribute also to society as a whole. If someone is down on their luck or impoverished and wants a way out or up then I think we should help them. The ones I have the issue with are those who have no desire to be anything but a drain on society because they have no incentive to contribute. They get the same check for doing nothing now, so why better yourself or contribute seems to be that sort of individuals philosophy. In the Great Depression (too young to have exp. it but based on reading many books on the subject - yeah, I am a history geek) many people wanted to work but there were no jobs. So FDR created them. Granted, it took a war to completely pull us out but we were on a good track at that point. In the past I have been approached by panhandlers asking for money to get something to eat. On those occassions I have refused to give money but told them if they wanted something to eat that I would take them to get something. About half the time they refused the food, becasue that obviously wasn’t what they wanted the $$ for. The one’s that were hungry got a meal of their chocie out of it.

I just don’t see why it is too much to ask that if the poor want assistance that they also contribute their time and service back to society that is providing for them

By lozen

April 14, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this

JMorris, as usual, loved your post about welfare. Why be so upset about the little money spent in that program when so much more is spent on war and hand outs to big companies?

By kimberly

April 14, 2005 05:04 PM | Link to this

The current administration is using the war as a jobs-creation program for low-income families, both for young soldiers, and for experienced managers and former soldiers in the private sector. Count on the economy tanking further, and the continued jacking up of gas prices to drive more people into the service of the United States of Halliburton. For some, it’s a really good plan, and it’s working.

By Scott

April 14, 2005 05:05 PM | Link to this

LOL! and why is that, Tim? (thanks, I think)

By Bryan

April 14, 2005 05:12 PM | Link to this

I have been out of high school for nearly a year, and I can tell you an abstinence-only program not only doesn’t work, but they are dangerous. Teens, especially males, are interested in sex, and if they can get it most will do it. While abstinence is the best way to avoid problems, it is important to know the other options to keep yourself safe.

I pledged to stay abstinent until marriage, I ended up losing my virginity at 16 as a high school sophomore. Without knowing proper methods of protection, I still would have likely done it, but been worse off.

Shuanti is right, we never learned how to drive drunk safely in school, but we did learn how to stop a friend from potentionally driving drunk by taking his keys and locking the doors.

The real danger is not the sex, it is a lack of knowledge about how to handle it maturely and responsably.

By steve

April 14, 2005 05:14 PM | Link to this

Lozen, I have studied the Puritans for many years. I have a great appreciation for the Puritan scholarship. You said that “Even with the Puritans, most young women were pregnant when they married”. Could you provide support for that statement? In my years of study, that is the first I have ever heard of such a claim.

By the way, I am not trying to be nit-picky. I think the Puritans are an oft maligned group and oft misunderstood in our culture today. Interestingly, the Puritans wrote much of sex. They simply believed that sex was a wonderful gift from God reserved for those in a marriage relationship. They are not the grim and gloomy kill-joys that they are often portrayed as today.

By Van

April 14, 2005 05:16 PM | Link to this

When I was growing up in the Sixties, our sex education was simple - DON’T! If we did we all knew what would happen. If you were a guy, you spent the next 18 years paying for the kid. If you were a girl, you disappeared from hign school and went to a “special” high school. It sounds cruel, but back then we did not have baby showers during home room, we actually did learn stuff.

Young girls that became pregnant were shunned by polite society and were chased after by the “wrong” crowd.

You might think our sex education was primitive, but everyone knew the rules. We were responsibile for our actions. After raising two children into adulthood, after both had graduated from college, both single, both involved with serious people of the oppisitre sex and I am still not a grandparent - Thank you kids, that is the best present a father can get. My wife and I raised them the same way we were raised, responsible.

In todays world, no one is responsible and no one cares.

We definitely had it better then. Men were men and women were women, and being easy was looked down on. Free love didn’t come for another few years and look where we are today. Today there are no rules, just anarchy. Oral sex is not sex, it doesn’t matter whether you date a boy or a girl, if you become pregnant, you can kill your baby and no one will know, not even your parents or the father, if you know which one it is.

Being easy today, is a resume enhancer. If you have 5-10 partners this year it is no big deal there will be more next year.

I just can’t wait for the current crop of high school kids get to adulthood, the last batch didn’t turn out to great. They know all about the Kama Sutra and can’t read the Constitution.

By Randy

April 15, 2005 08:27 AM | Link to this

That’s what I like, society figures it out on how to have a happy life(follow the bible). Then they do that for a while, 40’s,50’s, thru about 1965, then they rebel. We can’t just be happy and satisfied and follow Jesus’ teachings. So we and our children pay the price.

By Lola

April 15, 2005 08:38 AM | Link to this

Bummer. I was really hoping for a new topic today. Oh well. Maybe we can come up with our own topic for today! Suggestions, anyone?

By norman

April 15, 2005 08:38 AM | Link to this

Randy: how can you follow Jesus when Jesus and his earliest followers were wrong about the impending end of the world, were interested mainly in messianic warfare against Rome, had no interest in the Gentiles whatsoever, and certainly did not intend to invent a new religion. The Bible may have been useful twenty-five hundred years ago for the proponents of the Judaean monarchy under Josiah but it has little import for us today, except as great literature.

By Tim

April 15, 2005 09:14 AM | Link to this

Scott… I said because if people had your attitude… I would not be viewed as a second class citizen… I thank you for that

folks… looks like we have another young intelligent person on this forum… thank you Bryan for your input!

again Randy brings back the good ol days… when blacks were beaten, raped, and murdered for being black… drank out of separate water fountains… stayed in the back of the bus… and certainly did not attend schools with white people… why would they… they weren’t good enough to be around white kids… ah yes Randy, this is how you want to live again?? I think I will pass I rather enjoyed having the opportunity going to school with my black friends, white friends, and all the other colors the people were at my schools

By Eugene

April 15, 2005 09:27 AM | Link to this

Alright Brian, I’ll make the point again since you did not seem to grasp it with your misinformed sickle-cell analogy. The fact that a person is gay is determined by environmental factors which a person is subjected. These environmental factors in the right combination with the right type of person can cause that person to experience same-sex attraction (SSA) . SSA is not a crime, engaging in high risk behavior attributed to SSA is caused by the environmental factors which is a mental disorder. The fact that skiers break legs or teachers catch cold is a reach Brian and you know it. Other activities cause broken bones and common illnesses. In other words it is NOT just one behavior pattern that puts people a risk, whereas with aids it is one common behavior that causes the outcome. To illustrate my point another way “Extreme skiers� or those that engage in high risk activities are being studied for types of mental disorders which prevents them from identifying and stopping themselves from engaging in risky activities which could cause injury or death to themselves. JMorris ,Gays are not considered a protected class for the purposes of discrimination. A company can fire an employee simply for being gay; a realtor can choose not to rent to a gay person simply because they are gay. Maybe Larry Fish was right, denial. There ARE laws which dictate an employer cannot fire somebody based on sexual orientation. You also discount those that were gay and are now straight that can attest to the fact that being gay is a choice. With regards to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. You’re not allowed to commit crimes in order to meet that standard. There are boundaries on behaviors in which one can engage to achieve these objectives. NOBODY is against gay people having these things. What people are against is the very whining you’re doing now. “I can’t pass along my possessions because we’re not allowed to get married� You can – it’s called a Power of Attorney. I can pass my possessions along to whomever I choose, so can you. The fact is there is a gay agenda to legitimize homosexual behavior. In Canada, they clamored the same rhetoric about their rights. Yet, when gay marriage was legalized there has NEVER been a flood to the courthouses to utilize those rights. This agenda has turned sexual preference into a civil right, oft times with special protection NOT offered to other members of the population.

By Tony

April 15, 2005 09:28 AM | Link to this

No Tim that isn’t what Clinton said or meant. What Clinton said was “this guy believes his party is not serious and is totally Machiavellian in his position or there’s some sort of self-loathing there, I was more sad for him.”

That’s pretty basic stereotyping by suggesting that because somebody’s gay they have to be a Democrat.”

You like Clinton don’t know squat about Arthur. You carry the gay mantra of being treated fairly, apparently you don’t feel Arthur deserves the same because his political views differ from yours. There most be some sort of SELF-LOATHING there Tim, I feel sorry for you.

Bryan, I’m glad you posted. Being just out of school. You probably more than anyone can help me the most. You stated that you lost your virginity at 16. If you don’t mind will you answer a few questions. 1. Did you know about condoms and or other methods and how did you obtain that knowledge? 2. Did your sex partner know about protection methods and did she expect/demand you wear one or did she use sponges/spermicides/pill/etc. and how did she (if you can answer for her) know about them?
3. Who instigated the sexual relationship and did you discuss the consequences? Was abortion discussed as an alternative before having sexual relationship? 4.How did you or your partner obtain protection?(DrugStores/Stores/GasStations/Clubs/Friends/Planned Parenthood/Parents/Doctors/School/etc. etc.). 5. If you can remember, tell me what was taught and what type of environment and at what grade. (Was their girls in your class at the time?) How explicit was the education? 6. At what point did you feel you had obtained all the necessary information and the classes became repetitive?

Thanks in advance Bryan, and good luck in your future. You appear to be a intelligent young man. I would have hoped that you would have understood the gift of pure love and waited to share that with the one you planned on spending the rest of your life with. Try to limit your sexual activity Bryan. It’s a gift from God and a worthy goal.

By Boscoe

April 15, 2005 09:30 AM | Link to this

Norman, on what historical text are you basing such absurd assumptions on?

By Brian 2

April 15, 2005 09:36 AM | Link to this

Lola,

How about immigration…or rather…illegal immigration and Bush’s support of it. Do these people really take jobs no US citizen wants? There certainly were plenty of US citizens doing landscaping and construction 15 years ago when I moved to Atlanta. Construction at one time was a pretty decent blue-coller way to make a living. Did a whole native work force just start doing better or just get tired of labor based employment? Can a US citizen even get hired on a constrution site these days?

By norman

April 15, 2005 09:41 AM | Link to this

Boscoe: if you would read biblical scholarship instead of Catholic propaganda you would know.

Start with: S.G.F. Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots.

By Tim

April 15, 2005 09:52 AM | Link to this

Tony… I never once said that if someone is gay they have to be a deomcrat… I just don’t understand how someone will campaign for the very people that help them get the rights that they gladly take advantage of… if he were campaigning to oust a democrat that was against gays having equal rights I would be all for what he is doing… but he is not doing that… that is where the whole self-loathing comment comes into play

I also never said that Finklestein does not deserve to be treated fairly because his political views differ from mine… but I do find it upsetting that he would take advantage of certain benefits (gay marriage in Mass) and then campaign against the same type of people who helped him get those rights

I also don’t see where you could say that there must be some sort of self-loathing within myself… where did you pull that one from? that is just amusing… you are out in the clouds with that one

Finally… don’t make it out like I have said things that I have not simply to try and make your argument sound better… pretty sad that you would have to do that and it certainly won’t work

By Seaborn

April 15, 2005 10:02 AM | Link to this

Boscoe…uh…I mean Eugene,

So it appears that the attempts by gay people to make their lives better is somehow offensive to you. To me a special right would be something like getting a tax break for being gay, or affirmative action programs for being gay, or special financing for housing for gays…those would be special rights. There are no state or federal laws protecting gay employment, although many large companies see it in their best interest to have non-discrimination policies. Some local municipalities, like Atlanta, have an ordinance or two but they are often on shaky legal ground.

But we could go on and on about that. What is your solution, or desire concerning how gay people live and work in this country? I mean, if you could have things completely your way…what would that be like?

By Brian Curtis

April 15, 2005 10:16 AM | Link to this

Well stated, Seaborn.

No, the skier and schoolteacher analogy is not reaching, as you suggest. And if you truly WERE Dr. Diamond, you’d know that there is more than one high-risk behavior that can lead to AIDS exposure. Or are you claiming that hemophiliacs and those receiving blood transfusions are also “suffering from a mental disorder”?

I do appreciate the fact that, in your efforts to be consistent, you’ve suggested that extreme skiers need “curing” too. Now everyone can see how ludicrous this line of reasoning is.

“The fact that a person is gay is determined by environmental factors which a person is subjected.” Even if that were true, the same can be said of snake-handlers and Christian Scientists—definitely traits that lead to increased health-risking activities. So I assume you’re in favor of labeling them as psychologically ‘damaged’ too, correct? And you want to find a cure for those traits as well?

“SSA is not a crime.” I’m glad you admit that much; now you just need to explain how SSA is a “mental disorder.”

“The fact is there is a gay agenda to legitimize homosexual behavior.” Of course there is! Why shouldn’t homosexuals be viewed and treated legitimately, just like everyone else? “Because they’re at increased risk of exposure to a disease” seems to be your argument. (Gee, what DID the homophobes do before AIDS came along? They had to resort to simple lynchings and pious Bible quotes to justify their hatred and fear.)

But the only need for “treatment” that reinforces is the need for treating AIDS, not homosexuality itself. The two are NOT synonymous, no matter how many bogus statistics the homophobes invent trying to claim that AIDS is a “gay disease” that leaves clean, god-fearing heterosexuals untouched.

By the way, “There’s a gay agenda” is not exactly a fact-based medical argument… “doctor.”

By Boscoe

April 15, 2005 10:17 AM | Link to this

Norman, what information does S.G.F. Brandon provide to make him more qualified to determine that all the Catholic Church stands for is false, when this is in direct conflict of those many before him that attest to its truth?

By Lola

April 15, 2005 10:20 AM | Link to this

I think that’s a great topic, Brian 2!

I am a Conservative politically, but I do not agree with President Bush’s stance on immigration and his lack of a sense of priority about our borders. That is the one biggest area where I have a totally opposite view from his. I think the Minutemen Project going on down in Arizona right now is a valiant effort by some wonderful US citizens to shine a light on the sad state of illegal immigration and how detrimental it is to our national safety and security. We have processes in place for those who wish to come here legally and we welcome all. But the total disregard those who try to sneak over here show for our laws makes me very angry. And I think the fact that the Mexican Government ENDORSES the illegal crossing of the borders is shameful and disgraceful.

By Akeya

April 15, 2005 10:22 AM | Link to this

Bryan- they can if they have as much drive as someone who crossed the desert for days and paid un coyote thousands of dollars to get here.

By lozen

April 15, 2005 10:24 AM | Link to this

My American History professor in college, who had studied the Puritans extensively, was the one who said most Puritan young women were pregnant at the time of marriage based on his research. I do know from my own experience how strong the sex drive is in teens. I know many of my peers in high school in the 50’s dropped out of school and got married because they had to. I know I had sex when I was 15 and most of the other girls in my small GA town were sexually active by 18. I know that none of the boys I dated had ever been told to save themselves for marriage! It was not expected that boys would not have sex; so who were they going to have sex with? I remember the old wink and the elbow nudge from father to son whenever the topic of sex came up. My parents told my sister and me that we must save ourselves for marriage. Did they tell my brother that? I don’t think so. The double standard was strongly in place in the 50’s and what happened in 1965 was that the birth control pill became widely available. Now that young women did not have to get pregnant when they had sex, the sexual revolution came about and the double standard crashed. Or did it? It seems to me it’s not the boys running around being sexually active (as always) that upsets everyone. It is the fact that young women now have the freedom to have sex just like the boys always did. The world changes but a lot of people have to be pulled kicking and screaming into the 21st century. From studying Anthropology I learned there are so many different ways that human beings have dealt with sexual issues and problems. So many people sit and scream about the good old days when that time is gone and it will never exist again. It wasn’t the good old days anyway for so many of us. We need to start using our imagination to think of ways to deal with the reality of the world we live in now. We can then create new ways to deal with the problems we’re experiencing in a rapidly changing society.

By J. Morris

April 15, 2005 10:31 AM | Link to this

Eugene, there are no gay people who have truly become straight. So-called “conversion” therapies are dismissed across the board by every legitimate psychological organization and association. At best, there are people who are forcing themselves to live as straight because of some nonsensical religious belief or social pressure. At worst, you have someone who is having affairs with men on the side while betraying the marriage you people claim to hold so sacred.

By the way, Eugene, it isn’t “whining” to demand equal treatment. You know, back in the pre-civil rights days they called blacks who demanded their rights “uppity…” I won’t include the noun. People like you always want to believe that the world is perfect the way it is and that anyone who doesn’t agree with you is just “whining”. Well guess what, Eugene. It’s not, and we aren’t. Get over yourself.

By Eugene

April 15, 2005 10:33 AM | Link to this

Seaborne, Boscoe is the religious guy.According to lambdalegal.org this is every law in the US.

USA”Further Amendment to Executive Order 11478 EEO in the Federal Government” (5/28/98) Alaska ANCHORAGE (Anchorage) Municipal Code, Title 5, ch. 5.10 & ch. 5.20 (1993) Arizona PHOENIX (Maricopa) Ordinance No. G-3558, 7/8/92 TUCSON (Pima) Human Relations Ordinance, Ch. 17 of City Code CALIFORNIA Labor Code §§ 1101, 1102 & 1102.1 (1992) ALAMEDA (Alameda) Municipal Policy Prohibiting Harassment and Discrimination, 1978. ALAMEDA COUNTY 1990 BERKELEY (Alameda) Berkeley Municipal Code, Ch. 13.28 et seq., 11/9/78 BRISBANE (San Mateo) Brisbane Personnel Ordinance §2.12.130, 5/89 CATHEDRAL CITY (Riverside) Ordinance No. 181, adding Ch. 11.88 to City Municipal Code, 7/1/87 CUPERTINO (Santa Clara) Cupertino Resolution No. 3833, 2/18/75 DALY CITY (San Mateo) Rules and Regulation of the Classified Service DAVIS (Yolo) Davis Municipal Code, Ch. 7A, 2/26/86 HAYWARD (Alameda) Ordinance No. 94-05, 2/11/92 LAGUNA BEACH (Orange) Municipal Code, Ch. 1.07, 5/1/84 LONG BEACH (Los Angeles) City Code, Ch. 5.09, 1987 LOS ANGELES (Los Angeles) Municipal Code, Ch. IV, Art. 12 6/1/79 MARIN COUNTY Marin County Code Chapter 2.42.020 MONTEBELLO (Los Angeles)
MOUNTAIN VIEW (Santa Clara) Resolution No. 10435, 3/31/75 OAKLAND (Alameda) Municipal Code, Art. 20, Ord. No. 10427, 1/10/84 PACIFICA (San Mateo) City Administrative Policy, 1/13/92 PALO ALTO (Santa Clara) City Employment Policy & Procedure PASADENA (Los Angeles) City Manual of Personnel Rules, Practices & Procedures §5.05, 8/15/92 REDONDO BEACH (Los Angeles)
RIVERSIDE (Riverside) 1997 SACRAMENTO (Sacramento) City Code, Ch. 14, Ord. No. 86-042, 4/1/86 SAN DIEGO (San Diego) Ordinance No. 0-17453, 4/16/90 SAN FRANCISCO (San Francisco) San Francisco Admin. Code, Art. 33, §3301, et seq., 10/87 SAN JOSE (Santa Clara) Affirmative Action Guidelines, Resolution No. 58076, 2/5/85 SAN MATEO COUNTY Affirmative Action Plan, §III-A, 12/31/92 SANTA BARBARA COUNTY County Code §2.94 et seq., 8/21/79 SANTA BARBARA (Santa Barbara) Resolution No. 93-134, 11/9/93 SANTA CLARA COUNTY Policy No. 103 (3/10/92) SANTA CRUZ COUNTY Resolution No. 791-81 (harassment,) 10/27/81 SANTA CRUZ (Santa Cruz) Affirmative Action Program, Resolution No. 15-246, 4/12/83 SANTA MONICA (Los Angeles) Resolution No. 781-81, Ch. 9, §§4900-10, 1984. WEST HOLLYWOOD (Los Angeles) Ordinance No. 7, 11/30/84 Colorado STATE OF COLORADO(1) Executive Order 90-13-98 (1990) ASPEN (Pitkin) Municipal Code, Ch. 13, §13-98, 11/77 BOULDER (Boulder) City Charter, Title 12 Human Rights Law, 1988 BOULDER COUNTY Personnel Manual, Ch. 1 & 2, 1987 COLORADO SPRINGS (El Paso) 1997 CRESTED BUTTE (Gunnison) Municipal Ordinance No. 6, 4/5/93 DENVER (Denver) City Code, 28-91 et seq., 1990 FORT COLLINS (Larimer) 1998 JEFFERSON COUNTY 1997 TELLURIDE (Denver) Ordinance No. 1, 2/2/93 Connecticut STATE OF CONNECTICUT Public Act 91-58 (5/29/91) HARTFORD (Hartford) Municipal Code §2-276, 1977 NEW HAVEN (New Haven) City Code, Ch. 12 1/2, Art. I-V, 1991 STAMFORD (Fairfield) Ordinance 667 (Supp.), 1991 Delaware STATE OF DELAWARE Executive Order No. 10 (01/23/2001) WILMINGTON (New Castle) Ordinance No. 00-121 (11/16/2000) District of Columbia WASHINGTON D.C. Human Rights Act, 1977, D.C.L. 2-38, D.C. Code §1-2541(c) 12/13/77 Florida ALACHUA COUNTY(2) REPEALED 11/94 [4/93] BROWARD COUNTY Ordinance No. 95-26, 6/27/95; amending Ch. 16 1/2, Articles I - III of the Broward County Code of Ordinances GAINESVILLE (Alachua) June 1, 1998 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY(3) REPEALED 5/17/95 [Human Rights Amendment 91-9, 5/29/91] KEY WEST (Monroe) Key West Human Rights Law §72, 9/91 LEON COUNTY Ordinance No. 00-16 amending Fair Housing Code Ch. 9 sec. 9-27 and 9-29 (4/18/2000) MIAMI BEACH (Dade) Ordinance No. 92-2824, 12/2/92 MIAMI-DADE COUNTY December 1, 1998; amending Dade County Human Rights Ordinance. #98-170. PALM BEACH COUNTY Affirmative Action Plan, 1990 TAMPA (Hillsborough) Ordinance No. 91-88, 5/29/91 WEST PALM BEACH (Palm Beach) Ordinance No. 90-1 (housing & public Accom.,) 2/2/90;Affirmative Action Plan (employment) Georgia ATLANTA (Fulton) City Charter, Ga.L. 1973, p.2188, (3/3/86) & Ordinance No. 00-O-1983 (12/4/2000) FULTON COUNTY Equal Employment Opportunity Policy, 8/17/92 LITHIA SPRINGS (Douglas) 1997 TYBEE ISLAND (Chatham) Equal Employment Opportunity Policy, 8/17/92 Hawai’i STATE OF HAWAI’I Rev. Stats., §§ 368-1 & 378-2 (3/21/91) HONOLULU (Honolulu) City & County Ordinance No. 88-16, 2/18/88 HONOLULU COUNTY City & County Ordinance No. 88-16, 2/18/88 Idaho TROY (Latah) 1994 Illinois STATE OF ILLINOIS Illinois Human Rights Act as amended by SB3186 in January 2005 CHAMPAIGN (Champaign) Municipal Code, Ch. 13, as amended by Ordinance 77-222, 7/19/77 CHICAGO (Cook) Municipal Code, Ch. 199 et seq., 12/88 COOK COUNTY Human Rights Ordinance, 3/16/93 DEKALB (Dekalb) Municipal Code, Ch. 49, as amended by Ordinance 98-133 (12/14/98) EVANSTON (Cook) Municipal Code Ch. 5 and Ch. 12, as amended by Ordinance 61-O-97 (6/3/97) OAK PARK (Cook) Village Code, Art. 1 §13, 1993. URBANA (Champaign) City Code, Ch. 12, §12-1 et seq. (1979) Indiana STATE OF INDIANA 2001 Employment Policy BLOOMINGTON (Monroe) Municipal Code Ch. 2.21, as amended by Ordinance No. 93-28 (7/8/93) FORT WAYNE (Allen) Exec. Order (1994)(7)

Iowa STATE OF IOWA Repealed December 2000. Executive Order No. 7 (9/14/99) - Overturned by the courts 12/7/00 - Replaced by Executive Order No. 18 (3/28/01), which does not specifically reference sexual orientation AMES (Story) Municipal Code Ch. 14, as amended by Ordinance 3128 (5/28/91) CEDAR RAPIDS (Linn) Municipal Code Section 69.02, et seq., as amended by Ordinance 2-99 (1/6/99) CERRO GORDO COUNTY
DAVENPORT (Scott) Municipal Code Section 2.58 (as amended 3/1/00) DES MOINES (Polk) Municipal Code Section 62.1 et seq., as amended by Ordinance 13,965 (7/9/01) IOWA CITY (Johnson) Municipal Code Title 2, Ordinance No. 77-2830 (4/19/77) Kansas LAWRENCE (Douglas) Ordinance No. 6658 amending Ch. 10 Article 1 of Lawrence City Code of 1994, (5/2/95) WICHITA (Sedgwick) REPEALED 1978. Passed 1977; Kentucky HENDERSON (Henderson) REPEALED 3/13/01 by Henderson City Council. Ord. No 33-39 (10/5/1999) JEFFERSON COUNTY Ordinance No. 36-1999 (10/12/1999) (Covers only unincorporated parts of the county LEXINGTON-FAYETTE URBAN COUNTY Ordinance No. 201-99 July 8, 1999 LOUISVILLE (Jefferson) Ordinance No. 9, Series 1999 (1/26/99) Louisiana STATE OF LOUISIANA EXPIRED 8/96 Executive Order No. Ewe 92-7 (2/17/92)(10)

Maine STATE OF MAINE REPEALED 2/10/98. 5 MRSA §§ 4552-4553 (as amended by P.L. 205, 5/5/97) 1997. BAR HARBOR (Hancock) April 21, 1998 LEWISTON (Androscoggin) REPEALED 1993. Passed 1993. LONG ISLAND (Cumberland)
ORONO (Penobscot)
PORTLAND (Cumberland) City Code, Ch. 13.5, Art. I & III, 5/11/92 SORRENTO (Hancock) Sept 15, 1998

Maryland STATE OF MARYLAND Senate Bill 205, Antidiscrimination Act of 2001 (5/15/2001). BALTIMORE (Baltimore) City Code, Art. 4, §§9(16), 12(8), 1983. Repl. Vol., Ord. 79, 6/3/88 FREDRICK COUNTY Resolution No. 98-15 amending Human Relation Comission Regulations (4/30/1998) HOWARD COUNTY 1976 MONTGOMERY COUNTY County Code, Ch. 27, §27-1 et seq., 9/14/84 PRINCE GEORGES COUNTY County Human Relations Code Subtitle 1, Division 12, §2-185 (1991) ROCKVILLE (Montgomery) City Code, Ch. 11, §11-1 et seq., 1990 TAKOMA PARK (Montgomery) 6/14/93 Massachusetts STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS Gen. L., Ch. 151B, § 3(6) (11/89) AMHERST (Hampshire) Citizen’s Commission, 1976 BOSTON (Suffolk) Boston Code, Title 12, Ch. 40, amended 7/84 CAMBRIDGE (Middlesex) Ordinance No. 1016, 1984 MALDEN (Middlesex) Art. IV, §16.13, 1984 SOMERVILLE (Middlesex)
WORCESTER (Worcester) Ordinance amending Ch. 2, Art. 30 of 1986 Ordinance Michigan STATE OF MICHIGAN Ch. 333, Art. 17, §20201 & §21761; and Ch. 331, §306(11); Executive Order (12/23/03) ANN ARBOR (Washtenaw) City Code Ch. 112, Ordinance No. 4-78 (3/13/78) BIRMINGHAM (Oakland) City Code Ch. 66, Article II, as amended by Ordinance No. 1520 (4/27/92) DETROIT (Wayne) City Code Ch. 27, Ordinance No. 330-H (7/16/79) EAST LANSING (Ingham) City Code Ch. 4, Secion 1.120 et seq., as amended by Ordinance No. 644 (12/16/86) FERNDALE (Oakland) REPEALED 2/22/00 [9/13/99] FLINT (Genessee) City Code Ch. 2, as amended by Ordinance No. 3131 (4/9/90) GRAND RAPIDS (Kent) City Code Ch. 8, Article 3, Sec 1.341 et seq., Ordinance No. 94-18 (5/10/94) INGHAM COUNTY Equal Opportunity Committee Resolution No. 73-263, as amended by Resolution No. 77-197 (5/26/87) LANSING(12) (Ingham) REPEALED 11/96 [3/96] SAGINAW (Saginaw) General Code Article 3 (5/31/84) YPSILANTI (Washtenaw) City Code Ch. 67, Ordinance No. 865 (12/16/97) Minnesota STATE OF MINNESOTA Minnesota Statutes Annotated Ch. 363, as amended by Ch. 22, H.F. No. 585 (4/2/93) ANOKA (Anoka) City Personnel Policy Manual, Section 7 ANOKA COUNTY Anoka County Board Resolution #2001-37 (2/27/01)(14)

Missouri COLUMBIA (Boone) Municipal Code Ch. 12, Sec. 12-32 et seq. (1992) KANSAS CITY (Clay, Platte & Jackson) Municipal Code Ch. 38, as amended by Ordinance No. 930612 (6/3/93) ST. LOUIS (St. Louis) Ordinance No. 62610, (10/2/92) Montana STATE OF MONTANA Montana Operations Manual (MOM) Policy No. 3-0630 Nevada STATE OF NEVADA NRS 610.010 et seq. (Eff. 10/1/99). 1999 Nev. Assem. Bill No. 311 New Hampshire STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE RSA 21 (as amended by H.B. 421, 3/19/1997) New Jersey STATE OF NEW JERSEY Ch. 519, L.N.J. 1991; Hum Rts. Law [C.10:5-3] (1/92) ESSEX COUNTY 1990 NEWARK (Essex) 1990 VINELAND (Cumberland) 1990 New Mexico STATE OF NEW MEXICO HB277 (2004) covers sexual orientation and gender identity ALBUQUERQUE (Bernalillo) Mayoral Executive Order, 3/30/94 New York STATE OF NEW YORK Executive Order 28.1 (11/18/93) ALBANY COUNTY Local Law No.”1” (6/96) ALBANY (Albany) Ordinance No. 97.112.92; City Code, Ch. 1, Art. XI, 12/7/92 ALFRED (Allegany) Village Ordinance, Art. II, §I, 5/74 BRIGHTON (Monroe) Town Employment Policy, 1992 BUFFALO (Erie) 1984 EAST HAMPTON (Suffolk) Equal Employment Opportunity Policy Statement, 1985 ITHACA (Tompkins) Municipal Code, Ch. 28 (housing) & 29 (fair practices) 9/94 NASSAU COUNTY Local Law no. 38-2000 (12/13/2000) NEW YORK CITY (New York, Kings, Queens, Bronx, & Richmond) Administrative Code, Title 8 (civil rights) amended 1993 ONONDAGA COUNTY Aug 24, 1998 PLATTSBURGH (Clinton) 1992 ROCHESTER (Monroe) Intro 45 (city employment), 12/12/83 SOUTHAMPTON (Suffolk) 1995 SUFFOLK COUNTY Suffolk County Code, §89-1 et seq.; as amended by Local Law No. 5 3/1/88 SYRACUSE (Onondaga) Local Law No. 17, Fair Practices, 1990 TOMPKINS COUNTY Local Law C., Fair Practice, 12/91 TROY (Rensselaer) 2-20 Affirmative Action Plan, 1/79 WATERTOWN (Jefferson) Resolution (equal employment,) 5/2/88 WESTCHESTER COUNTY Local Law Intro 17-1999, 12/15/1999 North Carolina ASHEVILLE (Buncombe) 5/94 CARBORRO (Orange) City Code, Art. II, §4-5 12/18/90 CHAPEL HILL (Orange) City Code, Art. IV, 9/75 DURHAM (Durham) Proclamation, 6/25/86 RALEIGH (Wake) Raleigh City Code, Part 4, Chs. 1,2,3; as amended by Ordinance No. 1988, 1/5/88 WOODFIN (Buncombe)
Ohio STATE OF OHIO REWRITTEN 6/99 Executive Order 83-64 (12/30/83) Rewritten 6/99 to exclude gay state employees ATHENS (Athens) City Code Title 3, Ch. 3.07, as amended by Ordinance No. 0-157-97 (12/15/97) CINCINNATI(19) (Hamilton) REPEALED [3/13/91] Repealed by “Issue 3” on 3/5/95 CLEVELAND(20) (Cuyahoga) Ordinances Nos. 77-94 (3/23/94) and 90-96 (3/26/96) CLEVELAND HEIGHTS (Cuyahoga) City Code Chs. 171 and 749, Ordinance 154-1994 (AS) (1/3/95) COLUMBUS (Franklin) City Code, Ch. 2331 (8/84 & 6/92) CUYAHOGA COUNTY County Board of Commissioners Affirmative Action Resolution, as amended (8/8/86) DAYTON (Montgomery) Executive Order(24)

Oregon STATE OF OREGON (Jackson) Oregon’s employment discrimination statute (which does not use the words “sexual orientation”) has been interpreted by the Oregon intermediate appellate court and by a federal court in Oregon to prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The first case to hold this was Tanner v. Oregon Health Sciences University, 157 Ore. App. 502, 971 P.2d 435 (1998). ASHLAND (Jackson) 1993 CORVALLIS (Benton) 1992 EUGENE (Lane) 1994 MULTNOMAH COUNTY Code of Ordinances, Vol. 1, Ch. 9 (Updated through Ordinance 955 adopted 12-21-2000) PORTLAND (Multnomah) Res. 31510, 12/74; Portland City Personnel System, Title 4, 5/7/87 Pennsylvania STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA Executive Order No. 1988-1 (1/20/88) HARRISBURG (Dauphin) Harrisburg Codified Ordinances, Art. 725, 3/83 LANCASTER (Lancaster) Ordinance No. 11-1991, 3/26/91 NORTHAMPTON COUNTY Policy Statement, 1996 OXFORD (Chester) Oxford Equal Employment Opportunity Policy PHILADELPHIA (Philadelphia) Fair Practices Ordinance, Ch. 9-1100 (1982) PITTSBURGH (Allegheny) Title 6, Art V, Ch. 651, 4/3/90 STATE COLLEGE (Centre) Ordinance No. 1407, 3/1/93 YORK (York) Sess. 1993, No. 4, Codified Ordinance, Art. 185 (1993) Rhode Island STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 95-H 6678 Sub.A (5/22/95) PROVIDENCE (Providence) 1995 South Carolina COLUMBIA (Richland) Personnel Handbook (public employees), 6/15/93 South Dakota MINNEHAHA COUNTY Employee Policy Manual, 1979 Texas AUSTIN (Travis) City Code, Ch. 7-3; Ordinance 75-710-A, 7/75 DALLAS (Dallas) Ordinance 22318, 1/95, amending Dallas City Code Ch. 34 Art. V §34-35 HOUSTON (Harris) 1998 LUBBOCK (Lubbock)
Utah SALT LAKE CITY (Salt Lake) Executive Order Policy 3.01.01 (April 5, 2000) SALT LAKE COUNTY Civil Rights Ordinance, 9/30/92 Vermont STATE OF VERMONT Human Rights Law (4/23/92) BURLINGTON (Chittenden) Personnel Policy for City Employment, 1992 Virginia ALEXANDRIA (Arlington) Ordinance No. 3328 & 3498, 1997 ARLINGTON COUNTY(30) Human Rights Law, Ch. 31, 1997 CHARLOTTES- VILLE (Independent City) 1994; extended in 2000 to include public shchool employees ROANOKE (Roanoke) Personnel Operating Procedure #2 (“Unlawful Discrimination”) (2001) VIRGINIA BEACH (Independent City) enacted April 1995 by city manager Washington STATE OF WASHINGTON Executive Order 85-09 (12/24/85) CLALLAM COUNTY Home Rule Charter, Art. X: Personnel System, 11/2/76 CLARK COUNTY County Equal Employment Opportunity Policy, 1/94 KING COUNTY County Code, Ch. 12.18, 1988 OLYMPIA (Thurston) Ordinance, 6/17/86 PULLMAN (Whitman) Ordinance B-271, Affirmative Action Policy for City, 12/11/81; Fair Housing Code, Title 15, 1981 SEATTLE (King) Municipal Code, Ch. 14.08 (housing) & 14.04 (emp;) Ordinance No. 111714 (harassment) 8/13/84; Executive Order 1984 SPOKANE (Spokane) Ordinance No. C-32232 (1/26/99) TUMWATER (Thurston)
VANCOUVER (Clark) City Council Resolution, 10/4/93 West Virginia MORGANTOWN (Monongalia) 9/21/93 Wisconsin STATE OF WISCONSIN Ch. 112 of the Laws of 1981, Codified at various locations (3/2/82) DANE COUNTY City Code Ch. 19(Employment) and Ch. 31 (Fair Housing - 1/1/88) MADISON (Dane) City Code Ch. 3.23 (7/79) MILWAUKEE (Milwaukee) City Code Ch. 109-15 (12/22/87) ONEIDA COUNTY Citation unavailable(32)

By norman

April 15, 2005 10:38 AM | Link to this

Boscoe: four hundred years of biblical scholarship have established that Jesus is not well known through the Gospels which were written from a Pauline and Johannine viewpoint. From study of the milieu of Jesus we know it quite unlikely that: 1) he preached anything substantially new, except that God was about to intervene and restore the kingdom of Israel. 2) he was interested in anyone but “the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” 3) he founded a church at all, since he expected the end of the world as it was know momentarily.

We do know: he was wrong about God restoring Israel and ending the rule of the Romans; he was wrong about his return as the “great prophet” to usher in the messianic age; he knew nothing of Paul’s teaching about the blood of Christ leading to salvation.

We also know that the Gospels were written to persuade the Romans that the Jews were bad and the Christians good and that Christianity had no messianic intentions vs. Rome.

Christianity as we know it, Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, all, believe in a Jesus who never existed, a church he did not found, a salvation he did not proclaim, and an ethic he intended for a short time.

By J. Morris

April 15, 2005 10:40 AM | Link to this

Eugene/Boscoe, you’re both obviously the Cut-and-paste guy(s). So…you’re saying that because some municipalities have protections, that’s enough? It won’t be enough until it’s a Federal law, so that nasty bigots can’t take over legislatures and attack the people they don’t like.

By LYRAZEL

April 15, 2005 10:46 AM | Link to this

Eugene, please next time you wish to have someone look up information inform them as to where the website is where you collected your data. Your huge and topic-irrelevant post was exceptionally rude. Thanks—Lyrazel

By Eugene

April 15, 2005 10:48 AM | Link to this

�hemophiliacs and those receiving blood transfusions are also “suffering from a mental disorder�. Brian, are you that much of a dolt that you can’t tell the difference between a medical procedure and anal sex? I never said “Extreme skiers� needed to be cured. I said there are studies taking place to find if a mental disorder exists for those that cannot recognize extremely dangerous situations. What trait does a Christian scientist have that displays a risk activity? How is SSA a “mental disorder� ? I have explained this, in detail, in previous posts, reread it! Brian, homosexuality is a deviant behavior which is why people do not want to accept it. What causes somebody to be “gay� is a mental disorder based upon environmental conditions. Medical science HAS been able to verify this phenomenon. Mental disorders can be cured. Cases are on record for this very thing.

By smithy

April 15, 2005 10:51 AM | Link to this

Yes, Eugene. PLEASE don’t paste that much crap into this blog again. Nobody reads it and all it does is make us scroll through the massive nonsense of your posting.

By Seaborn

April 15, 2005 10:55 AM | Link to this

Eugene,

I’m not going to look up every single one of those to see what they say. It looks like you just listed a number of municipal laws but it’s not clear to me that they all concern sexual orientation. Did you read through all of that yourself? Many look like they only deal with affirmative action. I did notice however that some of them are repeals of existing ordinance’s, i.e., changed to exclude gays. But I will confess that I didn’t think any states had laws so that is actually nice to see, although Georgia doesn’t appear to…but I’m not surprised.

By Eugene

April 15, 2005 10:57 AM | Link to this

If homosexuality is a normal sexual orientation, why is only 1 to 3percent of the population homosexual and not 50 percent? Why are there more homosexual males than homosexual females?Homosexuality is not about sex. Rather, it is ultimately aboutrejection of and detachment from self, from others, and ones own gender identity. Thousands of men and women throughout the world have changed from homosexual to heterosexual. Masters and Johnson claim about a 65 percent success rate in helping people change. Other therapists who report successful treatment are Drs. Bieber, Socarides, Nicolosi,Hatterer, Gershman, Hadden,Hamilton, van den Aardweg, Barnhouse, Ellis, and many others. The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) conducted a survey of 860 respondents and found that those who want to change their sexual orientation may succeed Lyrazel, I did not realize the post was that large, my apologies for your Inconvenience.

By Lyrazel

April 15, 2005 11:05 AM | Link to this

Eugene, thanks…accepted. Love when people post—their—ideas comments and stuff…it fascinates me how diverse we are—but just remember your audience wont read or even look up most of the links. I too am learning that a smaller post makes a readable post. Enjoy. Happy Friday.

By Boscoe

April 15, 2005 11:05 AM | Link to this

Norman, what about the following discoverys? Abraham’s home city, The Red Sea crossing and the remains of Pharaoh’s army, and Israel’s camp, in Saudi Arabia, Conquest of Jericho ,Seal of King Jeraboam, The scroll of Isaiah, Accuracy of names, places and dates in the gospels, Ports of Galilee revealed, Pontius Pilate’s inscription, Jesus’ prophecy about the temple, Darkness over the Middle East at time of Jesus’ death, Excavation at Calvary which found The Crucifixion Site, and Jesus’ Tomb. Early dates for the writing of the gospels,Testimony of the Talmud - Strange events at the temple between Jesus’ death and the destruction of Jerusalem 40 years later. Witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection - The apostles gave their lives for what they knew to be true.

By J. Morris

April 15, 2005 11:06 AM | Link to this

Eugene, none of these things have been medically “proven” at all. In fact, the APA REMOVED homosexuality from its list of mental disorders years ago. Additionally, there is not a single study that conclusively proves ANYTHING about the causes of human sexuality, at least not one that doesn’t come from some group with “Family” in its name.

Really, I’m so glad that you are conclusively stating that you, and only you, have isolated the cause for a deviant behavior-causing mental disorder that only you and other religious fanatics classify as a disorder. You are obviously a representative of the legitimate scientific community.

You might refer to the Kinsey Institute if you want a legitimate, non-fundamentalized, objective collection of studies and information about human sexuality.

By Eugene

April 15, 2005 11:09 AM | Link to this

Seaborne, my point was that you said there were NO laws and clearly there are. If you want to dispute them, speak with LambaLegal,the pro homosexual movement organization, they’re the ones who post them claiming success of the movement.

By Seaborn

April 15, 2005 11:11 AM | Link to this

Eugene,

Please post your sources for those claims.

By lozen

April 15, 2005 11:14 AM | Link to this

Eugene, why exactly are you so concerned about the small percentage of people in the world who are gay? Don’t you have other “heterosexual” issues to deal with in your life? You know what psychologists say about men who are obsessed with homosexuality, don’t you?

By Eugene

April 15, 2005 11:15 AM | Link to this

I beleive I have Seaborne

By RS

April 15, 2005 11:19 AM | Link to this

Scott: Of course, any rational person will agree with us that whether gay, bi or straight, we ALL deserve equal treatment. No, when I stated I’d like to see welfare abolished, I think you & I are looking toward the same goal. I have NO PROBLEM with poor people being helped in return for them working; in fact, it’s a wonderful concept!I just have a problem with it coming out of MY paycheck; sorry, but I don’t haul muself to work every day to support a bunch of strangers when my husband & I are still playing “financial catch-up”, it isn’t fair OR right. Bryan: You’re mature beyond your years. You’ll find that intimacy with someone you truly care for has a lot more depth than just “hooking up”, which will leave you with an empty feeling. Van, your post actually proved a point I’ve been trying to make all along. BECAUSE we ARE living in a different world today, the few kids who are attempting to wait till marriage will be pressured by society, their peers and advertising, to give in. These factors coupled with raging adolescent hormones & a lack of wisdom & maturity can be a dangerous brew and won’t stand a chance against any abstinance programs. Tim, don’t let Tony get to you, hon; consider the source. He’s merely grasping at straws. Eugene: Gays have special privileges? Gee, I guess that’s why I’M married & a pair of men I’m friendly with, who’ve been together since 1986, are not. Lola: I’m in total agreement re this country’s laxity toward illegals.

By Eugene

April 15, 2005 11:20 AM | Link to this

My concern is the movement to legitimize arrant behavior which I find offensive.

By J. Morris

April 15, 2005 11:24 AM | Link to this

The word is ERRANT behavior, Eugene. A supposedly educated man should know the difference between “arrant” (without moderation) and “errant” (outside the norm).

Personally, MY concern is the movement to demonize an entire group of people who have no influence on your life. What’s your damage?

By Seaborn

April 15, 2005 11:29 AM | Link to this

No you haven’t Eugene. A source would be an actual paper or website where I can go and see where you came up with those figures. Then I can go and see what is actually said and it’s context. I can also see how verifiable it is and how biased.

here is a link with an argument against reparative therapy. I freely admit it is from a biased source. Anybody who cares can make up their own mind. http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/reparative_therapy.html

I dispute the fact that these so called medical people actually can change someones sexual orientation. What they can do,usually by religous pressure, is try to motivate a person to act a certain way. Most of these successes you mention don’t remain that way. John Paulk the poster-child ex-gay, later showed up in a Washington, DC gay bar.

By RS

April 15, 2005 11:30 AM | Link to this

Eugene: EXCUSE ME??Your concern is that behaviour YOU find offensive be legitimized?? Um, isn’t that a tad-arrogant??? Why should the government pander to YOU & not to, for instance, me, Lozen, Lola, Akeya, Tim, James, Seaborn, Jack, JMorris..??? I happen to find bigotry offensive but clearly, THAT’S been legitimized. See my point? No, sadly, you probably don’t. Homosexuality as a mental disorder? OK, what do you say about a heterosexual serial killer vs a gay man who lives a quiet life with his lover, goes to church, goes to work, pays taxes, is active in his community, is a good neighbour & has never been in any trouble?? Cat got your tongue, perhaps??

By J. Morris

April 15, 2005 11:40 AM | Link to this

Interestingly enough, the Masters and Johnson study he mentions contains a footnote stating that their measure of success for the majority of their subjects was the person’s physical ability to perform with a member of the opposite sex. They specifically state that ability to perform in no way indicates a change in fantasy or attraction. Hope this isn’t TMI, but by that standard, I could be considered a convert.

By Brian Curtis

April 15, 2005 11:47 AM | Link to this

….aaaand Eugene has now shown his true motivation, beyond all the cut-and-paste medical quotations. Basically, he just finds homosexual behavior “offensive” and “deviant.”

Guess what, Eugene? Lefthanded people make up about 10% of the population, and THEY’RE perfectly normal. So there goes your argument-by-numbers.

Homosexuality is a choice instead of genetically determined? Even if true (and that’s questionable), so what? That doesn’t prove it’s a mental disorder any more than being Jewish or Moslem is a mental disorder. That destroys your “minority lifestyle = psychological problem” argument.

Homosexual activity leads to increased risk of exposure to disease? Big deal; so does schoolteaching, skiing, and working in a pathology lab. Those aren’t mental disorders either. So “poof” goes THAT argument.

Homosexuality is the ONLY way to contract AIDS, and only homosexuals are affected? Hah! A REAL doctor would know that both of those arguments are false—and worry less about “medical procedures vs. that offensive anal sex stuff.” Another argument, up in smoke.

So what do you have left, Eugene? Well, we’ve seen what you have left: you dislike the “gay agenda,” you find gay behavior “offensive,” and you label gays as “deviants.” Those are hardly qualified medical opinions, Eugene. Those are your personal bugaboos rising to the surface for all to see.

As for those “cured”: Gee, I wonder how many people struggle to live every day as straight while denying their true homosexuality because of fear and self-hatred? I guess it must be zero, huh? Because the straight-to-gay conversion NEVER occurs—at least, not among sane, psychologically “healthy” people, right?

Get over your obsession with “fixing” everybody you consider “deviant,” Eugene. Just because they do something you dislike doesn’t mean they’re crazy. Forcing someone to pretend they’re something they’re not, however, IS crazy.

By lozen

April 15, 2005 12:06 PM | Link to this

To all the gay people on this site: Watch the movie “Big Eden” where grandpa tells his gay grandson, “The good lord made you just the way you are and he doesn’t make mistakes.” Love yourself just the way you are. It doesn’t matter that there are people who hate gays. Just as equality for black people won out against all the bigots who fought it, equality for gay people will win out against all the bigots who fight it. It is something this country is based on: equality for all.

By Mary

April 15, 2005 12:09 PM | Link to this

Eugene and the rest of the gay-haters,

I find almost all fat people offensive. Everything about fat people is offensive to me; the lack of personal self-respect, the lack of concern over their own health and well-being, the lack of self-esteem, the inability to control their own behavior, and yes, the general appearance of obese people. They take up too much space in planes. They are a poor role model for our youth.

Further being, gluttony IS A SIN. Gluttony being the way almost all people get fat. Our bodies are temples…

Obesity is linked to more major life threatening illnesses than even smoking. Disease and illness from obesity is strangling both Medicare, Medicaid and insurance companies, causing both our taxes and our insurance premiums to sky rocket.

Fat people are harming our society.

So, should we be able to legislate that fat folks can’t marry, can’t have kids, can’t have lives?

By Norman

April 15, 2005 12:14 PM | Link to this

The Gospels were written all after the fall of Jerusalem, they therefore project back into their narrative things which were predictive of that event. They are not history but commentary, some might argue propaganda, evangelical propaganda. The Old Testament has many accuracies and many other events and places totally at variance with the historic record. The biblical books were not written to tell history but to argue a point of view: the point of view of Judaean monarchists, the point of view of apocalyptics, the point of view of Paulinists and followers of John vs. James of Jerusalem and therefore vs. Jesus himself. I can see, Boscoe, from what you say that you read only orthodox books which seek a priori to justify Christianity as we know it now, not Christianity as it really was THEN.

By norman

April 15, 2005 12:17 PM | Link to this

If God made homosexuals, what does that mean? That he loves homosexuals? Why didn’t he make more of them? That he wants to punish them with a malady? Why would a good God do that? Of course, all this God talk pro and con is a way of enriching an argument. Leave God out of it and you can deal with it rationally. There is nothing rational about bringing God into the picture. Since God is by definition (see St. Augustine, Boscoe) unknowable, theology must be the most fraudulent activity since it proports to be the “study of God.”

By chuck

April 15, 2005 12:18 PM | Link to this

So much to answer, so little time:

Brian, you keep screaming about the “skiers and school teachers” analogy that you postulated. What an incredibly inane comparison. While skiing AND teaching school may be “risky” behaviors, one does not generally participate in them because of mental illness. While some may ski because they have a heightened sense of thrill-seeking, most do it for recreation and exercise, or because they love being outside in nature. While beginning teachers probably do get more colds than the general population, again, it is not a result of a mental illness.

Homosexuality has ALWAYS been considered to be a separate mental illness (no different in that regard from schizophrenia and paranoia), until it became politically incorrect to view it in that manner.

Broken limbs are physical MEDICAL conditions as are colds. Homosexuality is a MENTAL condition caused by environmental factors NOT genetic ones. Therefore it is also different from your equally ridiculous “left-handed, red hair examples” which are totally genetic and have nothing to do with a mental condition.

You ranted about how Eugene didn’t provide any factual information, yet he quoted a number of scientific studies that can easily be found on the internet for those who are interested in learning and not just spouting off.

Vince: You have to be GAY to discuss the issue? I don’t think so. I don’t have to walk a mile in your shoes to be able to smell them.

JMillicent: You are right, the matter of choice IS key. Because you choose to participate in a self-destructive, society damaging behavior, you also choose to accept the consequences for that choice. Your basic premise is that because you are gay you should be able to do whatever you want to do and the rest of us just have to live with it. The plain truth of the matter is that what you are asking for is SPECIAL RIGHTS and not EQUAL RIGHTS. You already have equal rights. Just as I was free to marry a woman, YOU are free to marry a woman. The fact that you choose not to do that is YOUR problem and your choice. As for the realms of employment and housing, that should be completely up to the employer and/or the landlord. As an owner of rental property, should I be forced to put my PERSONAL property into the hands of someone whose behavior I find morally repugnant? Should I be forced to rent my house to a prostitute or a drug dealer? You keep saying that you just want to be able to live YOUR life as YOU see fit. Does that not apply to property owners? Should a business person have to have in his OWN PLACE OF BUSINESS a person whose behavior disgusts him? Or does HE not have any rights to live HIS life as HE sees fit and hire whomever he wishes to hire? You can’t have it both ways. While I personally hate discrimination based on race, I have absolutely NO problem with discrimination based on BEHAVIOR.

One definition of discrimination is as follows:

The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment. Sounds pretty POSITIVE to me. You DEFINITELY lack discernment, or you would not be so hypocritical. Everyone should be able to live their own lives as they see fit…as long as they do what YOU want them to do.

By Scott

April 15, 2005 12:24 PM | Link to this

RS I completely agree with you. Trust me, cops in Atlanta don’t get paid squat (even in comparison to other sections of the country where the cost of living is comparable) so I got more than frustrated with responding to calls, fighting drunks, breaking up DV incidents, chasing armed robbers, stopping burglars, for people who are unwilling to make a living and would rather live off a portion of my paycheck. I just have to constantly remind myself that I am making a difference out there and that there are good people that generally outnumber the idiots. Or maybe I am just deluding myself. I agree its frustrating. What I am suggesting is helping people get a helping hand to get on their feet, but not carrying them indefinitely. If people knew that they would get help, but for a finite period of time, perhaps they would get in gear, but at this point in our culture, I suspect not.

Tim Thanks and your welcome.

Lola as for immigration, that has been a problem ineffectually dealt with for no less than the last 30 years. There are over 250,000 unapprehended criminal felons illegally in this country as well as about 7 million illegals as a whole. Recently, a Mexican state (I believe it was Michoacan, but I would have to look it up to refresh my memory) released a state sponsored pamphlet on how to safely run the border (since the desert can be pretty harsh) The MEXICAN GOVERNMENT is telling their citizens how to safely invade the US!!! In my book that makes Mexico and enemy, not a friend.

By lozen

April 15, 2005 12:25 PM | Link to this

Excellent point Mary.

By norman

April 15, 2005 12:29 PM | Link to this

None of you seem concerned, the Dow Jones is down again today and it looks like it will fall below 10,000. You are prattling about how to screw and how to pray while the country goes to hell in a Republican handbasket.

Boscoe: the least you could do is to start a novena. Fundies: start a project to read the entire book of Numbers backwards, the way it was written by those crazy Hebes.

By lozen

April 15, 2005 12:34 PM | Link to this

Oh, Chuck - how can you be so limited in your world? With every subject we talk about on these boards, I am more horrified to think that you are influencing the next generation by being a teacher. You say, “Homosexuality has ALWAYS been considered to be a separate mental illness until it became politically incorrect to view it in that manner.” How about back in the days of Greece when all men had a young male lover along with a wife? How about Native American tribes who had shamans who were selected because they were gay and incorporated both the male and the female? They were called Burdeche. It is absolutely untrue that homosexuality has ALWAYS been considered a mental illness. You again are grasping at straws to justify your own ignorance and hostility toward gay people.

By Randy

April 15, 2005 12:47 PM | Link to this

Talking about Jesus, he has given us so much evidence of him being the messiah, but some still don’t believe. What would it take for those who don’t believe to believe? If he came down from heaven and shook your hand, would that work? If he preformed a miracle right before your eyes?

By Brian Curtis

April 15, 2005 12:48 PM | Link to this

Chuck, you are once again without a leg to stand on.

As Lozen pointed out, your assertion that “homosexuality has always been considered a mental disorder” is flat-out wrong. And it wasn’t “political correctness” that removed it from the list of mental disorders; it was the accurate evidence that no such “disorder” existed.

Sure, you jump on board with the assumption that homosexuality is a choice, not an inborn trait… but then you fail to answer the question of why the “choice” should be labeled a disease… just as Eugene has, repeatedly. The only difference is that Eugene tried to dress up his prejudice in medical terms first.

Choices in life often involve exposure to risk. That doesn’t prove the choice is a symptom of derangement any more than the choice to drive, work in a pathology lab, or (yes) go skiing is a “mental illness.”

AIDS is a disease; homosexuality is not. Neither you nor Eugene have assembled any evidence to prove otherwise—for the rather obvious reason that you can’t.

Just do what Eugene has finally done: declare that you find gays offensive and move on. Quit pretending you have any logic, medicine, or evidence on your side. You don’t.

By Brian Curtis

April 15, 2005 12:50 PM | Link to this

Ah, Randy! I was wondering if you’d run away since I last asked you for evidence.

You’ve been carping about having “rock-solid evidence, rather than opinion” for some time now… care to present any? Remember: repeated assertions of what you fervently believe MUST be true don’t count.

By chuck

April 15, 2005 12:51 PM | Link to this

BTW JMeuslix, I have answered your silly question about choosing to be straight in another topic, but if it will make you feel better I’ll answer it again. Since EVERYONE is BORN straight or heterosexual, it is not a matter of choice but of birth. There is of course an UNCONSCIOUS choice made to remain that way. In order to become something that you are NOT, REQUIRES a Conscious choice. My wife makes a conscious choice about every 6 weeks to change from being a brunette to a different hair color. To remain a brunette, she would not have to choose anything EXCEPT to not change.

In my previous post I failed to answer a couple of other useless arguments from yesterday. Someone said something about not being able to go into the intensive care unit to see a gay “partner” as a reason for allowing gay “marriage”. That is a specious argument at best. This would also apply to heterosexual couples who are shacking up. ANYONE can allow a supposed partner to visit them in the hospital or to make decisions about them if they are unable to do so themselves. All it takes is a durable power of attorney that you can give to anyone you choose. This power of attorney can cover as many decisions as you would want them to have control over in those instances.

Mary: There are no laws saying that gay people cannot marry. The laws prohibit SAME SEX marriage. Anyone can get married if they are of legal age. As for the other issues, I think it should be up to the employer whether or not to hire a fat person. I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with that. If insurance companies want to charge fat people more for health coverage, NO PROBLEM.

By Eugene

April 15, 2005 12:55 PM | Link to this

Homosexual activity leads to increased risk of exposure to disease? Big deal; so does schoolteaching, skiing, and working in a pathology lab. Those aren’t mental disorders either. So “poofâ€? goes THAT argument. Brian, you are the world biggest dumbass. What you’re telling me is addition and subtraction makes the chances of someone getting a disease just as much as practicing anal sex is? Homosexuality is the ONLY way to contract AIDS, and only homosexuals are affected? Hah! A REAL doctor would know that both of those arguments are falseâ€â€?and worry less about “medical procedures vs. that offensive anal sex stuff.â€? Another argument, up in smoke. You know damn well I said Homosexuality provides the greatest risk of getting aids you jackass! Dear God Brian can’t you come up with any reasonable arguments to refute what I have to say? That a good point Mary except some poor fat slob eating an entire birthday cake is NOT going to create a public health risk is it? Why should the government pander to YOU & not to, for instance, me, Lozen, Lola, Akeya, Tim, James, Seaborn, Jack, JMorris..??? RS, because more people like me VOTE for states make laws that make this behavior illegal. ONLY those times when the issue was NEVER brought before the voting public has it been approved.

By lozen

April 15, 2005 01:01 PM | Link to this

Randy, first of all we were not talking about jesus. And second there is absolutely no evidence of him being a messiah. The bible says he was; the bible is not factual. The bible is determined to show that Yahweh is the only god and I don’t believe that, that jesus was his son whose mother was human and I don’t believe that. I don’t believe in Zeus or Allah either. There is no evidence to show that jesus was the jewish messiah. You cannot present any evidence except what the bible says. I do not believe that and I never will no matter how many times you post your nonsense. I promise you, he will never come to shake my hand; he’s dead. He will never perform a miracle for me; he’s dead. Virgins don’t have children with gods. People like you have been clinging to the belief that jesus is coming back any day now for over 2,000 years! Don’t you think it’s about time to give up and move on?

By DeltaX

April 15, 2005 01:01 PM | Link to this

Chuck, Randy, and Eugene.

While we are at it. Lets agree that epilepsy is a demon trapped in a human again and not let them marry etc. We can also lock them up in the dungeons of mental wards again.

Thank you, organized religion; You have given us all soooo much! (for the dumb ones, this is sarcastic)

Science, over the ages, has unmuddied your sinfull ways - Chuck, Randy, and Eugene - and will continue. All we have to do is cope in the meanwhile.

By Boscoe

April 15, 2005 01:04 PM | Link to this

Norman, what you said about the Gospels is an opinion only. Let’s leave God out of it as you recommend. How did the whole thing, up till where we are now, get started then?

By Lola

April 15, 2005 01:05 PM | Link to this

Thank you, Scott! You’re the only person who has even responded to the immigration post I made earlier. I think your characterization of Mexico as a non-friend is right on. Presidente Fox should be ashamed of himself for using the USA to counterbalance the failed economy in his own country, and for encouraging his countrymen to break the laws of their neighboring country so blatantly.

And on the topic of gay vs. straight, I find it sad that there even has to be a debate on whether or not it’s okay to hate a group of people because some feel they choose their behavior and some feel it is genetic. It should not matter! Judge people as individuals, not as a lumped-in grouping. Everyone is different and we should embrace and celebrate that!

By Seaborn

April 15, 2005 01:07 PM | Link to this

I went back and tried to find the “citations” that “Doctor” Eugene posted but in his zeal to cut and paste (I can actually find the exact wording he posted) he forgot to put in the journals or books where those references came from.

Upon closer examination of some of the names he posted I found enough articles to see that most of them cited opinions from the 50s and 60s, and just about all of them cited the “work” of Nicolosi, who boasts of several conversion successes. His techniques and methods are a joke and his “science” is no more valid than Chuck’s “creationism science”. Successes were measured by his patients self-reporting that they were now heterosexual and then applying a Kinsey scale at that moment in time. Hell, I did that back in my twenties: “Mom, I think I’m straight now..really…” I didn’t need a quack counselor to go through that. There are no long term studies cited. Of these 800 are so people that reported being changed in the early 90s there doesn’t seem to be any follow-up as to how long they stayed that way. The other techniques were aversion therapy…anybody see “A clockwork orange”? It’s basically negative reinforcement.

You know, you conservatives go out on the net and get all of these references and it’s obvious you haven’t really delved into what they are really saying. You really set yourself up.

And I’d still like to know if Dr. Diamond is the famous pediatrician?

By lozen

April 15, 2005 01:08 PM | Link to this

Eugene, and how many years did it take for the majority of southerners to change their minds about owning other human beings? I know it took 50 to 75 years for the majority to change their minds about women not being allowed to vote. And it took legal action and marches to obtain those rights for black people and for women. In this case, with gay people, just as in the two before, the majority is wrong.

By J. Morris

April 15, 2005 01:09 PM | Link to this

Chuck, you are beneath notice. Your bigotry and narrow-mindedness and pure venom are evil, plain and simple.

By RS

April 15, 2005 01:09 PM | Link to this

Scott: I am, sadly, well aware that cops are grossly underpaid. WHY can’t more of our taxes go to paying your salaries instead of subsidizing crackheads & their spawn? I give you plenty of props for putting your life on the line every day. Eugene: What if the majority voted to legalize sex between an adult, & a child under 10? Would that make it right?? Chuck: You and I are free to marry the person that we want to marry. gay people are not. Mary: I agree that obesity is a great strain on our health care system but I do NOT condemn anyone for how they look; in fact, I find very heavy men extremely attractive (I know, I know, how disgusting!)

By Sandy

April 15, 2005 01:10 PM | Link to this

Randy, I think that Jesus was reluctant to to use miracles to prove that he was who he said he was, and probably for good reason. It was wise not to reduce miracles to the Barnum-Bailey equivalent. He performed miracles out of compassion, not for his personal agenda.

“Miracle” is in the eye of the beholder, just as beauty is. I feel it is a miracle when one can show compassion for someone with whom they have a profoundly different opinion or belief. That’s what truly moves mountains of intolerance and ignorance, and it doesn’t have to come from that which is unknowable, as someone alluded to above. Compassion is truly a sign of strength and not weakness, and it is perfect in that moment it occurs. It doesn’t dwell, it doesn’t judge, it doesn’t try to convert. It doesn’t require you to turn your life over or surrender your identity. It’s how we are meant to live, with or without relgion.

By Eugene

April 15, 2005 01:11 PM | Link to this

Brian Sexual orientation is not under the direct governance of chromosomes and genes, and that, whereas it is not foreordained by prenatal brain hormonalization it is influenced thereby, and is also strongly dependent on postnatal socialization.American Psychologist,April 1987

Like all complex behavioral and mental states, homosexuality is multifactorial. It is neither exclusively biological nor exclusively psychological, but results from an as-yet-difficult-to-quantitate mixture of genetic factors, intrauterine influences (some innate to the mother and thus present in every pregnancy, and others incidental to a given pregnancy), postnatal environment (such as parental, sib-ling, and cultural behavior), and a complex series of repeatedly reinforced choices occurring at critical phases in development. Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, 1996

Brian, why haven’t you responded to my point about homosexuals being born that way yet they represent about only 3% of the population?

By norman

April 15, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this

These Christians continually refer to the Gospels as if they were historical accounts of events, whereas they are evangelical propaganda written from 40 80 years after Jesus died and by people who did not know him and were concerned mainly to do two things: to persuade the Romans that they were peaceful and not rebellious and to persuade everyone that the Jews were responsible for everything negative. Randy talks about Jesus showing he was the messiah. He knows nothing evidently about the Gospels, how they came to be, etc. Christians dare not study history because it will show their faith to be nonsense.

By chuck

April 15, 2005 01:16 PM | Link to this

BC: I have never wavered in the assertion that I find gay behavior offensive. You are posing a chicken and egg question. Is it a disease because it is a choice or do they make the choice because it is a disease. I think the terminology is part of the problem We use the term mental “illness”, but it is more of a disorder than a disease per se. Lozen’s assertions are equally irrelevant. There were no “mental health” professionals around with the Greeks or Indians, so the point is baseless. It is a shame that she is so simple-minded that she has to have that distinction spelled out for her. I think it is pretty obvious, to the point of absurdity, that psychiatry is a relatively new field of human knowledge. That is why ya’ll can NEVER win an argument. Instead of answering point for point you always try to use subterfuge to misdirect the opposition. It almost never works on the weakest debaters among us conservatives. It NEVER works on me.

All that said, the argument Eugene made is perfectly valid. In so far as my own beliefs go, I do NOT think that homosexuality is a disease. I think it is a SIN. Yes, something probably occurs during the formative years that pushes a child in that direction, but certainly NOT to the point that it becomes anything more than a choice. I don’t think a change in heart by the left-leaning APA makes any difference one way or the other.

By Eugene

April 15, 2005 01:17 PM | Link to this

How about back in the days of Greece when all men had a young male lover along with a wife? How about Native American tribes who had shamans who were selected because they were gay and incorporated both the male and the female? They were called Burdeche. It is absolutely untrue that homosexuality has ALWAYS been considered a mental illness. You again are grasping at straws to justify your own ignorance and hostility toward gay people.** Lozen, are those civilzations around any more? I wonder why No civilization that has supported homosexual rights has survived? We’ll find out if they’re wrong. Seaborn, provide your own scientific proof then that it doesn’t work.

By Brian Curtis

April 15, 2005 01:20 PM | Link to this

Eugene: I did. Left-handed people are born that way, and they make up a small portion of the population too. Ditto for very tall and very short people; identical and fraternal twins; and people who are double-jointed but can’t curl their tongues. What of it?

Why haven’t YOU responded to my (repeated) point that, regardless of origin, there’s no reason to label homosexuality a “mental illness”?

By J. Morris

April 15, 2005 01:20 PM | Link to this

Eugene, first - the real estimate is closer to 8% to 10%, and he did, in fact, answer your question. Because something is not frequently occuring, that does not meant it’s not innate or inborn. In fact, that you would even ask that question is utterly innane and calls into question your basic logical ability. How many violet-eyed people are born, or how many people are born with better than average vision, or born left-handed?

By norman

April 15, 2005 01:22 PM | Link to this

Gay troops in the ancient world fought best because lovers were fighting along side one another. I always thought the military should encourage, not discourage, gays. And for the homophobes, they would like the fact that gays were in harm’s way. Everyone wins.

By Boscoe

April 15, 2005 01:23 PM | Link to this

Norman, what evidence do you have to support that notion of history? Provide some proof.

By J. Morris

April 15, 2005 01:24 PM | Link to this

Chuck, if you were really worried about legitimate debate, it would help if homosexuality were actually classified as a disorder, as you keep asserting. See, FACTS and not opinions matter in a debate.

As for your calling lozen simple-minded, she was responding to the statement that homosexuality has “never” been accepted. She quite clearly responded to JUST that specific point. The fact that you choose to ignore it is, as you say, typical of conservative scum like you.

By Lola

April 15, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this

It’s obvious that nobody wants to move on from the topic of gay vs. straight, even though every possible view point has been not only presented by beaten into the ground over and over, so I will simply wish you all a wonderful weekend and hope to see everyone on Monday back on here for the NEW topic!

By DeltaX

April 15, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this

Lets tie down all these heretics like - Chuck, Randy, and Eugene - and make them watch “What the bleep do we know?” until they get it (Imagining scenes from A Clockwork Orange;).

BTW - A little trivia for the fun people: Why is the title “A Clockwork Orange?” Cookie for the first one!!!

By Brian Curtis

April 15, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this

Chuck: No, you’re not getting it at all, as evidence by your comment: “Is it a disease because it is a choice or do they make the choice because it is a disease?”

In fact, it’s not a “disease, disorder, or mental illness” AT ALL. It’s a neutral trait: nothing more, nothing less. You’re starting from the assumption that something must be wrong with gays, and that’s a false assumption. All the debate about genetics vs. upbringing is a smokescreen that obscures the real point: homosexuality is not an aberration that requires treatment or correction.

Until you “get” that homosexuality is no more significant than height, eye color, or favorite citrus fruit, you’ll still be reasoning from a false starting point.

By J. Morris

April 15, 2005 01:28 PM | Link to this

You know, we should really face facts. Chuck and Eugene and all the other hate-mongers out there will never, ever, ever change their minds. They have to have someone to hate - it’s in their nature. They’ve picked gay people because it’s convenient. Let’s all just decide to ignore them. Perhaps if we stop responding to them, they will dry up and blow away like the filthy pieces of human excrement that they are.

By RS

April 15, 2005 01:30 PM | Link to this

Chuck, can you tell me WHY homosexuality is a sin without reverting to “Because the Bible says so!”? Ohhh, noooo, Lozen is anything BUT simple-minded! Now, how can anyone CHOOSE what gender they’re attracted to? Think about it; that makes NO sense…

By chuck

April 15, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this

JMiniman,The actual totals are NO WHERE NEAR 8-10% That’s nothing more than left-wing propoganda. Eugene is correct and I have seen a number of studies that place the range between 3-5%. I’ll cite those for you next week if I have time to go back and pull them out. Thanks again for your innate ability to reduce every argument to name-calling. I feel great every time you honor me with YOUR venom.

By Seaborn

April 15, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this

You last comment absolutely assures me that you are Boscoe. You are tricky though…provide scientific evidence that something doesn’t work. I see, prove a negative.

There are numerous ex -ex gays. John Paulik is the most famous one. These are people that went through conversion therapy but eventually went back to being gay. Jeffrey Ford is another well known ex ex gay that writes of the damaging and humiliating effects of this therapy.

Perhaps you can provide the name and/or experience of someone that was “converted” and still is after at least ten years.

I personally am not that concerned with the biological versus learned basis of homosexuality, but what percentage of people are over 7 feet tall? It’s a pretty silly question.

By Eugene

April 15, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this

Fair enough Brian, and JMorris, but why aren’t left handed people, red headed people, and violet eyed people subject to a debilitating disease linked ALMOST exclusively to those minority groups? Homosexuality represents an attachment strain, defensive detachment,or defensive exclusion from the same-sex parent, same-sex peers,ones own body, and ones own sense of gender identity. Homosexuality is an attachment disorder, whereby the individual feels separated from parents, self, body, and others. I dont fit in, I dont belong, Im different from the rest, Im neither a boy nor girl, are some of the thoughts of those who experience same-sex attractions. The result is a Same-Sex Attachment Disorder.

By Lola

April 15, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this

Okay, yes, I’m still here. :)

That’s what I was hoping for, JMorris! If we just change the subject then perhaps we can all have a logical debate about something that doesn’t conjure such a deep hatred within some people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, so maybe we just need a topic that isn’t quite such a HOT button to some.

By RS

April 15, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this

J. marvelous: Did Chuck, Eugene etc CHOOSE to be hatemongers or were they BORN THAT WAY?? (LOL) DeltaX, I run a weekly trivia show in town and even I didn’t know that!

By DeltaX

April 15, 2005 01:44 PM | Link to this

Eugene - You are ignorant for not even reflecting on your own questions before posting.

Albinos do have health issues associated with their non-damning condition. So do all demographics.

Geeze. You really need some schooling.

You do know you are working for evil, right?

By RS

April 15, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this

Seaborn, these ex-gays/people who WERE gay, “became” straight & then “went back to being gay” were always gay & always WILL be gay. What happened was they attempted to LIVE AS straights because they were told that’s what society expects. Well, guess what? As you stated, it did not work. Uh, Eugene, how would you possibly know what homosexuals feel like & go through? Unless, of course…

By DeltaX

April 15, 2005 01:48 PM | Link to this

Any guesses at why “A Clockwork Orange” is named that?

Spoiler below…. . . . . It was suposed to be “A Clockwork Orang(utan)” as in Man. A proofer was sure the forgot the e on the end to make it orange.

By DeltaX

April 15, 2005 01:50 PM | Link to this

Any guesses at why “A Clockwork Orange” is named that?

Spoiler below…. . . . . It was suposed to be “A Clockwork Orang(utan)” as in Man. A proofer was sure someone forgot the e on the end to make it orange.

By Scott

April 15, 2005 01:50 PM | Link to this

RS - Thanks for the props…as for the additional allocation of money for police (or lack therof) if you figure that out, then tell me so we’ll both know. I have heard the rhetoric at county commissions and city councils all over Atlanta and the bottom line is we are regarded by those boards as somewhere between a nuisance and a neccesary evil.

By Seaborn

April 15, 2005 02:01 PM | Link to this

To be honest Lola, the only reason I contribute to this blog is to counter the lies that people like Chuck spread. I’m like J Morris…I hate the guy. He expresses his opinion as truth, he puts biased information from religous sources on here and calls it scientific, yet maintains that any information we put on here is due to a left-wing conspiracy. And when you pin him down on a specific fact he just starts quoting the bible. I believe him to be a horrible human being, who calls himself a christian but inspires more hatred than anyone I’ve ever come across. That’s fine in itself, I’ll never meet these people in real life, but I’m not going to just read the lies these people write and just let them go unchallenged. These people want me to be viewed as a criminal so I’m pretty motivated to counter them any chance I can, although frankly I’m about ready to just give up here, and just make sure my home is well armed.

By chuck

April 15, 2005 02:03 PM | Link to this

So BC, in your world, the way to prove something is true is to start out with the ASSUMPTION that you are right and then just stick to it. What a mental midget…excuse me…little person.

BTW, JMundane, I still don’t know WHERE you get the idea that I HATE anybody. I personally love you even though I don’t know you. You obviously cannot get over the fact that people can disagree on important issues WITHOUT MALICE. You like to call me all manner of hateful names and I never respond in kind. NOT ONCE. I have to admit I do like playing around with YOUR name, but to me it’s just a running joke and no disrespect is attached at all. Sheborn got it when I did the same thing with his name. I guess you’ve just got too big of a chip on your shoulder to have a sense of humor. While I am NO LESS passionate on this topic than are you, I don’t have any trouble making my points without spewing violent, profane, hate-filled language toward you and your cohorts. I can’t help but wonder if that may be the reason you are so lonely. Do you push EVERYONE away or just those who fail to kowtow in agreement with everything you say? (and no, I am not saying that just to get a rise out of you). You are right about one thing…I am not going to change my mind about this based on these paltry, inane blatherings backed by nothing other than the rantings of gay advocants. When it comes down to it, I think it is better to listen to what God has to say on the subject than what 5-6 Christ-haters have to say.

By Sandy

April 15, 2005 02:10 PM | Link to this

Our interpretation of reality is rooted to our biology.

Are people born one relgion or another? Most of the fundamentalists here seem to believe that they accepted Jesus as their personal savior, which implies that they were not born doing so.

I find it ironic that many of them are so aggressive about this, and yet believe that sexuality, which is more clearly biologically rooted than religion, is a choice.

By Tony

April 15, 2005 02:11 PM | Link to this

a clockwork (mechanical, artificial, robotic) human being (orange - similar to orang-utan, a hairy ape-like creature), and the Cockney phrase from East London, “as queer as a clockwork orange” - indicating something bizarre internally, but appearing natural, human, and normal on the surface

By Tim

April 15, 2005 02:15 PM | Link to this

Chuck… when you call someone a name even though you know it upsets that person then yes it is done out of disrespect… paint it anyway you want but you are just as guilty in the ‘name calling’ department as anyone… to purposely try to agitate someone and upset them doesn’t really show much love… you aren’t fooling anyone on this blog… and I haven’t read anyone on here stating they ‘hate christ’ (not even norman)… so that one was quite amusing

By Jean

April 15, 2005 02:17 PM | Link to this

This is my first visit to this forum. I thought the subject was on kids and sex, somewhere along the line it turned into gay folks, GOD, and something about an orange clock??? What exactly IS the subject, or can we just jump in with anything?

By RS

April 15, 2005 02:20 PM | Link to this

Unfortunately, Scott, there are slackers & over-authoritative power-mongers in, really, any field & sadly, they give the rest of their occupation bad name. All you can do is know you’re doing your best & for the right reasons. Chuck, not once have I ever seen anyone on this blog identify him/herself as a “Christ-Hater”. I’m clueless as to where you get that..At least Seaborn & J Magnificent are honest in that they are openly expressing how they feel; gotta give them their props for THAT. I suspect you do hate gays but won’t say so because it’s “un-Christian” but if you want to see a group of people denied love and equal rights because of what they are..well, I call it hate.

By chuck

April 15, 2005 02:20 PM | Link to this

BTW Seaborn, I wish you would take a few minutes to list just 3 things that I have said that “inspires hatred” unless of course you are saying that I inspire you to hate me. If I read correctly, I assume that you meant that I was inspiring or attempting to inspire someone to hate you OR gay people in general. I have NEVER advocated any violence toward gays and abhor the thought of that. I have never suggested that anyone SHOULD discriminate against gays though I do believe they have the RIGHT to do so in the areas of housing and employment if they choose to. I have absolutely NOTHING against you or any other gay person and have said from the beginnig that I would love nothing more than to see you happy and fulfilled (I just don’t think that will ever happen as long as you remain in that sin, just as in my own life I am not happy or fulfilled when I fall into sin). I have never attempted to avoid a valid question by hiding behind the Bible, though some questions are impossible to answer any other way. My favorite this week was RS’s silly: Chuck, can you tell me WHY homosexuality is a sin without reverting to “Because the Bible says so!â€?? Without the Bible…God’s word…there is no such thing as sin. God set the standard in His word for what sin is. That is what we have to measure OUR lives against. I know that I fall woefully short of that standard most days.

So please Seaborn, tell me, where is the hate?

By Sandy

April 15, 2005 02:21 PM | Link to this

And for something completely different: Take a look at politicalcompass.org, and take the quiz. Find out where your ideals lie in historically, politically, and economically. Take the Iconochasm quiz; lots of stuff I didn’t know… My new nickname is “Gandhi Mandela.” Enjoy.

By Seaborn

April 15, 2005 02:25 PM | Link to this

Whatever…I’m done.

By RS

April 15, 2005 02:29 PM | Link to this

“My favorite this week was RS’s..” Well, I’m honoured, Chuck! As I’d correctly predicted, as per usual, you can’t use your BRAINS to answer a question; you still need to fall back on “The Bible says..” How convenient for you; poor me, I have to do my own thinking; what a lot of energy that uses up..How do you know that everything in the Bible is God’s word? Ever think that passages such as the one about “a man lying with another man” being “an abomibation” is nothing more than long-dead homophobic old relics making a pathetically desperate attempt to rationalize their own hatred? I see no logical reason why God would condemn homosexuality…Two consenting adults loving each other isn’t harming anyone, except jealous onlookers who are too selfish & bitter to give of themselves.

By Eugene

April 15, 2005 02:31 PM | Link to this

DeltaX, No minority group, i.e. left handed people, red headed people, ALBINOS, not one of them suffers from a disease that is associated with a behavior due to their born characteristics. Let me be more precise so you don’t miss it. Left handed people don’t suffer from life threatening illnesses because they use their left hand. Even albinos don’t suffer life threatening problems associated with being an albino. Homosexuals are the only group then if they are “Born that way” that suffers from a behavior related illness that’s genetic. ABSOLUTELY ABSURD.

By lozen

April 15, 2005 02:31 PM | Link to this

Eugene, again I ask: How do you know so much about the thoughts of those who are gay?

By Jack

April 15, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this

Been too busy to post today. Why don’t we just accept people straight, gay, black, white ETC? Can we help how/where/when we were born? Lets just get along. LoveYa Folks! Gotta Go!

By chuck

April 15, 2005 02:39 PM | Link to this

Tim, I can see your point about the little name-games I play with J. I think that if you think about it you will see that that was just done in fun (and probably a little bit to get a reaction). I don’t think that you can find ANYTHING that I have said to or about JMorris that rises to the level of hatred that he and others have directed toward me…not that I mind it particularly. I think that their hatred in a way proves my point.

By J. Morris

April 15, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this

I realize I was going to remain silent on this, but I guess I can’t. Eugene, you prat, if you took 1,000,000 healthy gay men without AIDS and put them on an island alone for 20 years, you would still have (minus regular attrition) 1,000,000 healthy gay men. The only absurd thing here is your argument.

Chuck, if you don’t understand why we say you are a hate-mongering bigot, then you are truly the stupidest person I have ever met. If I call you names, it is because I find you to be the single-most despicable person on this blog. Not because of something you ARE but because you are utterly incapable of compassion. Because YOU personally disagree with gay people’s lives, you see no reason why they should be legally protected. If that’s not tacit hate, I don’t know what is.

End of subject. Like Seaborn, I’m out.

By lozen

April 15, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this

Eugene, Native American culture still exists. Greece still exists. Nazi Germany, which sent homosexuals to concentration camps, does not still exist. Sorry chuckie cheese, I’ve read your posts long enough to know you don’t love anybody. You are the typical patriarchal, authoritarian male who uses god as a prop to prove you’re right! What you say shows what a hypocrite you really are.

By Sandy

April 15, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this

Chuck, you’ve proved that hateful words and ideas bring about an escalation of hateful words and ideas, ad infinitum. Hardly Christian, hardly useful. Beware when the karmic debt comes due…

By Eugene

April 15, 2005 02:53 PM | Link to this

No JMorris you wouldn’t. The myraid of health problems associated to homosexual men is more than any other group. It’s enough to make one educate themselves better don’t you think? Lozen, I read.

By chuck

April 15, 2005 02:53 PM | Link to this

Well RS, if you actually thought (using your brain) you would recognize how silly your question was. Sin is a Biblical Concept. How can you answer a question about a Biblical Concept without quoting the Bible. Now if you had asked me to tell you why homosexuality was WRONG without quoting scripture, I could have answered the question easily. What is so sad about most of the posts on this blog is that some of you are so clueless about the English Language. Contrary to what many of you believe…WORDS DO HAVE MEANING. So answer this RS, Can you tell me why driving 40mph in a 35mph speed zone is a violation of the law, without quoting the Georgia criminal code?

By Lola

April 15, 2005 02:54 PM | Link to this

Seaborn and JMorris - if we just ignore the rantings of the haters and don’t dignify them with responses to their hateful postings, perhaps they’ll get the message and go somewhere else.

In any case, if you don’t post here again, it has been a true pleasure exchanging views, thoughts and opinions with you both. You’re wonderful men and courageous human beings, and don’t ever forget that. You have more people on here who respect and love you than hate you. Take care.

By Bruce

April 15, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this

Well I am off for a week of fishing and relaxation. I hope you all have a wonderful weekend and my love and happiness become your objective no matter who you are. As Timmy (from Scrooge)says “and God bless us everyone”

By Scott

April 15, 2005 02:59 PM | Link to this

Can I change the subject? PLEASE??

By Eugene

April 15, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this

While ‘berdache’ is in common use among white gays, Native Americans find the term offensive as it comes ultimately from the Arabic where it means roughly, ‘male prostitute’. They do not appreciate having their people referred to in this way. The consensus of opinion is that ‘berdache’ should not be used and the tribal name should be used when known. Greece does exsist, the greek society that supported that moral course does not.

By chuck

April 15, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this

Sandy, You and others have said that I have used “hateful words and ideas”. Please, list 3 examples of hateful words or ideas that I have expressed.

By chuck

April 15, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this

BTW Sandy, My personal compass according to that site was:

Your political compass Economic Left/Right: 5.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.9

By Leslie

April 15, 2005 03:26 PM | Link to this

This is quoted from Eric Rudolph, does it sound familiar?

“Any conscientious individual afflicted with homosexuality should acknowledge that a healthy society requires a model of sexual behavior to be held up and maintained without assault. Like other humans suffering from various disabilities homosexuals should not attempt to infect the rest of society with their particular illness. ….�

“Like the assault at the abortion mill, two devices [were used at the Otherside Lounge]. The first device was designed not necessarily to target the patrons of this homosexual bar, but rather to set the stage for the next device, which was again targeted at Washington’s agents. The attack itself was meant to send a powerful message in protest of Washington’s continued tolerance and support for the homosexual political agenda.�

“Despite the inherent dangers involved in timed devices, all of these devices used in both of these assaults functioned within the parameters of the plan, and I make no apologies.�

By Brian Curtis

April 15, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this

Chuck: It’s funny that you accuse me of making an assumption when I point out your own. You have assumed that homosexuality is somehow “broken” or “wrong”—without ANY evidence to support that assumption—and all your reasoning and rationale comes from that mistaken assumption.

I make no such assumption, and yet you call ME the mental midget. From the Fundie Playbook: “When you can’t win on facts, use personal attacks. Anything to keep people from focusing on logic and evidence.”

Eugene: You’re still treading water, but you’re going under fast. Gay “behavior” does not equate to sickness. Rampant, unprotected non-monogamous sex increases the risk of exposure; being gay does not.

As JMorris explained, if you take 100 healthy gay men and come back to their island ten years later, you’ll find 100 healthy gay men (unless somebody lost their temper and invented the Uzi). The AIDS fairy will not have come down from above to visit an epidemic on their vile, sinful heads—no matter how “unacceptable” you find their behavior.

If you’re truly a doctor, maybe you should focus more on curing AIDS, rather than “curing” homosexuality. Maily because one is a genuine disease, and the other is not.

By Tony

April 15, 2005 03:33 PM | Link to this

You haven’t Chuck. You stated your position well. They want to twist the meaning to suit their lies. What used to be know as “living in sin” is now called a “meaningful relationship.” What used to be called “sexual relations” is now called “inappropriate behavior.” What used to be called “killing a unborn baby” is now called “choice.” We need to reclaim the true meaning of words because your right, “Words do mean something.”

By Lola

April 15, 2005 03:35 PM | Link to this

Thankfully, Scott, it will be changed on Monday. But I’m certain the haters will be back in full force again, no matter what the topic is.

I tried all day to change the topic but nobody (except you) got on board with it.

By lozen

April 15, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this

Deja vu… This is so like the 60’s when people with a sense of compassion and understanding about the inequality of black people, argued/”whined” for civil rights and integration. Those without compassion and understanding about equal treatment for gays will never budge from their antiquated position. But change will take place whether they like it or not.

By Scott

April 15, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this

Leslie - Rudy was/is clearly a demented individual, let’s leave it at that

By chuck

April 15, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this

As I said earlier BC, I don’t think that homosexuality is a sickness. It is a choice and it is SIN. If you read my post, my exact words were:

*In so far as my own beliefs go, I do NOT think that homosexuality is a disease. I think it is a SIN. Yes, something probably occurs during the formative years that pushes a child in that direction, but certainly NOT to the point that it becomes anything more than a choice. I don’t think a change in heart by the left-leaning APA makes any difference one way or the other. *

By Jack

April 15, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this

That animal that they caught for the 1989 rape & murder of that young woman who worked a little 5 points should be raped & killed in the same fashion. Those on this post opposed to capital punishment should ask themselves how they would feel if the woman had been a close relative of theirs. Sorry but I believe in “Eye for an Eye”.

By Brian Curtis

April 15, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this

Hey, as long as we’re playing the quote game, I’m in!

From Chuck: “You like to call me all manner of hateful names and I never respond in kind. NOT ONCE…. I wish you would take a few minutes to list just 3 things that I have said that “inspires hatred.â€? …Please, Seaborn, tell me: where is the hate?”

Glad you asked:

CHUCK: “Homosexuality is SAD AND MEANINGLESS.”

CHUCK: “We all know that it [homosexuaility] is a deviant behavior.”

CHUCK: “JMary; JMariah; JMelissa; JMinutia; JMInniehaha; JMarissa; JMundane; JMuffin; JMillicent; JMueslix; JMiniman” (What are you, twelve?)

CHUCK: “Are you one of those NAMBLA proponents?”

CHUCK: “I’ve got news for you, Mr. Degenerate.”

CHUCK: “Your posts identify you quite well as the limp-wristed, inneffective, whiny little, ‘my-Daddy-didn’t-hug- me-as-a-kid’ wimp that you are.”

CHUCK: “Homosexuality has ALWAYS been considered a mental illness.”

CHUCK: “I find [gays] morally repugnant.”

CHUCK: “What a mental midget!”

Nope, you sure haven’t made any hateful remarks here, no sirreebob. How pathetic.

By norman

April 15, 2005 03:57 PM | Link to this

Last warning of the day: the stock market is tanking. Whether you f…k front or back, man or woman — you are in trouble, America.

Except for Boscoe and Chuck who have treasures in heaven!

By chuck

April 15, 2005 03:59 PM | Link to this

Well folks. It’s been real. Have a great weekend! I think some of you could stand to ask yourselves a question or two about why you get so bent out of shape over impersonal comments on a BLOG. I think some of you could stand gaining a new perspective on life based on your reactions to the words of someone you never even met. Get the chips off of your shoulders and come back ready to rumble. I for one have had a great time this week.

By Jack

April 15, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this

I tried Scott. I really gotta go now. Everyone have a good weekend!

By chuck

April 15, 2005 04:05 PM | Link to this

I’m sorry BC I had forgotten about the wimp comment. Of those that you listed, that is the only one that borders on being hateful. The rest are statements of fact and were not spoken in a perjorative manner at all. I do apologize for the wimp comment. It was uncalled for.

By Scott

April 15, 2005 04:12 PM | Link to this

Norman - Probably wishful thinking but I really wish we could get everyone on board to mass-produce cars that use alternate fuel and make all the oil mongering countries useless desert again

By Scott

April 15, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this

Shoulod marijuana be legalized? how’s that one?

By Michael H.

April 15, 2005 04:25 PM | Link to this

Boscoe,

Earlier you opened your response with the unnecessary personal insult “…are you impaired?.â€? Why the lack of civility and respect towards others who do not hold your views? Does your religion require this such a sanctimonious and self-righteous attitude towards others who have the audacity to actually think differently. The only impairment that I see in these exchanges is your impaired ability to think critically or maintain an open mind to ALL the evidence that is relevant to evaluating the truth of any religious claim that is connected with or a part of Catholicism. Your attitude reminds me of a statement from someone who famously broke with the Catholic tradition, Martin Luther, who described “reasonâ€? as “the devil’s whore.â€? Why not just adopt the fidiest position that religion cannot be rationally defended and must be accepted on faith. Believe whatever you were brought up to believe, accept it unquestioningly, and insult those who disagree. (But I suspect you would rather tendentiously select the evidence that appears to support your belief, while ignoring the rest.)

Ok, let’s review the “arguments� in your last few responses.

I never claimed the French academic was “great� and no one claims to be omniscient or to know or understand everything as you asserted. Another straw man and a very common one when religious belief is subjected to challenge.

Your next move was to defend your admitted dogmatism by accusing me of the same. “Are you telling me honestly you have tried religion? Isn’t that willful neglect as Brian Curtis pointed out?� Actually, Brian said “willful ignorance� not “willful neglect.� In any event, your response is what is known as the tu quoque fallacy or “you too� fallacy. “How dare you argue that I do X, you do it yourself.� For example, One person points out the wrongness of another’s affair and their response is, well, who are you to talk, you had an affair last year.� One’s accusation of adultery is not refuted by arguing the other person is an adulterer. All we have are two adulterers. But here we have only one dogmatist, not two.

I have indeed “tried� religion. As with many nonbelievers I was raised in a religious tradition and was rather devout when I was younger. However, over a course of years I struggled with and repeatedly re-examined the doctrines of the major religions and became a nonbeliever. I have read the Bible from cover to cover, know the central doctrines of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam quite well. I took courses in philosophy of religion at the undergraduate and graduate level from first rate scholars, a graduate seminar on Thomas Aquinas, and specialized in ethics. At one time or another in my classes I have taught all of the major arguments for and against the existence of God; the ontological, teleological, and cosmological arguments, arguments from religious experience, and the problem of evil, in their classic and modern presentations.

Next, you wrote that “your philosophers all have one thing in common - * They don’t believe in religion.* They are guilty of the very thing they, you, and Brian accuse me of, and that is not looking hard enough to determine if what I believe could possibly be wrong, when the reality is they don’t know for certain themselves that my beliefs are not indeed correct.�

Really? How would you know, without having read them? Read on.

Aristotle, who wrote the first work devoted exclusively to ethics, was a pagan philosopher, so he lived before Christianity. You may have actually heard of him, since St. Thomas Aquinas borrowed so much of his thinking in his Summa Theologica, on everything from ethics, psychology, biology, physics, and modifications of his cosmological proofs for the existence of God. In fact, Aquinas accomplished a famous synthesis of Aristotelianism and the doctrines of the Catholic Church. The key was to accept that Aristotle was generally right about philosophy and the details of the natural world and the Catholic Church right about matters spiritual and divine. And we all know what happened with Galileo when he challenged that synthesis with his empirical observations. Now “tryâ€? reading Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics.

Immanuel Kant was a pious Lutheran who believed that religion could not provide the necessary support for ethics across cultures with different religions. So he developed a moral philosophy based in reason and offered the famous categorical imperative as a formula for a rational agent to apply to concrete situations in order to generate an ethical duty binding on all ethical agents.

“Try� reading his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, it is shorter and less dense than the Critique of Practical Reason.

David Hume was quite familiar with religious belief systems. His work the Natural History of Religion and The Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion virtually founded the modern field of philosophy of religion. You might “try� reading them as well.

John Stuart Mill was one of the most educated people of his day and knew religious beliefs and sacred texts as well as anyone, inside or outside of religious institutions. You might “try� reading his work on Utilitarianism.

Before you attribute views or make accusations against philosophers, or in my case someone you do not personally know, perhaps you should actually READ them (after all, they are not banned by the Catholic Church) to see all how extraordinarily unsophisticated and implausible your efforts at “refuting� nonreligious ethical views really are.

To continue, I didn’t invoke “conscience� as the source of, or even a source of ethical criteria or authority. I didn’t mention it all, you did. You may assume we have only private conscience or religion as the only alternatives but that has to be argued for, and argued for in the face of tomes of work in moral philosophy that you are deliberately unacquainted with. Neither did I argue for, state, or insinuate the false dichotomy you set up in your post: “What your philosophy suggests is that I haven’t looked hard enough until I have come to the conclusion that it is wrong. That’s a no win situation – either I’m wrong or I haven’t searched hard enough to convince myself of that.�

Well, no, I didn’t say anything of the sort. That is purely your invention, not mine. What I said is that you are dogmatist who doesn’t search or listen at all, full stop, not that a sincere search for the truth necessarily yields unbelief. You simply ignore what any says or misrepresent it and then launch into sermonizing as if that would persuade anyone who is concerned with evidence.

So, you offered, in succession, an ad hominem attack, a red herring, a tu quoque fallacy, more ad hominem attacks, a straw man argument, sprinkled with bald face unsupported assertions, and topped off with a false dichotomy that was, at the same time, another straw man argument.

It will make another splendid exercise for my logic students and best of all drawn from real life arguments.

And I am sure you will only respond with more of the same. If you are willing to let the Catholic Church do all of your thinking for you, cut and paste their pronouncements and assertions with no reflection on what might be logically wrong with them, as if they are the truth for all to see, then there is nothing that one can say to you is there?

There are those who exclude themselves from the field of reasonable public debate and the rest of us, who choose our beliefs about religion, ethics, and public policy on the basis of evidence, are free to ignore them. And that is what I now choose to do with your posts.

By RS

April 15, 2005 04:31 PM | Link to this

Sure, Chuckster, exceeding the speed promotes unsafe driving/losing control of the vehicle & subsequently causing crashes, often fatal. You said you can, indeed, provide data, not from the Bible, but from YOU, proving that homosexuality is a sin. Looks like you have your work cut out for you; disobeying traffic laws is wrong, as it often causes injury & death…when 2 consenting adults are in a loving, monogamous relationship, who is it hurting? Jack, I agree 100% about that piece of scum who raped & murdered the store clerk. The reason WHY this happens so much is because the lowlives know that more often than not, they’ll get away with their heinous crimes..Ah, the joys of living in a politically correct society.That store is in my neighbourhood & I shop there VERY often.

By Tony Zizza

April 15, 2005 04:33 PM | Link to this

Abstinence-only programs are a step in the right direction. No one will get hurt with such a program. Ultimately, the only program that works is good parents and good children. There are parents who think it is ok to be “A Friend First, Parent Later” - and just do the math on how many girls come up pregnant with this mindset.

On the other hand, there are young girls and boys who will risk a pregnancy no matter what they are told or not told. To think abstinence is impossible for young boys and girls is to believe they have no control over their own sexuality. It’s hard to argue with the fact that a complete lack of discipline within the household can perfectly explain why young boys and girls think everyone but them is responsible for the results of their choices.

One more thing….why are condom races allowed in public sex education classes?

By Randy

April 15, 2005 04:35 PM | Link to this

For all the Christians on this site, Rick Warren, who wrote the book “The Purpose Driven Life” his church is holding services in Anaheim stadium/california this weekend(45,000). They are so glad, this is only the second time since the church was founded 25 years ago that they all get to worship together. Pretty amazing since his church now probably holds 10 to 12 thousand. People really do want to have a relationship with Jesus.

By lozen

April 15, 2005 04:39 PM | Link to this

Chuck, I have known many gay people, men and women. Almost every single one of them exhibited christian characteristics much more than you do.

By lozen

April 15, 2005 04:49 PM | Link to this

“It is an interesting and demonstrable fact, that all children are atheists and were religion not inculcated into their minds, they would remain so” Ernestine Rose

By lozen

April 15, 2005 04:57 PM | Link to this

“There can be but little liberty on earth while men worship a tyrant in heaven.”” Robert Green Ingersoll

By lozen

April 15, 2005 05:13 PM | Link to this

Michael H, Boscoe will never, ever understand what you say. You’re just another one of them educated liberals with lots of book learnin’ and no common sense! I grew up around people like this and i understand how they think (or should I say, justify to themselves not thinking?) I do appreciate your attempt to teach!

By Bryan

April 18, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this

Tony, sorry for a late reply, I was busy friday and the forums are closed after 5.

Answer: Yes, we did. In Sex-Ed class we had extensive lessons about condoms, birth control pills and other methods.

A: Yes, we both discussed protection before hand, I’d assume she also learned about it from health class. I was the only one wearing anything, though.

A: We had talked about if we were ready about a week before we actually did it. That night I was the main instigator, but we both felt we were ready. Abortion was not an option for either of us, as we were both against it.

4.How did you or your partner obtain protection?(DrugStores/Stores/GasStations/Clubs/Friends/Planned Parenthood/Parents/Doctors/School/etc. etc.).

A: I knew were my parents kept condoms, so I got some from their bathroom.

A: Sex ed started in 5th grade. Boys and girls were seperated and we learned about the changes our bodies would go through when we hit puberty. 6th grade we learned about reproduction, how the sperm and the egg meet to form a zygote, and how they are produced and how the child developes. In 7th and 8th grade we talked about the more social aspects of sex. Condoms, birth control, concequences, ect. In 9th grade it was the first time we had sex ed together, boys and girls. We pretty much relearned everything, but in more explicit detail, and we touched base on topics such as homosexuality and abortion.

A: The basics became repetive by 7th grade, but we got deeper into everything each year, which made it bareable.

I wish I would have waited longer to have sex, but I don’t regret that I didn’t, if that makes sense.