AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2005 > May > 20 > Entry
Is the FDA ban on anonymous sperm donations from sexually active gay men discriminatory?
Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
Have conservative Christians embraced the idea that homosexuality is nature not nurture? If so, then perhaps the all-out FDA injunction on anonymous homosexual sperm donations makes conservative political sense: Keep the donor gene pool heterosexual and there will be fewer gay children. But if that’s not the reason, then the ban becomes really difficult to fathom. After all, most sperm banks were already rejecting donations from sexually active homosexuals. “It’s a longstanding industry standard”, says the medical director of California Cryobank, Cappy Rothman.
Now, essentially all homosexual donors have been outlawed. Gay men do not corner the market on risky sexual behaviors and HIV transmission; we shouldn’t assume heterosexual men with high-risk behaviors are any less likely to have HIV than a monogamous gay man. But you can’t reason with Archie Bunker, uh, I mean — the FDA.
In the interest of full disclosure, there are a few documented cases of HIV transmission through sperm banks in the early 1980’s. But these incidents were in the early stages of the epidemic, long before anyone knew about the consequences. Today, sperm banks test for a variety of diseases using strict protocols for every donation regardless of origin, then retest for HIV after 6 months of frozen incubation. Only then is sperm accepted. According to the Centers for Disease Control, there has been no documented transmission of the virus from anonymous sperm donors in decades.
If the FDA is concerned about disease-free sperm, why isn’t there a ban on black sperm donors? The rate of HIV diagnosis for black men is seven times higher than that of white men. What about the dangers of cystic fibrosis, a genetic disease among whites? Rejecting sperm donors because of potentially risky behaviors is reasonable. Screening donations for diseases is reasonable. But a ban that assumes lifestyles and selectively targets a single group is bigotry.
The only assurance that prevents the transmission of HIV or the host of other health risks is testing. Since sperm banks already test, one wonders why any woman would take any comfort in a regulation that accomplishes nothing other than to placate homophobic fears?
Rebuttal
Diane makes it sound as if every sperm bank carefully tests its ‘donations’ for everything from HIV to web-toed fungus disease, to ensure the safety of the inseminating public. But in reality, this industry has long been an unregulated Wild West. While many clinics comply with the government’s voluntary standards, others simply ignore them. The FDA’s new mandatory rule — effective May 25, 2005 after more than a decade in the making — is actually just one part of an industry-wide regulation of human tissue donation, whether that means corneas, stem cells, or those microscopic little Y-chromosome carriers.
Tissue donation science has made tremendous advances in the last decade, while the regulations have not. It’s more than time for a mature regulatory approach to this critical industry.
Diane also makes it sound as if the FDA is picking on homosexual sperm donors while allowing all sorts of other risky donations to continue. But HIV is just one of at least 14 viruses and diseases being screened out, and active homosexuals are just one of several groups excluded due to the established fact that they are at higher risk of carrying those diseases. Heterosexuals engaging in risky behavior are also excluded, along with anyone else – like people with blood-clotting disorders — whose donation might put the recipient at risk.
The rules aren’t overbearing; they are extremely practical. They don’t, for example, require a six-month waiting period for freezing and retesting. Any eligible person’s tissue donation may be used immediately after testing, while donations from all high-risk donors are excluded. Because even freezing and retesting may not catch early-stage HIV, why on earth put anyone at risk of a fatal disease? In some clinics, one man’s donation could inseminate up to 10 women. That’s at least 20 people (the women and their babies) at risk via just one donor. It would be completely unethical for our government not to be ultra-careful in prohibiting potentially fatal transmissions.
Gay activists don’t like these practical rules and claim discrimination. But that just makes them seem wildly out of touch with reality. We should always err on the side of safety when lives are at stake.
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By Blair
May 23, 2005 07:35 AM | Link to this
Shaunti’s argument that this isn’t discrimination overlooks one major point. Heterosexual intercourse WITH A KNOWN HIV POSITIVE PERSON, carries a 1 year ban. The ban for any form of homosexual intercourse is 5 years. That is the point gay activists were arguing about, not the fact a ban existed.
By Brian Curtis
May 23, 2005 07:56 AM | Link to this
Shaunti’s doing a classic cover-up: pointing out the need for some sort of screening and regulation, and then claiming that as justification for simply denying all homosexual contributors out-of-hand.
But, hey—at least it’s a real topic this week.
By Randy
May 23, 2005 08:04 AM | Link to this
All liberals should insist on gettting their sperm donations from untested Homosexuals. They wouldn’t want to discriminate.
By thom
May 23, 2005 08:23 AM | Link to this
To reduce the number of homosexuals, let’s ban all lesbians from receiving sperm donations directly or through ‘banks.’
By Whiley
May 23, 2005 08:27 AM | Link to this
Why would anyone pay for sperm when it’s easily so available for free????
By Boscoe
May 23, 2005 08:39 AM | Link to this
I think it has more to do with protecting the health of the “patient” than a discriminatory act. Men having sex with other men leads to greater health risks than men having sex with women not only because of promiscuity but also because of the nature of sex among men. Research summarizes the danger as follows: “Male homosexual behaviour is not simply either ‘active’ or ‘passive,’ since penile-anal, mouth-penile, and hand-anal sexual contact is usual for both partners, and mouth-anal contact is not infrequent. Mouth-anal contact is the reason for the relatively high incidence of diseases caused by bowel pathogens in male homosexuals. Trauma may encourage the entry of micro-organisms and thus lead to primary syphilitic lesions occurring in the anogenital area. In addition to sodomy, trauma may be caused by foreign bodies, including stimulators of various kinds, penile adornments, and prostheses.” R. R. Wilcox, “Sexual Behaviour and Sexually Transmitted Disease Patterns in Male Homosexuals,” British Journal of Venereal Diseases. Although the specific activities addressed below may be practiced by heterosexuals at times, homosexual men engage in these activities to a far greater extent. Men who engage in sodomy are 860% more likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease (STD), increasing up to 500% their risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. Men who commit acts of sodomy with men have large numbers of anonymous partners, which can result in rapid, extensive transmission of STDs. Control of STDs is a central component of HIV infection prevention in the United States; resurgence of bacterial STDs threatens national HIV infection prevention efforts. Anal Human Papillomavirus (HPV) infection is nearly universal among HIV-positive homosexual or bisexual men and about 60% in HIV-negative men exhibiting the same sexual behavior.
By Akeya
May 23, 2005 08:43 AM | Link to this
Yes, it’s discriminatory because it is akin to saying that gay men have extremely loose morals compared to others, and what makes a straight person feel better than denigrating a gay person by making him (or her) seem like they are less than..
Anyone ever seen the movie Gattica?
By RS
May 23, 2005 08:47 AM | Link to this
ALL sperm should be rigourously tested, be it from gay or straight donors & particularly if the donor is sexually active. This should not be a homosexual or heterosexual issue, just a promiscuity issue. Also, sperm from donors who have life-threatening diseases (i.e. MS, MD, Tay-Sachs etc)running in their families should not be allowed to donate sperm; that is a LIFE issue, not a discrimination issue. I don’t get sperm donaton anyway..the world is too overpopulated as is & people should stop breeding so much (great fodder for a future topic, Shaunti & Diane!!)
By rocky
May 23, 2005 08:58 AM | Link to this
It’s amazing that this is even being argued. Why on earth would it be okay to accept sperm from men who engage in extremely risky sexual activities with other men, when it could end up killing not only the woman who receives the sperm but the child that results from the semination? It’s common sense, people.
In addition to that, I also believe that homosexual attractions are something you’re born with (acting on it is a choice), but if I were a woman, I sure wouldn’t want to risk getting pregnant with some gay man’s sperm, and then having my child born with attractions to the same sex. Why knowingly subject a child and family to that kind of disorder? Again, it just makes no sense.
By Lola
May 23, 2005 09:01 AM | Link to this
I agree with RS. There should be testing on ALL sperm prior to using it for any kind of insemination on a woman, and it should make no difference where that sperm came from. The testing methods should be where the discrimination takes place, not in the determination of who can donate.
By Jack
May 23, 2005 09:03 AM | Link to this
Oh Mercy! Another great topic. Whiley is right. Thats all I can say.
By Tim
May 23, 2005 09:07 AM | Link to this
Y’all don’t want my sperm… fine… I will just take my services elsewhere :)
sorry Randy sounded like an idiot so I thought I would make him feel welcome (although I think my post was much more humorous)
if the FDA is going to pull stunts like this then they should also ban everyone except lesbians from donating blood… after all they are the group with the lowest risk of contracting HIV
By Tim
May 23, 2005 09:10 AM | Link to this
I agree with Jack… I think Whiley summed it up best :)
By Akeya
May 23, 2005 09:22 AM | Link to this
Whiley- You are so very correct!! Unfortunately this system would work better even than heterosexual sex.
Two hets can get together and they can get preg, have a child, and nothing is known about the medical/mental history of the guy. With this system, you have to be screened, regardless of sexuality. I’d rather go to a bank where the capacity for genetic disorders and diseases can be tested rather than go with JOe Blow and get preggers.
Another point- One of the major arguments that people have about homosexuals is that they cannot have children. One way that homos have remedied this is by starting their or families amongst friends, i.e.-lesbian couple use the sperm of one of their gay friends. By taking away the right to do this, the FDA is, in essence, trying to take away the ability for homo families to have children in this way. This may actually force some couples to do one of three things, use the sperm of their friends by going about it using their own means (“turkey baster”), having sex with random persons to get pregnant (which would be right up some people’s alley because then they could harp on the “loose morals” of homos), or use “straight” sperm (by this, gay men cannot “have” children).
By Lyrazel
May 23, 2005 09:30 AM | Link to this
This is not a liberal/conservative gay/straight subject but a health and safety issue. Remember only a few years ago they stopped allowing untraceables the ability to donate blood? It caused a stink among many who believed it stifled a way for the poor to make money…blood source be damned…until they started finding HIV and other problems in the blood supply. Now, we have another safety issue—but used by many who are actually condemning their future children to a life of unknowns. Half the genentic make-up of a child is male, thus women taking anonomous donations—should—factor for the well-being of the child rather than if an issue is morally correct. To have proper genetic safety—certain precautions must be made—Who does it protect? The kids who will never know their daddies. Unlike adoption there is no way to trace anonymous fathers—so for a future parent to be so unconcerned about sexually transmitted disease, genetic defects, alcoholism, family history is just ludicrous and dangerous for unborn children and mothers. Doesnt having a full physical/mental screening of a doner make more sense that a spin of a roulette wheel or basing decisions on GPA? We inseminate cows with more attention to doner—shouldnt humans get the same scrutiny?
By Brian Curtis
May 23, 2005 09:40 AM | Link to this
Of course the health of the donor should be scrutinized and screened… which is NOT what this ban-on-gays does at all. It simply employs a smokescreen of “screening for risks” to justify a mass labeling of all gays as “promiscuous and risky.” It’s not effective as a health-based medical decision—it’s just more gay-bashing dressed up in a doctor’s scrubs.
By E. Lewis
May 23, 2005 09:42 AM | Link to this
Given all of the high risk behaviors, easily transmitted that heterosexuals can and often do engage in, I am surprised that homosexual men have been singled out. If the sperm banks aren’t testing every donation, then they are not doing their job. I personally wouldn’t ever consider using a donation than wasn’t test no matter who it came from.
And yes, the practice of banning donations on the basis of sexual orientatin and not based on behaviors is inherently discriminatory.
By Carlton Wyatt
May 23, 2005 09:54 AM | Link to this
So the heterosexual Lothario, who “bags several babes” per week and has had so many STDs they’re thinking of naming a wing for him at the clinic, can donate sperm anonymously. But the homosexual man who has been in a committed, monogamous relationship for the past 10 years can’t? Yeah, that’s just “sound medical science”? I don’t think so, it’s just more “conservatively correct” gay-bashing from the right-wing zealots. Shaunti and her kind won’t be satisfied until they can literally exterminate gay people at will.
By ron
May 23, 2005 10:17 AM | Link to this
If sperm banks aren’t testing EVERY donation, then women who use them are fools. As for the ban on homosexual donation, whether it’s five years or fifty, the intent is clear. Let’s face it, we live in a society that secretly wishes homosexuality could be eliminated and which will use any possible means to sanction it.
And Rocky, it’s not a disorder—it’s nature, so get used to it. Just because a person is homosexual doesn’t mean that a child of that person will be also.
The bottom line is, get a life and get your own sperm donor. You might have a little fun in the process, if that’s allowed in the Right Wing. If not, come on over and let the Left Wing show you how!
By ATLBUD1963
May 23, 2005 10:31 AM | Link to this
This is in responce to Rocky’s statement. I take it that if your child came to you and state that he or she was gay you would not be happy with the situation? So, being gay is a disorder? Is geing ignorant a disorder?
By Jack
May 23, 2005 10:38 AM | Link to this
They should disregard the sexual preference of the donor and thouroughly test every sample before being offered.
By lozen
May 23, 2005 10:39 AM | Link to this
As I heard someone say this weekend, “Nature loves diversity, why don’t humans?” All sperm should be rigorously tested; I actually was naive enough to think it was! You know that old saying, “A daughter’s a daughter all of her life; a son’s a son till he takes a wife.” I have found that to be true. I see relationships between women and their gay sons and I’m envious. Oh I know it’s a hard life, being a pariah in the eyes of some bigots, but gay men are more creative, more sensitive, and they can dance!
By Ben
May 23, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this
No, if Rocky’s son came to him and said he was gay, that would mean Rocky was gay.
By Jorge
May 23, 2005 10:45 AM | Link to this
Not to sound overly harsh here, but the reality is that there is also an issue of demand at play. Who out there seriously thinks that anyone outside of a lesbian woman would even want the sperm of a gay male? All other things being equal, most women would simply choose the hetero sperm over that of a homosexual male. It’s an ugly truth, but truth nonetheless. And just FYI, Akeya, no one is taking away the right of a gay or lesbian couple to medically use the sperm of a gay male friend, only an ANONYMOUS gay male. BTW, please don’t confuse your arguments about adoption and insemination. No one is saying that lesbian women can’t get pregnant or that gay men can’t father children; that’s their choice. That’s a fact of life, just like it’s a fact of life that no matter how hard you try, no gay or lesbian couple will ever be able to produce a child that contains both their DNA. The adoption issue is another issue, with it’s own pros and cons.
By Akeya
May 23, 2005 10:47 AM | Link to this
Ben- (teehee)
By Jorge
May 23, 2005 10:49 AM | Link to this
To ATLBUD: Before you call someone ignorant, please check your spelling.
By rocky
May 23, 2005 10:51 AM | Link to this
I said I agree that it is nature - it is something gay people are born with. I don’t argue that point at all, which is WHY I say that if I were a woman, I wouldn’t want the sperm from someone who is gay, and could possibly pass that “trait” or “tendency” or whatever you want to call it, along to my child. Yes, I think that when people go against what the true direction of nature is (i.e, men having sex with men or women having sex with women), it is a disorder. Eating too much and then throwing it up is a disorder. Maybe a bad analogy, but you get the idea.
By Jack
May 23, 2005 10:55 AM | Link to this
You mean its not being tested? Thats hard to believe. Glad I’m a donor and not a recipient.
By rocky
May 23, 2005 10:56 AM | Link to this
Thanks, Jorge. Apparently geing ignorant IS a disorder when you’re ATLBUD.
By Tim
May 23, 2005 10:57 AM | Link to this
yay… Jorge has entered our wonderful blog… we needed another pompous a*****
do you really need to worry about proper grammar being used???
also, when did you do your survey of women to see that they preferred sperm from a straight man over a gay man?
By Ben
May 23, 2005 11:01 AM | Link to this
Do people even use sperm banks anymore? I mean I know guys donate, but is anybody withdrawing?
I usually don’t get wrapped up in what Diana and Shaunti say, but I find it funny that Shaunti’s rationale for banning gays from contributing is ridiculous. It makes more sense to me to TEST all donations. Being a common sense person, I would think if the industry is the “unregulated Wild Wild West,” then the smart thing is to properly regulate the industry and make sure that all donations are properly tested, despite who they “came” from.
By Jack
May 23, 2005 11:01 AM | Link to this
Tim - What woman wouldn’t?
By Lola
May 23, 2005 11:02 AM | Link to this
I’m really amazed that there aren’t STRICT guidelines for testing in place already. Do people who get sperm from a sperm bank sign a waiver saying that the sperm bank isn’t liable for any kinds of diseases that the sperm may contain? I find that hard to believe. Not having these testing methods in place just sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen. ALL sperm should be tested, no matter WHO it comes from. That’s just craziness not to, and if it’s not tested, a woman might as well just go out and sleep with a stranger for free. She gains nothing by paying for sperm if it goes untested. Personally, I think they should have IQ requirements for donors more than they should have lifestyle requirements. I’d rather have a smart gay baby than a straight idiot.
By Jack
May 23, 2005 11:04 AM | Link to this
Knowing the problems of being gay, if you had a choice, wouldn’t you want the donor to be straight for the child’s sake? Before you call me a hypocrite, I’m in favor of anonomous donation.
By Scott
May 23, 2005 11:08 AM | Link to this
For all you people saying that gays are more promiscuous, just know that I have been with only 5 people. My best friend who happens to be straigt has been with over 60.
By Tim
May 23, 2005 11:10 AM | Link to this
Jack… I don’t know what any woman would or would not want… and nor do you or Jorge because that type of survey has not been conducted… I have had straight women tell me they wanted me to donate to them (that may have been a come on though) if they went that route… so for Jorge to call what he stated truth is simply incorrect… and let’s say that it is… does that mean gay men should not be allowed to donate sperm… what about the women out there who say that all gay men are gorgeous and would want sperm from a gay man so they could have (in their minds) a better chance of having a cute baby (these women are out there)
Lola… “I’d rather have a smart gay baby than a straight idiot.” you win the award for ‘quote of the day’… that was too funny!
By Jorge
May 23, 2005 11:13 AM | Link to this
Ahh, Tim. Proof that in the absence of a strong argument, insults will reign. I’m not personally worried about grammar; I don’t have to be. I’m just trying to help ATLBUD not to look so stupid when he throws the word ignorant out there.
Tim, since I am not a professional pollster, I simply directed a rhetorical question out there for the masses. If you think I am so wrong, why don’t you go and ask the many sperm banks that have been rejecting gay donors for years? If there was such a demand for them, do you think they would cut their market like that?
By stan
May 23, 2005 11:16 AM | Link to this
Jorge, please tell me how you would know that most women would want the sperm of a heterosexual male. So being gay, in your eyes, is a flaw. I don’t understand that considering that most homosexual males have a drive to succeed and defy the odds despite a society that looks down upon them and treats them like lepers. Where would fashion, movies, television, music, etc. be if the mothers of the homosexuals working behind the scenes had decided to go with the heterosexual sperm?
By Eaton
May 23, 2005 11:22 AM | Link to this
If the donor banks were concerned about safety then they would screen for behavior and not orientation.
I have to agree with some posters - the whole sperm bank thing does seem kind of frivolous. What no one’s mentioned that has far more of an impact are similar bans on BLOOD donation.
We had a blood drive at work this past week. Frantic e-mails kept exhorting us to give blood, give blood, give blood - there’s a terrible shortage, the hospitals say.
Well, as it happens I’m gay and couldn’t give blood. I’m not promiscuous and I’ve never had unsafe contact in my life, but I’m banned from giving blood permanently, no matter how desperate the need. There is NO question that asks if you are a heterosexual who engages in frequent sexual contact, by the way. A further look at the regulations show that having sex with a prostitute only results in a one-year ban. How does that make sense?
We need to get over our innane prejudices and start thinking rationally. If you want to keep diseases out of our blood supply and sperm supply, then ask the right questions. Ask if a person has had unprotected sex, or sex with multiple partners over a defined period of time. THOSE are questions that apply equally to everyone and actually stand a chance of identifying risk.
By Jack
May 23, 2005 11:23 AM | Link to this
Why have hamburger when you can have steak?
By lozen
May 23, 2005 11:29 AM | Link to this
I would love to have a son who could decorate my house and landscape my yard ;-) I would love to have Tim for a son or BrianC as a friend. I really don’t understand the prejudice against gay people. Some gay men are promiscuous and some are very committed to one partner. Just like straight men!
By Tim
May 23, 2005 11:31 AM | Link to this
Jorge… so nice of you to look after ATLBUD like that… especially since it made you sound like a jerk… and technically you did not ask a rhetorical question because you answered your own question… like I said before… I never said what sperm most heterosexual women want… I honestly don’t know… and quite frankly don’t really care… ‘I am just following along in the conversartion for the hell of it’ (quote from one of my favorite movies… don’t want to take credit for a quote that is not mine)
fyi… you can have an argument and let someone know what they are at the same time… if you would not have acted like you did then I wouldn’t have said what I did… I just calls em likes I sees em… and I sees you is a pompous a***** (not sure if that is correct grammar or not… could you help me?)… does not mean I don’t have an argument… just means I am a good judge of character too… thanks for playing and have a wonderful day
By Jorge
May 23, 2005 11:31 AM | Link to this
Stan & Tim; How do you know they would? I was just stating a probability that I consider to be true based on the past actions of the sperm banks accross the nation. I did describe it as an ugly truth, by the way. I personally believe this kind of legislation is shortsighted at best. One thing I can assure you of Stan, is that most of the homosexuals making those contributions to culture are probably not the product of an anonymous gay donor, so I think culture is safe for now. There will still be plenty of gay cultural icons grown the old-fashioned way.
By Brian Curtis
May 23, 2005 11:32 AM | Link to this
Jack: Good point! So why would women reject garden-variety hetero sperm when they can get the cream (so to speak) of the crop from gay men?
By Tim
May 23, 2005 11:36 AM | Link to this
Jack… I really hope you are not comparing gay men to hamburgers and straight men to steaks… but if you are… then give me a double whopper any day of the week
lozen… how nice of you to say!!!! since my mom lives in Orlando but whom I talk to at least 5 times a week (we have a GREAT relationship)… you can be my second mama anytime! :)
By Archie
May 23, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this
I kinda like Whiley’s comment earlier. Yes I do think it’s discrimination to ban sperm from sexually active gay men since the only way you know this information is if they tell you. Many so-called straight guys are on the down-low. Diane does point out that it takes 6 months for sperm to be accepted so I wonder about the philosophy of the ban because it seems as if all sperm is tested thoroughly.
By Tim
May 23, 2005 11:39 AM | Link to this
Jorge… I never said they would… I simply stated that you cannot claim your statement to be fact
By lozen
May 23, 2005 11:44 AM | Link to this
Well let’s get personal here for a minute. In my youth I began to prefer the company of gay men to straight men. My gay male friends listened to me when I had a problem and didn’t interrupt me constantly or tell me not to think about it. If I felt lonely I could spend the night with a gay friend, even sleep with him, without having to fight him off, have him accuse me of making him suffer, or call me a _ tease. And my gay friends never embarrassed me on the dance floor like the straight ones did. They cooked great food for me, gave fabulous parties, made me roll on the floor laughing. They were educated, well read, and had empathy for all the people in this world who are treated unjustly because they have been treated unjustly. The gay women I know are better mothers than most of the straight women I know because they really wanted those children. They’ve had to pay thousands of dollars and adopt children from other countries because it’s not easy to adopt in the U.S. if you are single and it may be impossible to adopt here if you’re gay because of this horrible prejudice against gays. What is wrong with human beings that they find it so easy to hate anyone who’s different?
By kimberly
May 23, 2005 11:45 AM | Link to this
Okay, LAME TOPIC! Here’s today’s official NEW topic: (Are you ready?)
Seriously, folks. HOW HOT IS TRENT REZNOR? OMIGOD if you missed Nine Inch Nails in Concert at the Tabernacle this weekend, WHAT were you thinking?
By Jorge
May 23, 2005 11:47 AM | Link to this
Thanks, Tim, for judging my character. I really needed that. I am having a wonderful day, by the way. I’m neither a gay man nor a woman looking for a donor, so I care less about this than anyone on this distinguished panel. Getting your feather boa all ruffled has been worth it, though. Thank you, Tim, for the racially targeted grammar joke. It was a nice touch.
By lozen
May 23, 2005 11:49 AM | Link to this
Jorge, I’m warning you ;-( don’t mess with my son Tim!
By Ben
May 23, 2005 11:49 AM | Link to this
I just want to know how much time a couple of you have devoted to studying the goings on of a sperm bank! I mean who really knows the past actions of a sperm bank? Get a grip! It’s discrimination, bottom line.
By Jorge
May 23, 2005 11:50 AM | Link to this
On a lighter note, has anyone thought of the fact that if gay men really want to keep donating their procreational talents to the world, then they could just lie like all the promiscuous heteros do when they are hard up for money?
By Tim
May 23, 2005 11:52 AM | Link to this
Jorge… anytime… and seeing as there are people in my family that actually speak like that please don’t try to make this a race thing… if you want to though then go ahead… whateva lol… the feather boa thing is really funny though… the only problem is that now days there just isn’t a place to find a good feather boa… if you find a good one please let me know
By lozen
May 23, 2005 11:56 AM | Link to this
Kimberly, who is Trent Reznor? Nine inch nails is a musical group, right? I’ve never heard any of their music though. I’m so square and I don’t care!
By Jorge
May 23, 2005 11:57 AM | Link to this
This should cum as no surprise here, but I found some fantastic pieces at a little shop on Bourbon Street.
By Tim
May 23, 2005 11:58 AM | Link to this
lozen… thanks ma!!! ;)
Jorge… and if you really are bothered by my grammar joke then you probably just need to readjust your lil feather boa as well, darlin :)
By Jorge
May 23, 2005 11:59 AM | Link to this
By the way, Ben, I didn’t have to invest a lot of time to actually read the article and notice the general practice of rejecting gay sperm. Tim, help ya boi out, dawg!
By Jack
May 23, 2005 12:02 PM | Link to this
It was an analogy Tim and women like the company of gay men because gay men are similar to women and women are less threatened by gay men. We WERE talking choice here. Yes it is discrimination. If you had a choice, would you want your offspring to have to suffer with the problems associated with being gay? If you choose your child to be gay over straight, I wouldn’t want you to be my Dad. Thats all I want to say on the straight vs. gay issue since I do know some gay people and have no problem with them.
By Ben
May 23, 2005 12:05 PM | Link to this
Whew, that’s a relief. You just made it sound like you have been doing your research on sperm banks. I didn’t wanna have to make fun of you.
By Eaton
May 23, 2005 12:07 PM | Link to this
No offense, Jack, but I’m a gay man and I’m not similar in any way to a woman except in who I’m attracted to. That’s a stereotype. If anything, women tend to like gay men because we are male company that are not a threat to the woman’s SO. A lot of straight guys are threatened when their wives/girlfriends have other male friends, but gay guys are safe. By the way - I’m not stereotyping straight men, either - just making observations based on my own friends.
By Jorge
May 23, 2005 12:08 PM | Link to this
How did I make it sound like I had done the research? Anyone who read the story knew what I was referring to.
By Jorge
May 23, 2005 12:10 PM | Link to this
BTW, Tim, I was serious about Bourbon Street. Lots of colorful wigs, too!!!
By Jack
May 23, 2005 12:10 PM | Link to this
Eaton - My opinion was formed from discussions with straight females that have gay male friends.
By Akeya
May 23, 2005 12:14 PM | Link to this
Jorge- They may not be taking away the right, but it is a way to make it more difficult for lesbians couples to use the sperm of their gay male friends. Why don’t YOU do some checking with your gay male friends and lesbian couple friends so that they can give you information? Since adoption can be difficult for a straight couple, it will, of course, be even more difficult for a homo couple. That is as clear as day. And sperm shouldn’t be labeled gay or straight. As the point was made by several people already, ALL SPERM SHOULD BE SCREENED EQUALLY.
And you posed an interesting question…why not just lie about your sexual proclivities? Hmmm…..
All of my gay brothers and lesbian sisters any take on this?
By Ben
May 23, 2005 12:21 PM | Link to this
Yeah well I didn’t read the story and your comments just seem like you invested a bit of time into the goings on of sperm banks.
When you say, “reality is there is also and issue of demand …” or “most women would simply choose the hetero sperm …” and “based on the past actions of the sperm banks …” that leads me to think you invest a little more time than most on the subject.
You are rather defensive for someone, who can “care less about this than anyone on this distinguished panel.” Relax dude, I’m just messin with you.
By Jack
May 23, 2005 12:23 PM | Link to this
“why not just lie about your sexual proclivities? Hmmm…..”
Thats why Whiley had it right.
By Eaton
May 23, 2005 12:24 PM | Link to this
I was faced with this question Friday during a blood drive - several of my friends asked me why I didn’t just lie. I guess for me that would be capitulating to the prejudice. I have communicated with various blood donor groups about this topic and basically they said: “Sorry, we’re not planning on changing, we don’t want your blood”. So…yes there’s a need out there for blood, but sorry - after being given an answer like that, there’s no way I’m going to pretend to be something I’m not.
As far as sperm goes, it seems kind of frivolous to me. I mean, I’m offended by the implied discrimination of the ban, but I wasn’t planning on being an anonymous donor any time soon. If I ever decide to take the steps necessary to have a biological child it will be because I want to be a parent, not because I have some egotistical need to know that my line has persisted.
Jack, no offense meant, man. You’re right, there are gay men who are a lot like women. Just wanted to emphasize that it’s not always the case.
By Jorge
May 23, 2005 12:26 PM | Link to this
Akeya, I appreciate your point of view, and you make a valid point. However, while I am not in agreement with the handling of this issue by the FDA, and I feel they have much better uses of their time, I have to strongly disagree with you on one point. Sperm should absolutely be part of the label. Like it or not, if the gay and lesbian lobby is correct about your preference being something you’re born with, then it is a trait, just like hair/eye color, skin color, and other factors. While the government should not legislate it out, it cannot be ignored. If you choose to leave that out as a trait, then you are countering the point that it is an inborn quality, as many argue. You can’t have it both ways (or can you?) :)
By stan
May 23, 2005 12:28 PM | Link to this
I agree about the people that have been trying to have babies, and they end up being better mothers and fathers.
Jack, And what’s wrong with the kid being gay? Most gay adults have a better sense of character, strength, and understanding because they had to endure being teased, harrassed, and ostracized. Most of the times, straight kids aren’t faced with the reality that life is hard until they get to college.
By Jack
May 23, 2005 12:32 PM | Link to this
I do see Rock’s and Jorge’s point. If something is genetic and could affect the offspring, no matter what it is, should be on the label. If it wasn’t genetic, it wouldn’t matter.
By Jack
May 23, 2005 12:38 PM | Link to this
Why would any good parent purposely make the life of their child more difficult?
By Jack
May 23, 2005 12:40 PM | Link to this
“Most of the times, straight kids aren’t faced with the reality that life is hard until they get to college”
How would you know that? That is quite an assumption.
By TheRealScott
May 23, 2005 12:45 PM | Link to this
Ok, first off, I have to admit, Whiley had me rolling when I started reading this blog this morning…hilarious!
Although it amazes me (in a refreshing way, mind you) I have to say I agree with Lyrazel on this one. Regardless of whether the donor is hetero or homo, shouldn’t there be EXTREMELy strict and rigorous testing of ANY sperm donor? I further agree that sexual history, while an important factor that should be screened, is not the only one. The many genetic predispoistions Lyrazel mentioned (alcoholism, genetic defects, family history) are right on the money. Obviously, if you are going to a sperm bank to be artificially inseminated you want to have a child. I would think you would want to take these factors into account before deciding on what sperm to have put in you! Otherwise, just roll down to the pub of your choice and roll the dice during ovulation on who the lucky winner is!
Whiley - hehhehe…you’re still killin’ me…thanks for the laugh, that was great!
By Eaton
May 23, 2005 12:47 PM | Link to this
Well, how about “While straight kids may or may not be faced with adversity in their teens and learn that life is hard, pretty much every gay kid out there learns that life is hard early on”. Better?
By Lyrazel
May 23, 2005 12:48 PM | Link to this
Maybe it is prejudice, but is regulating an unregulated industry whose clients are now unprotected such a bad thing? Yes I do agree heterosexuals should be checked—yes they have some of the largest gains in HIV, and sexually transmitted disease because of hetero-unsafe sex, drug use etc. I think once you establish these donations occur for use in a medical facility—then you have to have standards for doctors to follow. Those health procedures are already in place for the general population. Blood can be traced back to where it was collected so why not sperm? People who have tuburculosis cannot donate blood nor sperm…is that prejudice or common sense? Personally, I would rather have a VERIFYIBLE medical history for a sperm donor than care if they were gay—straight or celibate. We put more regulations into breeding puppies and animals than human beings!
Jorge, its the LIE that ruins the industry. Its the lie that passes undetected genetic defects to innocent people. Why not end lies?
By TheRealScott
May 23, 2005 12:50 PM | Link to this
Stan - Ok I realize this is taken out of context but…
“Most gay adults have a better sense of character, strength, and understanding because they had to endure being teased, harrassed, and ostracized. “
This is just a load of merde
By Akeya
May 23, 2005 12:51 PM | Link to this
Jorge- hmmm… would that not flirt with the assumption that parental love is, in fact, not unconditional?
ANYONE SEEN THE MOVIE GATTICA?
By Tim
May 23, 2005 12:57 PM | Link to this
Jack… sorry… I obviously missed your point with the analogy… no big deal… I will try to keep up :)
Jorge… I have never been to New Orleans… but if I make it down there sometime I will have to check out their boas… thanks for the suggestion
Jack… so should gay men not have children because they may pass their ‘gay gene’ on to their children? since if they do turn out to be gay they will have a harder life (not attacking just asking)
By kimberly
May 23, 2005 01:00 PM | Link to this
Trent Reznor is SO HOT!
By Jack
May 23, 2005 01:03 PM | Link to this
So you’re saying you would prefer your child have a hard life?
By Jack
May 23, 2005 01:07 PM | Link to this
I’ve seen Gattica on the guide. is it good?
By Jack
May 23, 2005 01:09 PM | Link to this
Tim - Exactly.
By RS
May 23, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this
Lozen’s 11:44am post was RIGHT ON TARGET & explains why I’ve always had so many beloved gay friends. Kimberly, I’ve always thought Trent Reznor is a hottie (I’ve always had a thing for rock musicians anyway) & am glad you got to see NIN. I saw them a long time ago & they were bangin!!! The new cd is excellent. Tim, you sure can get all that fabulous stuff on Bourbon St & in the French Quarter in general. Jack, you are so right; even as a hetero, I (& my 100% hetero husband & all my friends, both gay AND straight) had tough adolescences because we were far, far out of the mainstream & subsequently ended up, in my opinion, to be more creative & interesting than most. Rocky, in light of your feelings about the whole homosexual issue, I give you a LOT of credit for realizing that one’s sexuality is something one is born with but I’m afraid those traits aren’t passed on; the many gay & lesbian people I know are all products of straight parents & have gotten here the “normal” way. Now, if I was planning on availing myself of donated sperm (although as Wiley astutely pointed out earlier, there’s enough free sperm for the taking!), I’d want a donor who is intelligent, clean, witty, creative & sensitive; that describes most of the gay men I’VE known to a T!
By Ben
May 23, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this
I have a question about this passing of the gay gene thing that some of you bring up. A couple of you are entertaining the notion that gay men can pass the gene to children, making them gay. If that’s the case, how did people become gay? I didn’t think two men or two women could have babies. So I’m scratching my head at some of the logic. So is it Dick or Lynne Cheney that’s gay? And why is only one of their daughters gay?
Damn I’m confused!
By Eaton
May 23, 2005 01:13 PM | Link to this
I don’t think any parent wants a child to have a hard life, but isn’t your argument the same one that was used for interracial marriages a couple of decades ago, and heck, even now? You shouldn’t get married because your kids will have a hard life…
You’ve got a chance of having a gay or straight kid if you get knocked up with “straight sperm” and you’ve got a chance of having a gay or straight kid if you get knocked up with “homo sperm” so seems like the point is moot…
By Lola
May 23, 2005 01:20 PM | Link to this
Thanks, Tim. I’ve met a lot more straight morons than I have gay ones, that’s for sure!
lozen - I’m with you on the square train. Never heard of that guy either.
kimberly - I think I’ve heard of Nine Inch Nails before but I’ve never heard of that Trent guy. Does he look anything like Mark McGrath? Now HE is HOT!!! Whew! I got all dewey just thinking about him (yes, I’m fanning myself)
Jorge - don’t pick on Tim. He happens to have a very large fan club on here. You don’t wanna go there, Love. :)
I don’t understand why it would be so difficult to just test ALL sperm donated, and then weed out the ones that don’t pass the testing. Why isolate one group of men entirely, basically assuming that they’re all alike and have all had high-risk sexual encounters? That’s just not the case. All people are different and make their own choices, and that goes for straight or gay. I wouldn’t feel any more secure about getting untested sperm just because it came from a straight guy. I’ve met plenty of slutty men in my life, and there were a LOT more straight ones than there were gay ones. That’s for damn sure. AND, the straight ones are probably less likely to practice safe sex, because AIDS is something they don’t think can happen to them. What a bunch of hooey.
By Jack
May 23, 2005 01:23 PM | Link to this
Ben, it is quite confusing. When it suits the arguement, it is genetic and not a choice. When it doesn’t suit the arguement,its “how can they be gay with straight parents?”. How do parents with black hair give birth to a red-head? God only knows.
By Tim
May 23, 2005 01:25 PM | Link to this
Jack… I think Eaton said it best… and I have to respectfully disagree with you… I hope to one day have children… and I can tell you that my children will have a better life than A TON of children out there be they gay, straight, or otherwise… I honestly hope that my children do not end up to be gay because I don’t want them to have to go through some of the things I went through… but if they do end up being gay I can be sure in knowing that they will at least be some of the most FABULOUS lil ankle biters! :)
By Tim
May 23, 2005 01:28 PM | Link to this
thanks Lola!! ;)
By Stan
May 23, 2005 01:29 PM | Link to this
Let’s see, TheRealScott. So you think that getting chased around the schoolyard, called a “f” all the time or sissy or any other word along those lines, made fun of by male P.E. coaches, never getting picked to be on any team, and having to eat lunch by yourself for years because most kids don’t want to hang out with the “f”, doesn’t build character, understanding, and/or strength?
By sandy
May 23, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this
Maybe the gay gene is a recessive trait, like blonde hair or blue eyes, that both parents can possess without actually having that trait themselves… I’m actually not really going to make any comment on the nature vs. nurture of homosexuality, I do agree that the precautionary principle should apply in these circumstances and that high-risk groups of people should be weeded out. However, it needs to be based on good science, and not societal misconceptions.
By rocky
May 23, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this
Thanks, RS. I appreciate you taking note of that. I’m really trying to be logical and not emotional about this issue, regardless of my own personal feelings, because I know there are several gay people on this blog and it just makes it much more enriching for me when there is logical exchange rather than blatant name calling.
As I mentioned earlier, I do believe gay tendencies is something that a person is born with. I don’t know how that translates into what is passed along to their children or how a gay child is born to straight parents. I can only assume it is the same way that two healthy parents can give birth to a deformed child, or a child with a disabling disease. It’s just luck (or un-luck) of the draw. But if you know that a man potentially carries a gene that could potentially be passed along to a child born from his sperm, why would you willingly take that risk? Even with all the testing in the world, there’s no way (currently) to test for a gay gene. Judging from the stories I’ve heard from gay men on this site, and the kind of hatred they are confronted with by those who disagree with their lifestyle, I wouldn’t want to risk putting a child through that kind of lifetime torment.
By kimberly
May 23, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this
Lola, Mark McGrath IS cute. Hot, even. But musically, he has no depth. Pure pop. I watched a “reality” show he did with little music-promoter interns setting up a concert. The team picked the band that had better songs and better musical talent, and the cohesiveness to play a good rock show. MM tore them down because they didn’t pick the showy band who smashed stuff on stage but couldn’t play a song you’d want to listen to. The team said, “It’s about the music, right?” He said they had a lot to learn about show biz. For some of us, and TRENT, it IS about the music!
By Jack
May 23, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this
Stan, to willingly choose that kind of life for your child is wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. I was picked on in school because I wasn’t very big until 10th grade when I caught up with most everyone else. I wouldn’t wish that on anyone. Especialy my children.
By Ben
May 23, 2005 01:40 PM | Link to this
Let me answer that one for you Stan from a non-gay perspective. In a way, yes it does! The sad reality with society today is that you have to fit in, be part of the group or the in-crowd.
Everything that you described is the so-called status quo of today’s society, and if you don’t fit in, you are wrong or abnormal.
But an intelligent, honest, hardworking person that can withstand the ridicule of the truly ignorant has FAR more character, understanding and strength than the ostricizing, ignorant fool that will someday work for him.
By kimberly
May 23, 2005 01:43 PM | Link to this
I was picked on because I had red hair. Bright orange, actually. And NEITHER parent was a redhead. Fair? No. I teach my child that it’s WRONG to pick on kids for being different or awkward. I teach her that everyone is different, and that people are good at different things, and that it’s cool to be who you are and to enjoy doing the things you like and not to let other people tell you how to feel about yourself. I teach her that opening up and being friends with all types of people will give her a more full and interesting life.
WHO is still raising bullies these days? Let’s pick on THEM!
By Stan
May 23, 2005 01:45 PM | Link to this
Kids are going to pick on you regardless. If you aren’t wearing the right shoes, clothes, or your hair is a certain texture, or your skin is too dark or you are too fair. It’s going to be something.
And Jack, do you not think that the teasing help shape you in some form or fashion into the person that you are today?
And by the way, Mark McGrath is hot. I loved the Lucky commercials/ads or whatever it was called, with him in a towel showing just the top crack of his bum.
By Tim
May 23, 2005 01:45 PM | Link to this
Jack… wasn’t there a chance that your children would be born small and be small in school… by your reasoning shouldn’t you have abstained from having children?
By Jack
May 23, 2005 01:48 PM | Link to this
I think red-heads are HOT!!!!
By Lola
May 23, 2005 01:49 PM | Link to this
stan - good Lord. Did you really endure all of that when you were in school? What a nightmare! I can somewhat relate, having been a heavy child, I was called an “f” word, never picked for teams, chastised by coaches, ridiculed by classmates and even had my clothes shoved into the toilet during gym class, forcing me to spend the rest of the day in my gym clothes. Did it build character? Eventually, I guess. But only after I spent/wasted years trying to overcome the negative self-image that I had throughout my entire teenage years and most of my 20’s, not to mention the eating disorder that resulted out of that and lasted for over 16 years. People just don’t realize the impact that their words and actions have on a young mind. Sorry I got off topic. Stan’s posting just struck a cord in me…
By TheRealScott
May 23, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this
Stan - sometimes it does…and sometimes it breeds anger, hate, resentment and a sense of discontent in general.
I think that a gay child can grow strength, perseverance, and integrity from adversity, but I disagree that they are more likely to do so. Let’s face it, kids can be mean and pick on whtever is different. they pick on gay kids, fat kids, slow kids, different races, varying intelligence and athletic levels.
Whether that child learns negative or positive traits from it depends largely on that child’s personality predispositions combined with the amount of support (or lack thereof) that the child receives from his/her parents and friends or extended family.
Being gay and the adversity that comes with growing up that way does not mean that they will grow up to be shining examples of human integrity becasue of it any more than growing up in any discriminatory situation means the person will overcome it. As much as we would like for ALL kids to come through adversity better for it, that just isn’t always the case.
By Jack
May 23, 2005 01:56 PM | Link to this
No Tim, I was the runt of the family. My children are both much bigger than I. When they were teens, I had to sit them down before I disiplined them. :)
By Christina
May 23, 2005 01:59 PM | Link to this
Rocky, please do some research before labeling something a disorder. The american psychological associations have withdrawn the idea that homosexuality is a disorder. It is a choice, wether bolstered by nature or nurture. You can’t give a person a drug to make them strait and the children of gays do not all become gays just as the children of mentally challenged people are not all born with mental retardation.
By kimberly
May 23, 2005 02:00 PM | Link to this
Seriously… WHO here is NOT teaching their kids kindness and respect for those who are different, skinny, fat, awkward, dress funny, talk funny, come from a different background, etc. Is ANYONE here NOT teaching their kids to be open-minded and respectful of others, even those who they don’t understand?
Seriously, ‘cause I think we should beat them up. Who’s with me?
By Tim
May 23, 2005 02:00 PM | Link to this
Jack… BUT there was a chance that your children would be smaller… and since there was that chance you shouldn’t have had children for fear that their life would be harder because they would be smaller than everyone else… why was it different for you and not me
By Jack
May 23, 2005 02:04 PM | Link to this
The only thing bullies understand is pain. On a different note, I would love to have 10 minutes in a locked cell with the 17 year old who raped and left the 8 year old girl in the landfill to die.
By Ben
May 23, 2005 02:07 PM | Link to this
I teach my daughter to shy away from weird people, does tha count?
By Tim
May 23, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this
kimberly… I am with ya! :)
By Lola
May 23, 2005 02:09 PM | Link to this
kimberly - you are a wonderful mother for teaching your daughter those things. I aspire to be that kind of mother to my daughter as well, hopefully saving her from at least some of the torment and agony that can result from being bullied as a child. Yes, children are cruel, but good parenting and teaching your kids to respect others of all backgrounds, personalities and races is a good step in reducing the number of bullies out there.
By Lola
May 23, 2005 02:10 PM | Link to this
Count me in, kimberly! I’m locked, cocked and ready! :)
By Lola
May 23, 2005 02:15 PM | Link to this
Jack - I am completely on board with you on wanting to beat the living hell out of that 17 year old animal who raped the little 8 year old girl and left her to die in a trash bin in a landfill. The fact that she was found alive is beyond miraclous. I hope he is invaded and raped by other inmates in every crack and crevace of his body for the rest of his life. My husband and I have decided to buy a “toddler leash” for our daughter. I used to judge parents harshly when I saw them with their children on those things, but with as many abductions and amber alerts and child rapings and killings as there seem to be lately, I would much rather be judged by others than take the risk of someone snatching up my little girl and doing unspeakable things to her before leaving her to die. It would be the end of life as I know it if that were to happen to her.
By Jack
May 23, 2005 02:17 PM | Link to this
Give up Tim. I’m not going to change my mind.
By Tim
May 23, 2005 02:20 PM | Link to this
you don’t have to change your mind Jack… I am still proving you wrong! again… please answer my question… why was it ok for you to have children… but I shouldn’t???
p.s. I won’t give up when I know I am right
By rocky
May 23, 2005 02:21 PM | Link to this
Christina - with all due respect to the american psychological associations, they are not the end-all voice on what is and what is not a disorder. That is merely their opinion. There are many, many disorders that are self-induced and some that are not. Being gay is, I believe, not self-induced, but is still a disorder. It defies the natural order of how human beings are programmed to interact sexually (our plumming is set up to be man with woman), and therefore, tendencies to defy that natural order because someone is more attracted to someone of the same sex than the opposite sex, is a disorder. It doesn’t make someone a bad person. It just means that they have something not working correctly in their mind that makes them attracted to the wrong sex.
By Lyrazel
May 23, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this
Someone asked me how much scrutiny eggs are put under or if just donations of eggs being so rare they dont regulate the gay factor for a lesbian.
By Chris
May 23, 2005 02:23 PM | Link to this
What woman in her right mind would accept sperm from a homosexual, knowing that being gay might be inherited? I would not want a gay child. And the thought of gay men donating blood scares me. The average gay man has hundreds of sexual partners during his lifetime, they spread disease and death.
By rocky
May 23, 2005 02:25 PM | Link to this
I have a question that is completely unrelated to what we’ve been discussing -
What is the deal with black guys wearing a baseball hat off-center on their heads? That ranks right up there with the thug-pants-under-your-buttcheeks style in stupid anti-fashion statements. What does the crooked hat thing mean? Anyone? I see a picture of Bobby Brown on the front page of the acj.com with it and it looks moronic.
By LaShelle
May 23, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this
So does the average straight man, Chris. Would you rather have tainted straight blood or clean gay blood?? I don’t think it should matter seeing as one will kill you and the other would save your life.
By Ron
May 23, 2005 02:29 PM | Link to this
Wow, this is actually an interesting argument. I just have to ask all the parents who are worried about having a gay child out there, wouldn’t you love your child just as much even if he/she disappointed you by being gay?? Is love for a child dependent on such a pointless thing as sexual preference? I have two boys and frankly, I don’t care what they decide to be, as long as they are happy with the choice. And whether we label it as a disorder or find some “defective” gene associated with it, I can’t imagine it making me love my sons any less. I only hope I can teach them tolerance and that I will love them regardless.
Mark McGrath ain’t all that. Have you checked out country music lately? Now there’s some eye candy for ya!
By Lyrazel
May 23, 2005 02:29 PM | Link to this
It means his wife wasnt there to dress him before he left the house. next question?
By Ben
May 23, 2005 02:31 PM | Link to this
Rocky, it doesn’t mean anything. It’s just a fad. By the way, it’s not just the black guys doing it buddy. Fortunately, there is no national dress code, so you can wear your hat however you feel, even if someone thinks it’s moronic.
By TheRealScott
May 23, 2005 02:31 PM | Link to this
Lola and Kimberly…. Do we have to beat the 17 year old up? What I mean is, do we have to do it just once? Hows about castration w/out anestesia (sp?) followed by daily beatings to near death (lets not kill him, just maim repeatedly) every day for say the next 30 years with the daily gang rapes by his fellow inmates….is that wrong??
Seems like just the beginning of what should happen…
By LaShelle
May 23, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this
LOL@Lyrazel…and Ron I completely agree with you. I don’t think I could love my son any less if he did turn out gay.
By Tim
May 23, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this
Ben you are very right… even saw a gay guy wearing his hat like that the other day
By Tim
May 23, 2005 02:38 PM | Link to this
(and he was white)
By RS
May 23, 2005 02:42 PM | Link to this
Tim: You’d be a great dad! Knowing that someone as fabulous you aspires to raise kids almost makes me want to be your “babymama” & coming from me, that’s quite a compliment, as I’ve never wanted children! Rocky: Believe me, you’ll never find a stronger advocate than me for getting tested prior to conception, so as to avoid bringing children into the world who have some terrible disease. I’ve never, though, seen any evidence of sexuality being hereditary. Ben: Regarding your 1:40 post; YOU ARE THE MAN!!!!!Kimberly: If all parents were like you, I bet bullying would all be but wiped out. Bless you. I truly believe parents who teach their kids to be bullies should have their kids taken away from them. Jack: May I have the honour of holding that 17-year old punk down while you systematically work him over from head to toe? You’re right; the only thing bullies understand is a heaping dose of their own medicine. I am SO thankful that little girl was found alive but can you imagine the psychological trauma? Wouldn’t surprised me if the poor thing was emotionally scarred for life…It wouldn’t break my heart at all to see the b——rd who did that to her get the death penalty. Stan: I DO feel that being ostracized helps shape a child into what type of adult they will become, as seen in a post I submitted a little earlier.
By Lola
May 23, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this
LOL Lyrazel! Or maybe she WAS there, all jacked up on crack and she’s the one who dressed him!
TheRealScott - I am all for your castration methods on that guy. I get so furious when I think about those poor children who have been molested and scarred for life, and those who never lived long enough to know how many people cared and loved them before they were taken away by those subhuman as*holes. It just really gets me angry.
Ron - have you had your eyes gouged out? How can you possibly think that Mark McGrath isn’t all that? He’s the CAT’S MEOW! :) rocky - I’ve seen white kids with the hats turned like that too. It must be some kind of rap thing, because that’s what kind of music was booming out of the cars I saw those kids with the crooked hats driving. Just like we all did at that age, they’re just trying to fit in and make a statement.
By RS
May 23, 2005 02:47 PM | Link to this
Rocky: I think baseball caps are sloppy-looking no matter how they’re worn but that’s just me. Yes, I hate that thug-pants, below-the-butt-cheeks look, ugh. Always makes me think of someone who didn’t get to the restroom on time & has a “load” in their pants.RealScott: Sounds good to me & no better than that subhuman deserves!
By Tim
May 23, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this
RS… thanks… that does mean a lot coming from you :)
Lola… I have to agree with you… MM is a cutie… especially with that shaved head… very cute on him
By Lola
May 23, 2005 02:54 PM | Link to this
LOL @ RS!! Your “load in their pants” posting was hilarious! I’ll be thinking that every time I see someone wearing pants like those now. LMAO
By Lola
May 23, 2005 02:55 PM | Link to this
Tim - HE SHAVED HIS HEAD???? I haven’t seen that yet! Do you have a website where I can see that by any chance? I’m dying to now!
By Tim
May 23, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this
Lola… sorry false alarm lol… had a brain fart for a minute
By Jack
May 23, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this
Tim you lost all credibility when you were calling people a…..es.
You did not prove me wrong either. You just think you did because it makes you feel better.
By Tim
May 23, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this
I was thinking of Rob Thomas for some reason… but I still agree with you… MM is a hottie too
By Tim
May 23, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this
great Jack… but you still failed to answer the question presented to you
By RS
May 23, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this
Lola; Oh yeah, girl, I’ve SEEN small children who have a trouserful & that’s exactly what that, er, “fashion” reminds me of! (So, how ‘bout it, Tim? The offspring would be sure to be a little hottie with a wacky sense of humour! LOL!)
By Jack
May 23, 2005 03:08 PM | Link to this
Tim, Bless your heart!
By Jack
May 23, 2005 03:10 PM | Link to this
Tim apples and oranges. i didn’t have to go to a sperm bank. If everyone thought things had to be PERFECT in order to procreate, none of us would be here. Nuff said. Dilbert!
By Tim
May 23, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this
thanks Jack… it has been blessed many times before… but you still didn’t answer the question
RS… sounds like a plan to me :)
By RS
May 23, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this
OK, Tim, I’ll dust off the turkey-baster & you come up with baby names!
By Tim
May 23, 2005 03:20 PM | Link to this
I’m not talking about going to a sperm bank… you said gay people should not have children because they would risk their children being gay and no good parent would want their children to have a hard life… I am not the one who said everything had to be perfect to pro-create… my kids are no more guaranteed to be gay than yours were to be short… so not really apples and oranges there… again… why was it ok for you to procreate but not me?
awwww… now look who has resorted to name callin… come on down to my level Jack :) by your standards you have lost all credibility now
By Tim
May 23, 2005 03:22 PM | Link to this
RS… that was the funniest dang thing I have heard all day… hahaha… I already have baby names picked :) and informed my other half those aren’t up for discussion :)
By Archie
May 23, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this
Jack I liked your 2:04 pm post. Ben your 2:31 post was right on. Heck, the post that brought up baseball caps was moronic… but then consider the source.
By lozen
May 23, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this
How can we possibly know if the sexual interaction between male and female is normal and everything else a disorder? A lot of effort goes into channeling young people into having a specific gender identity (pink and dolls for little girls, blue and trucks for little boys) and into seeing the opposite sex as the correct attractor. People start asking little kids when they are two!, “do you have a girlfriend/boyfriend?” We are taught to be heterosexual! Sex isn’t just for procreation. So why wouldn’t sex with whoever makes you feel good be the norm? I personally think it would be the norm, if we weren’t taught to hate homosexuality.
By rocky
May 23, 2005 03:35 PM | Link to this
Thanks, Archie. I see that my quest for intelligent conversation rather than name calling comes to a screeching halt when it’s you that is responding. That’s okay. I was asking a legitimate question about something that I didn’t know. I’m not up on my thug fashion and was just wondering if it was a gang sign or something like that. If you want to belittle me for being honest, then so be it.
By David
May 23, 2005 03:35 PM | Link to this
Newflash* For all the heterosexual parents…… Yes, you can give birth to a gay child. 99% of all gay children have straight parents. Another point, how many straight people actually ask a gay person if they choose to be gay or were born gay? If you actually ask a gay person that question, they will tell you they were born that way. When will you finally believe them. One last point - Heterosexuals are not experts on Homosexuality.
By Jorge
May 23, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this
Lola, LOVE, I appreciate the advice, but isn’t that a little like saying that you shouldn’t do or say something just because the majority doesn’t want you to? Are you saying it would be OK to pick on Tim if didn’t have a large fan club? That kind of reasoning sounds familiar. Hmmm.
While we’re at it, I gotta stand as a straight man and say that the whole line of reasoning about gay men best the best at fashion and culture, etc., is just as bad as saying that only straight men can be manly and athletic (and a lucky few of you out there KNOW that’s not true). Remember, Tim, if you like the boa’s, you got that advice from a STRAIGHT man, hehehe!!! :)
By David
May 23, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this
then again…homosexuals are not the next higher step in eveolution, omniscient beings and really have no idea what being hetero is like either…so sorry for my previous rantings and idiotic lecturing!
By Archie
May 23, 2005 03:44 PM | Link to this
I don’t agree with 3:32 post Lozen. I was asked about a girlfriend at a young age but the fact that men have a p*** and women have a v**** implies something. I have nothing against gays but it is indisputable that men and women are built differently and I don’t know of a man that can have a baby or a woman that can impregnate another woman. It is normal for men and women to be attracted toward one another. The gay thing does not deserve discrimination but I do think it is different and that’s not necessarily bad, just different. Everything does not have to be normal. Heck it is not normal for a man or woman to be 7 ft tall but it is not wrong to be tall. It isn’t normal for a guy to run 40 yards in 4.1 seconds but there a few people that can do it.
By lozen
May 23, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this
Ron, I love your post! It always is painful to hear about parents who disown their gay children. How can a loving parent stop having anything to do with those people they’ve known and loved (maybe not) since birth? I feel the same way. It would not matter to me if one of my sons had been gay. I would have loved him whatever. Are we really pretending that it’s only young gay males who are promiscuous? Give me a break! Young straight males are also promiscuous.
By Ron
May 23, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this
David, you are soooo right. When will the world realize that a heterosexual can’t judge a homosexual because they absolutely cannot understand the concept? A person feels what he feels and doesn’t need to be judged, whether by peers or an agency of the federal government.
By Jorge
May 23, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this
Lozen, You make a good point, but it’s behavior that is conditioned, not necessarily attraction. In cultures where those lines aren’t as stringent, the vast majority of people still pick the opposite sex as their mate. Not to be TOO neanderthal here, but there is a little issue of anatomy to consider. The old phrase “you ain’t built right” is a little crude, but it is what it is. And let’s make it clear that while procreation is not the only reason for sexual relations, it is the primary one, biologically.
By Bruce
May 23, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this
Lola, Kimberly and RealScott,
How about we make a fund raiser out of it. For $50.00 you can have the rapist tied up, hands over head, and beat him for 2 minutes with a rubber hose. Then use the money to help rape victims. The more money you pay the longer you get to beat him. However, the victim and their family get all the time they want and at no cost. Rapist are the lowest form of life. Especially those that rape helpless children.
By Jorge
May 23, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this
Darn, Archie, you took the words right outta my mouth!
By Archie
May 23, 2005 03:50 PM | Link to this
Rocky I apologize because you certainly are not the only bigot. It didn’t sound like a quest for knowledge. So much bigotry goes unchecked on the internet. Ben does a good job handling bigots but I am not always patient. Anyway check out Lozen’s post at 3:32 agree or disagree?
By Bryan
May 23, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this
“Men who commit acts of sodomy with men have large numbers of anonymous partners, which can result in rapid, extensive transmission of STDs.” - Boscoe.
That is not true at all. I know PLENTY of gay men who have had very few partners, a fairly large number of them still virgins, and my brother has been with the same guy for a year. He is also my brother’s first boyfriend.
And to those people who think a gay man’s sperm = gay baby, that isn’t how it works. We don’t know how people become gay, but it is way more complicated than eye color. Children of gay men and lesbians are just as likely to be gay as those of straight people. It has a lot more to do with fetal developement (IMHO after reading several articles about it and due to information I learned in my college studies [biology, Auburn University]).
By lozen
May 23, 2005 03:53 PM | Link to this
Hey Archie, I just truly believe everyone would be bisexual if that were accepted by the society and we were not so strongly channeled toward the opposite sex. The plumbing is often used to prove your point. However, I don’t hear any gay people complaining about the plumbing not fitting. All my life I have heard women complaining about the one-quick-minute way a lot of men use that plumbing! I’ve heard a lot of women say the prelude (what little of it there is) is the best part. It just makes me wonder. There is no way to prove things either way.
By kimberly
May 23, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this
Yes I concur. If any of you are thinking about preying on an innocent tonight, you need to go ahead and KILL YOURSELF NOW. That’s the difference between being a good fellow human and a horrible monster. If the monster calls you from within, CHECK OUT. You’ll be a hero. Surely goodness and mercy await you in Heaven if you kill yourself rather than rape and kill a helpless child. You will have forgiveness for this, but NOT for raping children.
By Tim
May 23, 2005 03:57 PM | Link to this
Jorge… if I like the boas I will give credit where credit is due
By kimberly
May 23, 2005 03:57 PM | Link to this
Yo Bryan: War Eagle!
By Jorge
May 23, 2005 04:01 PM | Link to this
It’s all good, Tim. Just enjoy the boas.
By RS
May 23, 2005 04:04 PM | Link to this
Lozen & Ron: My parents have always told my brothers & me that if any of us had been gay, they’d be 100% supportive & that’s exactly how I’d have been with any kids of mine. Back in the 80’s, a friend of mine told me about a very sweet young homosexual man she knew who “came out” to his parents upon being diagnosed with AIDS. When he needed them the most, they immediately disowned him upon hearing the news, leaving him to die alone. Broke my heart to learn of this…And that’s a myth that all gay men are more promiscuous than all straight men. I’ve known monogamous/celibate gay men & by the same token, I’ve known straight men who’d jump anything that moves & some things that don’t. Bruce, I liked & agreed with your post; good things can result from a bad situation..
By Lyrazel
May 23, 2005 04:05 PM | Link to this
Ok, when does mens responsibility of their sperm end? At the cup? After the death of the mother and child? I feel any anonymous donations are wrong because its a medical procedure. They should be scrutinized to the umpteenth degree because the anonymous dude—whether hetero-homo can kill someone. Junkies dont make good doners—and they are not accepted. If men are involved in high risk behavior—lifestyle choice should factor BEFORE they sow the seed, yes? Some folk here have single partners and that is fine, but my concern is unregulated men who dont? Im sorry—but I still cant see why regulating is wrong when an innocent can be victimized. If I go in for sperm I want a receipt of who I got knocked up by so I have some medical history to fall back on in case my child needs surgery or has a defective kidney— Call me crazy but I want a receipt when I leave a store.
By Jack
May 23, 2005 04:06 PM | Link to this
See ya next week. I’m sick of reading Tim’s s**.
By Lola
May 23, 2005 04:06 PM | Link to this
Bruce - I’m in! I would love nothing better than to get my hands on a rubber hose and have that animal roped up. I wouldn’t use it to beat him, though. I’d have more interesting places to SHOVE that hose that would be much more memorable for him.
By Jorge
May 23, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this
Lozen, dear sweet love. I can assure you as a very confident straight male who is very in touch with his feminine side and isn’t conflicted at all about acknowledging when another man is good looking, that you are DEAD WRONG. My attraction, fascination, and obsession with the female form has nothing to do with conditioning. Since I was a kid, with a very strong female influence(single mom, grandma, aunts), T&A has occupied the better part of my attention. I believe there would possibly be more people who experimented, but in the end you would see more people in hetero relationships because in nature, that’s simply the majority. The Wood doesn’t lie, tootz. :)
By James
May 23, 2005 04:08 PM | Link to this
If a woman seeking to get pregnant is naive enough…okay stupid enough, to beleive that the donated sperm will be disease free just because the donor is straight and not gay, lady you don’t have the God given common sense to raise a houseplant, much less a kid. If you’re that dumb, you possibly may deserve whatever it is you end up getting.
By Ron
May 23, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this
Bryan—go ahead and tell ‘em dude!! I wish life were as simple as some people want it to be, but it isn’t. Human behavior is a complex combination of genetics and environment, and isn’t easily explained.
To end my day, here’s this thought. Let’s just all be happy to be alive and in a relatively safe spot on the globe at this moment…Go home and hug your kids and love them no matter what!
By rocky
May 23, 2005 04:12 PM | Link to this
Archie - apology accepted. I really am trying to have some valuable input here, since I do have to admit that there are a lot of knowledgable and intelligent people on this blog, and I think name calling and personal attacks just bring that level down. My wording is sometimes blunt, but that is just how I talk. Nothing bad is meant by it.
As for lozen’s post, I agree to a point. I can say, however, that my son was showing a propensity towards boyish toys at a very early age (trucks, cars, fighting games, etc.) and this was before we had really given him anything that would be a “typical” boy’s toy. That was where he always steered toward in the toy aisle, and the same for my daughter. She’s a very girly girl, and loves anything pink and princess. I don’t think these behaviors are from any kind of influence that my wife and I had. They are simply the things that seemed to naturally be of the most interest to them.
By Bruce
May 23, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this
Lola,
As long as you are willing to pay I do not see any problem with how you use the hose. But if you use anything else it shoudl cost more. And this shoudl be a daily thing. Every time they eat a meal they get the punishment. Futhermore, make it public and maybe it will deter others from doing the same.
By Tim
May 23, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this
Jack… I am touched… what lovely things you say… looks like the feathers in someone elses boa got a little ruffled
By RS
May 23, 2005 04:16 PM | Link to this
Lola, that subhuman knuckle-scraper is probably sick enough to enjoy what you’d plan to do with that rubber hose but how about we up the stakes & immerse the aforementioned hose in battery acid prior to insertion??? OK, Jorge, why don’t you tell us how you REALLY feel??? You are the man of my dreams; where have you been all my life? (cough gag!!!)
By lozen
May 23, 2005 04:16 PM | Link to this
I am, in general, against the death penalty for many different reasons. But my first thought, when I read the story about this 17 year old who raped that little girl and tried to kill her is, he should be taken out. Because she identified him so there’s no chance of someone who didn’t commit the crime taking the rap and being killed by mistake. And because studies prove pedophiles cannot be cured. If he goes to prison, he will get out at some point and he will do it again to someone else.
By Lola
May 23, 2005 04:18 PM | Link to this
Jorge - no, I’m saying it isn’t okay to pick on Tim because RS and I are liable to hunt you down and tickle you with our own feather boas until you puke. :)
By RealScott
May 23, 2005 04:18 PM | Link to this
Kimberly…I love ya but…ROLLLLL TIDE!
By Archie
May 23, 2005 04:18 PM | Link to this
Lozen we don’t know enough gay people to know if they complain about the fit. Performance issues between men and women are a matter of opinion and men do complain—yes we do. Being different doesn’t mean being evil but what’s normal usually implies something about the majority’s acceptance. Anyway it’s not normal for straight men to have hundreds of female sex partners but since there are brothels in Nevada and just plain old sex addicts you have promiscuous men. Your post was interesting.
By James
May 23, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this
I forgot to add a line. Most of the really conservative women I know , hmm….how can I say this, they’re not that attractive so maybe a clinical approach is the way to go.
By R Pitts
May 23, 2005 04:23 PM | Link to this
Shaunti, face it. You are a blind bigot. The solution here is to require testing for diseases, not to ban groups based on stereotypes. Anyone can HIV. The growth rate is high among black women, so should they be barred as egg donors?
By RealScott
May 23, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this
RS and Lola - nice idea with the battery acid, but RS may be right he might enjoy it. However, there are other things that he most certainly would not enjoy…all of which should be employed against him
Jack - Take care, look forward to hearing from you again…sorry you’re aggravated
By lozen
May 23, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this
Yeah I hear Magic Johnson on Oprah’s show called all the women he had sex with pre HIV sluts! And what does that make him? An adulterer and a slut!
By Toadlily
May 23, 2005 04:35 PM | Link to this
Lozen, I agree with your comments about socializing children and about bisexuality. It’s societal disapproval of homosexuality that is the problem, not the sexual orientation. As a lesbian, I prefer relating to women and I’ve made the choice to live as a Lesbian, regardless of whatever genes I carry.
By Jorge
May 23, 2005 04:38 PM | Link to this
Lola & RS: leave the hose at home; I have my own. Your place or mine???
By Eaton
May 23, 2005 04:39 PM | Link to this
Toadlily, everytime I hear a fellow gay man or lesbian say what you just said I cringe. Your use of the word choice just gives the right ammunition. They’ll point to you and say “SEE!”. Maybe what you’re saying is that you made the choice not to pretend to be straight - I don’t know…but your language is so incredibly damaging to our fight for legal equality.
By RS
May 23, 2005 04:44 PM | Link to this
Lozen: This is interesting; you mentioned pedophilia being incurable. True, but did you know there’s a difference between being a pedophile & being a child molester? Both are repugnant to me but being a child molester is infinately worse. A pedophile is someone who is (bleaugh!!!) attracted to children but doesn’t necessarily act on those impulses. A child molester DOES & is the lowest of the low.
By lozen
May 23, 2005 04:49 PM | Link to this
Eaton, maybe it’s different for men and women. In the research I did, I met lesbians who said they’ve always been attracted to females only. I met lesbians who have been with men and women but self identify as bisexual lesbians. I know lesbians who say they enjoy sex equally with men or women but chose lesbianism more out of political commitment than sexual preference. I met women who go from a relationship with a man to one with a woman to one with a man. Most gay men seem to be attracted only to men. But then there are bisexual men! So, it’s true. Human behavior is complex.
By Chris
May 23, 2005 04:50 PM | Link to this
This comment is directed to R Pitts, most women who are eggdonors are white women, blacks do not need such services because they don’t have a problem concieving children. All sperm should be tested for AIDS and other deadly viruses, it would be morally reprehensible to give a gay man’s sperm to an unsuspecting woman. I’m child-free and don’t intend to have any children, so it does not affect me. I am so tired of the liberal media, trying to portray the homosexuality as natural and normal. It is not. What pleasure do they get out of sticking their d—k in a place that sh-t comes out of? They are sick.
By lozen
May 23, 2005 04:52 PM | Link to this
RS, I didn’t realize there’s a difference between being a pedophile and being a child molester.
By lozen
May 23, 2005 04:59 PM | Link to this
Oh Chris, you could say the same thing about heterosexual sex couldn’t you? It’s all in your mind! I am not the liberal media my dear and I truly believe homosexual sex is normal and natural. Animals do it. Humans have always done it. Believe me, there are lots of straight guys who want to stick it where the sh-t comes from too!
By Jorge
May 23, 2005 05:03 PM | Link to this
BTW, RS, where I have been is MARRIED!!! To answer your next question, no, she wasn’t drunk at the time.
By Todd
May 24, 2005 07:59 AM | Link to this
Why does everything thing gay sperm creates gay children Straight sperm doesnt always create straight children!
By Ben
May 24, 2005 08:30 AM | Link to this
Allow me to backtrack a little and catch up. Rocky, I can accept that you make some of your comments to provoke intelligent conversation and to address some of your questions. But you have to understand that being blunt sometimes provokes others to respond bluntly, in their own way of course.
So, allow me to also be blunt. Whether you think so or not, you are prejudice and a tad bit racist. Your comments are racialistic and some people take offense to them. Someone who is truly “colorblind” and is seeking answers would have simply asked why do people wear that’s hats crooked or whatever. For you to simply identify it as something blacks do makes you a racialist. The same is true for someone who says that only Arabs drive taxis or run convenient stores.
And for the record Lozen, I love you and all, but nothing, including societal acceptance, would make me physically attracted to another man. lol
By rocky
May 24, 2005 08:46 AM | Link to this
Ben - I can respect someone who is blunt with their answers, and I actually prefer that to someone who tries to sugar-coat everything.
As for the hat question, I have seen ONLY black young punks wearing their hat like that, which is why I asked the question the way I asked it. Then I see Bobby Brown wearing it, who is not exactly a model citizen and seems to be in constant legal troubles, around stabbings, etc., and I begin to assume that it may be a gang-related statement or the newest thug fashion. I see black boys wearing sweat pants with one leg raised up by the knee, and I’ve been told that too is something to do with gangs. And the long white t-shirts that they all seem to be wearing now, including the punks who shot that 14 year old girl at the sweet 16 party. Again, gang wear. So you’ll have to excuse me for calling them like I see them. I have seen that only on blacks, so pointing that out doesn’t make me racist. It makes me observant.
By Archie
May 24, 2005 08:47 AM | Link to this
Ben that 8:24 post was right on point. I see that you understand exactly where I was coming with respect to Lozen and rocky.
By Randy
May 24, 2005 08:52 AM | Link to this
I don’t think too many people think gay sperm produces gay children. I think this has more to do with contracting diseases and the fact that gay men have more of a likelyhood to have diseases, if for no other reason than their lifestyle and number of partners. Being gay has nothing to do with ancestory.
By Ben
May 24, 2005 08:57 AM | Link to this
I can understand that Rocky, but did you see the punks that shot the girl in court. One of those punks was a white kid.
While some of those fashions are “said” to be gang related, the simple fact is they are fads. Clothing trends that originate from the hip-hop culture. And if you look at any mainstream music magazine, or go to a mall, you will see that it’s something that black kids, white kids, asian kids and all kinds of other kids do.
And yes Rocky, by generalizing and saying only black kids do it DOES make you a racialist and somewhat of a racist by every sense of the definitions. If you were truly observant you would see that.
By Randy
May 24, 2005 08:57 AM | Link to this
Any sperm is acceptable provided it has been tested for disease. “Straight” sperm if contaminated is as unacceptable as “gay” sperm. If being gay was caused from heredity, there would be no gays. Being gay must be environmental, as logic would dictate.
By Vince
May 24, 2005 08:59 AM | Link to this
Ben, right on. Why does it matter Rocky what black youth is wearing? I’m 25, I dress like that.
What I don’t understand is why young white guys go out in the winter with their hair wet, wear shorts in the winter, and sandals with no socks in the winter? Why do they wear the torn up shorts at the bottom and the frayed baseball caps that looks like my dog chewed on it for a week? What is up with the tee shirts with the phrases on them like “Dude, where’s my car?” What’s up with the whole Abercrombie and Fitch attire? Is that some sort of KKK attire or white supremacist attire?
By Stan
May 24, 2005 09:02 AM | Link to this
Chris, for the life of me, I can’t understand why you would want to put your d**k somewhere that bleeds once a month? That’s sick.
By Archie
May 24, 2005 09:18 AM | Link to this
Bobby Brown is not a handsome man in my opinion but there was nothing wrong with the way he wore his hat. As I said there are plenty of bigots on the internet and they aren’t trying to understand anything. No one person has cornered the market on bigotry. I agree with Ben about fashion trends because many people in my generation don’t wear our clothes in a hip-hop style but that doesn’t make it wrong just different. The intelligent people on this blog brought up animals and homosexuality and I would like to say that there is no direct correlation because not every behavior exhibited by animals is exhibited by humans. Anyway any straight man that has had a prostate exam will not be comfortable with another man’s p*** is his behind. That’s not said to offend just telling the truth.
By cynikkle
May 24, 2005 09:20 AM | Link to this
kimberly -
OMFG - Trent is really HOT!
Oh - ANYTHING donated by ANYONE should be rigorously tested. This is not a gay issue. Everyone should be questioned the same questions, however.
Rock on.
By Jorge
May 24, 2005 09:51 AM | Link to this
Allow me to pass the baton of pompous a*****, albeit begrudgingly, to today’s version: ROCKY. Dude, you couldn’t have sounded more stupid. The hat to the side and baggy clothes are a fad among all races, including white and hispanic as well. Blacks may have started the trend, but just as in most things pop culture, everyone else eventually caught on. And many of those “punks” you see wearing those styles on TV can put your portfolio to shame, so get over it and don’t get your Izod’s and Dockers in a bunch.
By Jack
May 24, 2005 09:52 AM | Link to this
Thanks RealScott. I won’t let little Timmie run me off this blog. I’m addicted.
By Andrea
May 24, 2005 09:56 AM | Link to this
This comment is for AKEYA. What’s up hoodrat? Are you still looking for your “baby’s daddy”?
By Carlton Wyatt
May 24, 2005 10:07 AM | Link to this
Randy: you should learn more about the workings of genetics and heredity before making comments such as, “If being gay was caused from heredity, there would be no gays. Being gay must be environmental, as logic would dictate.” You only prove yourself highly unqualified to make such statements.
Genetics is far more complex than your simple illogical statement would indicate. With the knowledge of multiple gene triggers, recessive genes, the mother/fetal hormonal interaction… the possibilities of a physical cause for homosexuality is very likely. Personally, I know for a fact it isn’t “chosen” or “environmental”, at least in my own case.
By Tim
May 24, 2005 10:12 AM | Link to this
Jack… never tried to run you off… simply asked you a question… glad you are back… I will leave you alone… but I must say… it is Timmy… and that doesn’t bother… actually what most people call me… a lot better than other things I have been called… another good one if you are trying make me sound like a little kid is Timbo (that one actually has special meaning to me… what my papa always called me)
By Jack
May 24, 2005 10:34 AM | Link to this
Glad you could join today Tim. I have one thing to say to you before I leave for the day. You wouldn’t make a pimple on a real man’s butt. I would say to kiss mine but you would probably enjoy it.
By lozen
May 24, 2005 10:35 AM | Link to this
Here’s the thought that struck me this morning… How many people interview their prospective spouse by asking about diseases that have shown up in their family, tendencies toward alcoholism, violence, abuse (which definitely has been shown to be learned behavior from parent to child!), mental illnesses, etc? All those important considerations get swept away with lust and all the factors that cause people to get married. Look at John Mason who still wants to marry Jennifer Wilbanks! We’re quite casual about marrying someone who might be bringing all that baggage for our children. But then we want guarantees from the fertility clinic.
By RS
May 24, 2005 10:37 AM | Link to this
Lozen: Well yes, all child molesters are pedophiles but not all pedophiles are child molesters; it’s all about giving in or not giving in to those vile impulses. I don’t consider an adult who has consentual sex with a teen a child molester, just an idiot. Chris: As Stan pointed out, it’s all relative. Gay people often find the thought of hetero intimacy repugnant. Ah, I see Michael D’s soul mate (Andrea) is back…
By lozen
May 24, 2005 10:38 AM | Link to this
Andrea, what exactly is your problem with Akeya? You have a definite communication problem.
By lozen
May 24, 2005 10:39 AM | Link to this
Randy, bless your simple little heart!
By lozen
May 24, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this
Michael D = Andrea? I had that thought also RS.
By Eaton
May 24, 2005 10:57 AM | Link to this
Tim, your question was apt and rational. Sounds like Jack has serious issues.
By Tim
May 24, 2005 11:01 AM | Link to this
Jack… glad you think so highly of yourself… not really into old guys though so you wouldn’t have to worry about me kissing anything on you… I actually have standards :) and how gross if real men have pimples on their butts… if that is what it takes to be a real man then I will pass… I enjoy my butt being pimple free
By Tim
May 24, 2005 11:05 AM | Link to this
Eaton… thank you… I thought it was too… must be getting upset because I am actually making a point… or he has some other issues… whatever it is… I made my point :)
By RS
May 24, 2005 11:13 AM | Link to this
Ohhhmigosh, Tim! Now I can’t get the image of some man’s nasty, pimply butt out of my mind! Eeeeewwwwww! (me having a “girly moment”…)
By Tim
May 24, 2005 11:19 AM | Link to this
RS… well I am right there with ya having a ‘girlie moment’ lol… gross hahaha
By jimmy
May 24, 2005 11:24 AM | Link to this
I agree with Diane Glass on this issue. Regulating this industry is important, but we should not discriminate people in doing so. The question should not be about whether one is gay or straight, it should be about sexual risk taking behaviors that all people may engage in. Placing a ban on gay donors perpetuates the “unfounded” idea that gay men are more sexually active and have more unprotected sex than straights. Everyone should be tested equally and treated the same, is this not what this country is about??? What amazed me the most about this blog was reading some of the comments posted. Particularly the one with all the percentages that crazy. I also find it disturbing that there were many people who did not want “gay” sperm. It is almost like 1950’s America, when people where afraid to use the same bathrooms as African Americans. So call me liberal, or whatever, I just want to stand up for what is right. This policy is wrong and I am against it.
By kimberly
May 24, 2005 11:30 AM | Link to this
One word, gentlemen: LOOFAH! hahaha! Soft, smoove skin all over. BTW, did I mention today that Trent Reznor is HOT?
By lozen
May 24, 2005 11:47 AM | Link to this
EVEN GOD ENJOYS A GOOD LAUGH
There were 3 good arguments that Jesus was Black: 1. He called everyone brother 2. He liked Gospel. 3. He couldn’t get a fair trial.
But then there were 3 equally good arguments that Jesus was Jewish: 1. He went into His Father’s business. 2. He lived at home until he was 33. 3. He was sure his Mother was a virgin and his Mother was sure He was God.
But then there were 3 equally good arguments that Jesus was a Californian: 1. He never cut His hair. 2. He walked around barefoot all the time. 3. He started a new religion.
But the most compelling evidence of all - 3 proofs that Jesus was a woman: 1. He fed a crowd at a moment’s notice when there was no food. 2. He kept trying to get a message across to a bunch of men who just didn’t get it. 3. And even when He was dead, He had to get up because there was work to do.
By Archie
May 24, 2005 11:52 AM | Link to this
That was a good post Lozen about Jesus.
By Chris
May 24, 2005 11:54 AM | Link to this
This commentary is directed to Stan. Heterosexual sex perpetuates the human race, homosexual sex does not procreate. You FUDGEPACKERS don’t produce the next generation. All you homos do is spread disease and death.
I know the truth is hard to deal with. Most people think the same way i do, but they won’t say it because they are afraid of being called a bigot. Furthermore, from a biological point of view, your anus is not designed to be penetrated, it does’nt self-lubricate, its so easy to tear rectum tissue, its paper thin and open to diseases, that is why AIDS travels so rapidly threw the gay community. Also a lot of homo’s can’t retain their stoole because, they have been pooked in the but so much. I just wish all you homos would go to an island somewhere and die out. Sincerely Chris
By Eaton
May 24, 2005 12:01 PM | Link to this
Chris, if you really want to spew nasty invective at people and be taken seriously, you really should learn to A) Spell and B) Punctuate. You already sound like an ignorant moron, but your numerous errors just prove it.
By RS
May 24, 2005 12:01 PM | Link to this
It sure WAS a good post, Archie! Kimberly, I meant to ask you (yes, I know Trent Reznor is HOT!) what you thought of the Dresden Dolls; I like what little I’ve heard; they’re quirky!
By kimberly
May 24, 2005 12:02 PM | Link to this
Chris: First, do no harm. Those you malign for not reproducing are also NOT generating the “welfare mothers,” “gansta thugs,” “drug addicts” and other societal degenerates you also probably hate for no reason. They are not creating a new generation of child molesters and wife beaters either. Nor are they creating a new generation of “fudgepackers” or GASP “libruls!” However, some of them DO adopt children that heteros didn’t want, and when they do, they provide love, support, and emotional nourishment that abandonded children will never get from the likes of YOU!
By RS
May 24, 2005 12:03 PM | Link to this
Chris, you ARE a stool!
By Stan
May 24, 2005 12:09 PM | Link to this
There you have it, guys and gals. I can’t help but laugh at your useless rhetoric, and the fact that you get so angry at one little comment. You must be a hit at the bar when you are drunk. Let’s see what else I can say to anger you. I’ve got it. Did some guy come on to you and question your manhood?
P.S. Do you have the money to buy me a plane ticket? Funds are tight right now.
Sincerely, Stan
By lozen
May 24, 2005 12:18 PM | Link to this
Kimberly, very good response to Chris. In this overpopulated world with all it’s dire problems due to overpopulation, we should thank homosexuals for not adding to those problems by reproducing. The gay people I know are far better people than you, Chris. It’s hateful people like you I wish would go to an island somewhere and die out!
By Eaton
May 24, 2005 12:19 PM | Link to this
Stan, I’m voting for repressed homosexual tendencies myself. I’m guessing that our friend Chris has the urge to indulge in a little…um…packing…himself and is having a hard time dealing.
By kimberly
May 24, 2005 12:24 PM | Link to this
RS, the Dresden Dolls totally rocked! I was only familiar with the melodic little pop diddy, “Coin Operated Boy” which they did, but their other songs are completely different. I can see why they’re opening for Trent. But amazingly, as soon as the drummer started clicking her sticks over her head, I thought, OMYGOSH, it can’t be! But they DID! They did a 15-minute cover of Black Sabbath’s WAR PIGS! It was AWESOME! A good time was had by all. {;->
By rocky
May 24, 2005 12:28 PM | Link to this
For everyone who thinks that I’m a bigot (which I’m not), I’d just like to say that I think ANY kid who walks around emulating the look of prisoners with their pants hanging off their as* or wears a hat sideways, or wears a skull cap, or has pants that are so long they’re frayed at the bottom or wears shorts and sandals in the winter, or goes out in freezing weather with wet hair, or wears corn rows in their hair, or any other ridiculous fashion non-statement is in my book, a loser, an idiot, and a young punk who should get a job and lose the know-it-all, entitled-to-it-all attitude. I don’t care what color they are. My statement was that I’ve only seen the hat thing on blacks. The other things I mentioned I’ve seen on both white, black, hispanic, asian, whatever, and they ALL looked stupid.
By RS
May 24, 2005 12:29 PM | Link to this
Eaton, I think you may be on to something! Methinks Chris is deep in the closet & resents ATTRACTIVE gay men like yourself, Tim & Stan, as he himself is probably so ugly he has to date FEMALES! (LOL) ( Uh, you ARE gay?? If not, I apologize fo the assumption, luv!)
By Eaton
May 24, 2005 12:31 PM | Link to this
RS, no apologies needed, your assumption is indeed correct :-)
By rocky
May 24, 2005 12:36 PM | Link to this
Vince - it matters what black youth is wearing today because all we hear from the black community is how blacks are misunderstood and everyone assumes they’re all crooks and we should judge them as individuals. I agree that we should judge everyone as individuals. But when you are dressed like a common thug, with your pants around your butt cheeks, gold on your teeth, beads in your corn rows and flashy jewelry, driving a car that is obviously above your means, with windows down and your cRAP blasting obnoxiously loud, I can only assume, since I don’t know you as a person, that you are either a theif showing off his latest stash, a gang member cruising his ‘hood, a pimp looking nice for the ladies, someone who is succesfully playing the welfare system or a wanna-be who is desperately in need of attention. It’s simply not mainstream America to look like that, and you are judged on what kind of visual image you put out there for others to see. I’ve taught my daughter and son that whenever they see someone dressed like that, they are to assume they are up to no good and they are to walk away and not make eye contact.
By Tim
May 24, 2005 12:39 PM | Link to this
dang if I knew gay men s** their pants I would have bought stock in Depends Undergarments!
By TheRealScott
May 24, 2005 12:41 PM | Link to this
Lozen - well, maybe I am just kind of a freak, but I actually (in a roundabout way) have gotten the answers to those questions with women I dated in the past…sometimes the answers were SCARY!!
As far as the issue at hand, I think the issue is that any sperm that has not been rigorously tested should be tossed or not accepted in the first place. Further, considering sperm carries genetic material (unlike blood) I agree with (can’t recall if it was Lyrazel or Lozen, sorry) that psychological evaluations should be part of the screening. We have enough irresponsible morons in the world without breeding more.
What’s with the fashion discussion? Who cares what people are wearing. Maybe I am overly simplistic, but I tend to see the world in two groups..a-holles and non-a-holles…your manner of dress, color of sjin, etc. is irrelevant to me…it is your actions that count
By Jorge
May 24, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this
Rocky, Thanks for clearing this up for us, our mistake. So just to be clear, anyone who doesn’t conform to your idea of what constitutes proper fashion and decorum is “a loser, an idiot, and a young punk who should get a job and lose the know-it-all, entitled-to-it-all attitude.”
Naw, that doesn’t sound bigotted at all, Rocky! Just for everyone’s edification, here’s a definition for bigot:
bigot
n : a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own
You guys make your own decision. and Rocky, don’t worry. It’s not a shame to get TKO’d every once in a while.
By Jorge
May 24, 2005 12:44 PM | Link to this
Oh, and bravo on passing down your idiocy to your kids.
By lozen
May 24, 2005 12:47 PM | Link to this
Rocky, ever hear the story about Maynard Jackson’s grandfather being pulled over by the Atlanta police because he was driving a big, new car? The white policeman assumed no black man could afford a big, new car like that, called him “boy” of course, and demanded proof of ownership. It is that kind of assumption that shows bigotry and prejudice no matter what someone says. Examine your assumptions.
By RS
May 24, 2005 12:52 PM | Link to this
Rocky, I agree that those, er, “fashions” (a word I use very loosely, in this case) look stupid on anyone. I have seen a lot of rich, spoiled white teens dressing that way & speaking in ebonics; I don’t know whether to be more disgusted or amused. If they need to glamourize & emulate anyone, why pick the lowest of the low? Why not a REAL hero like, for instance, Lance Armstrong, who overcame incredible odds to follow his dream? And if you think those clothes are cheap, guess again, dear! But, hey, those spoiled entitlement punks have rich mommies & daddies who buy them whatever they want. Eaton: Oh, boy, now I can fall in love with YOU too, card-carrying “f* hag” that I am! Kimberly, “Coin Operated Boy” is precisely what got me thinking of The DD’s as being quirky…”War Pigs”, really?? Bangin’!!
By RS
May 24, 2005 12:56 PM | Link to this
Tim, a few years ago, I babysat a 3-year old boy who was potty-training challenged & I had to deal with a “load”…er, does THAT mean he’s destined to grpw up gay??? (LOLROFMAO)
By Jorge
May 24, 2005 01:13 PM | Link to this
Rocky, I’m guessing from your original post that you probably call yourself a “Christian”. If indeed you do, you might want to read four little books called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. In those you will learn through the examples that Jesus never treated people the way that you are teaching your kids to. He was perfect, remember, and would have had just cause to look down on any and every person he met. Rather, he looked for the good in people, and while he often had to condemn actions, his love of people was evident.
As a conservative with strong conservative views, I am ashamed that it is people like you with whom Christianity is so often associated.
By mel
May 24, 2005 01:16 PM | Link to this
Rocky: hmmm. Oddly enough, I somewhat agree wtih your last post. I have been guilty of that myself. That doesn’t make it right, though. I think it’s human nature to assign labels because then you don’t have to think. All you have to do at that point is respond. So in your mind, these people you mentioned who wear those fashiions are most likely dangerous and should be avoided. Therefore, you have the perception of control and safety. It’s easier for you to live your life every day thinking, “As long as so and so isn’t around, I can let my guard down”. I think that’s human nature.
That’s why when something heinous happens in a nice neighborhood, everyone’s on the news saying, “I can’t believe this happened here!” They have (in their minds) created a safe environment. The problem with thsi is that there is no true safe environment. You have no way of knowing who or what is lurking out there ready to hurt or kill you. The white cub scout leader next door is just as dangerous as the black teenage boy who wears baggy pants and a gold front. The dangerous thing for you is that while your kids are walking away from the black boy, they are going to visit the scout leader’s son. Well, scout leader is a pedophile and he rapes and murders children.
I suggest, to you and me and anyone else who assigns labels, that you don’t teach that to your children. Media is a powerful tool. It’s no coincidence that we see the faces of juvenile black youth on the news, but not that of whites. I’m not saying blacks don’t commit crimes, but I think you’re smart enough to know that whites do it too. The media is very selective about what they show. Why else do we have Bobby Brown on the front page of the AJC for 2 days in a row when it is most certainly not news? Because it reinforces what you, and many others, believe.
By Dan
May 24, 2005 01:19 PM | Link to this
How is this FDA prohibition any different from the Red Cross’ prohibition against any homosexual or bisexual male blood donors? This policy has been in place for years.
From the Red Cross donor criteria: “You should not give blood if you have AIDS or have ever had a positive HIV test, or if you have done something that puts you at risk for becoming infected with HIV.
You are at risk for getting infected if you: are a male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977…”
By Ben
May 24, 2005 01:30 PM | Link to this
So Rocky, I guess by your ignorant rants that you agree with me. The beliefs that you so vehemently bestowed upon us are indeed PREJUDICE and RACIALISTIC. That, my friend, is NOT observant as you like to wrongfully disguise it.
By Eaton
May 24, 2005 01:37 PM | Link to this
Dan, I raised this point yesterday, and you’re correct - that policy is similar and equally biased.
By the way, it’s not as cut-and-dry as you make out. For example, if you’ve had sex with a prostitute you only have to wait one year…I think that constitutes putting yourself at risk, don’t you?
Let’s face it. Today, if you’ve had sexual contact with someone who isn’t your long-time mongamous partner there’s a risk that you have come in contact, if not with HIV, then some other disease. That’s why BEHAVIOR should be a factor in mitigating risk and not preference.
It’s not only inherently discriminatory to make a blanket ban for sexual preference, it’s ineffective. Let’s face it. There are a LOT more heterosexuals out there, and a lot of them are engaging in indiscriminate sexual behavior that isn’t explicitly covered in either the sperm donation OR the blood donation guidelines. Banning a few gay people from the donation process isn’t going to protect the blood/ sperm supplies.
The logic of the policy is informed by a decades-old misperception that AIDS was a gay disease. It’s time to wake up and stop burying our heads in the sand.
By Tim
May 24, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this
RS… you may be on to a breakthrough!! :) lol
By Jack
May 24, 2005 01:44 PM | Link to this
RS I’m curious,how do you know Timmie is an attractive male? Everyone is invisible on this blog as far as I know.
By Chris
May 24, 2005 01:47 PM | Link to this
This comment is directed to Lozen. Why do you waste so much time defending the immoral and deviant sexual behavior homos indulge in? You must know that homos (some who are bisexual) spread AIDS to there wives and girlfriends at an alarming rate. Their selfish, hedonistic behavior is killing a lot of innocent women too. I just don’t see how you can defend them. Another point i might add is that there alot of homos who hate women too and call women denigrating names like “FISH”. How do you explain that?
By Jack
May 24, 2005 01:50 PM | Link to this
Doin good Rock. Keep it up. I’m surprised we haven’t heard from Norman. All the ladies probably hate me now since I insulted their favorite boy.
By Eaton
May 24, 2005 01:55 PM | Link to this
A) Chris, you’ve got the lock on denigrating names, so I’d like to introduce you to the Kettle.
B) Um…is that like all those heteros who call women such respectful names as Babe, Toots, Honey-pie, Sweet Thang, Girl, and B***?
C) I had no idea that I was engaging in hedonistic behavior. That must be why I’m so freaking tired when I get home from the office that I barely have the energy to work out and make dinner. Wow! Thanks!
D) Your perceptions, misconceptions, and sheer ignorance are staggering. I doubt you actually KNOW any gay people, since the things you say describe NO ONE that I know. I’m guessing your source is one of those “loving” family organizations. Like, the Klan, maybe.
By mel
May 24, 2005 01:55 PM | Link to this
Oh please. Rocky and Jack, you are no Norman. Stop trying because you can never be him.
By Brian Curtis
May 24, 2005 01:56 PM | Link to this
Umm, Chris? What planet are you on? How is having a love life “selfish and hedonistic”? Are straight people guilty of the same if they get involved with someone?
Or are you just blithely assuming that “gay = promiscuous” as so many ill-informed people do?
By Tim
May 24, 2005 02:00 PM | Link to this
I just find it interesting that Chris seems to know that gay men call women ‘Fish’… someones been hanging roun some rainbows :)
Jack… I thought it was just common knowledge Timmie is an attractive male… if not I will go and spread the good news to all :)
By kimberly
May 24, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this
Chris, may I respond? Hidden in there is a smidgen of a good point. The societal taboo of homosexuality causes gay men to date and marry women when they’d rather not. This placates their parents, friends, and co-workers perhaps, but it RUINS the lives of the women who wonder daily WHY their men don’t make love to them, and who blame themselves or feel inadequate. I ALWAYS defend the rights of people to love whomever they love. But please don’t USE a woman as a cover (hello Tom Cruise?). This hurts her more than you can imagine. BE WHO YOU ARE, and treat others with the respect you want to receive.
And YES YES YES it’s true. “Straight” men with an overactive fear of homos: ask their wives or girlfriends how enthusiastically their men make love to them, and NEVER with the lights on!
By RS
May 24, 2005 02:14 PM | Link to this
Jack: Tim had previously descibed himself & I must say, he sounds pretty darn good to me; more importantly, he’s loaded with INNER beauty & that’s what I consider the deciding factor in viewing someone as attractive. Eaton: You’re right except for one thing; I suspect Chris knows many a gay person, as he himself appears to be deep in the closet. Another clue is that few straight men know about that slang term for women (“fish”). As for Rocky’s take on “gansta garb”, I see where all you opposers are coming from, but, common sense, people! If you saw a group of swaggering young men coming at you, dressed as described, speaking loudly in Ebonics & referring to women as “b—-tches” & “h—s”, whether these fellows are black, white, Asian, Hispanic…, would you NOT cross the street to avoid them? Would you feel comfortable having your 5’1”, 95-lb daughter walking past them? That we shouldn’t base our opinion of someone who looks & acts like a thug is an ideal; that someone who IS a thug is dangerous is a FACT. No ideal is worth risking my life for.
By Eaton
May 24, 2005 02:23 PM | Link to this
Just for the record I have never heard the expression “Fish” used and would never use it if I had. :-)
By HARD40
May 24, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this
These questions are for the f* on the board. Stan and Eaton. 1. Why do some f* act like women? 2. Why are HOMOS so promiscius? 3. Why do f* try to seduce straight men? You can go in any male lockerroom and see f* prancing around in combat boots naked showing off their little weiners. I’m a member at a local gym, and I have stopped taking showers after I work out, because I don’t want f* peeping at me. YOU F* MAKE ME SICK! You can make sarcastic comments, when others point out how deviant your lifestyle is. But one thing is for sure, you will all die with AIDS. You F* ARE A BUNCH OF AIDS-INFESTED DOGS!(Laughing)
By Archie
May 24, 2005 02:37 PM | Link to this
RS there is no real common sense in that ignorance about dress. Ben and others have already explained certain types of dress are fashion trends. You could be equally distrustful of a used car salesman, or a smiling businessman or someone with a beer gut that works as an auto mechanic. Most people don’t go to college so their use of the english language may not be correct. I am suspicious of all kinds of people because all kinds of people commit evil acts. How does one look like a thug? A racist is just that plain and simple. When you want to know something you ask a question, you don’t add a slur unless you are as Ben points out racialistic. In my twenties I didn’t wear an earring but I noticed that respected reporter Ed Bradley does. By the way beads are worn on corn rows to keep the hair from being frayed at the ends. With all the inspiring and intelligent people on this board there is still so much ignorance going on here.
By Brian Curtis
May 24, 2005 02:38 PM | Link to this
Wow… I wonder what “f*” died of before AIDS came along?
There sure are a lot of angry, fearful little rednecks infesting this board… but then, they tend to come out of the woodwork whenever gays are mentioned. It’s good of you to step up and display your inadequacy, fellas! Now we know whose posts might make sense and whose to ignore. Thanks for the heads-up!
Here’s a question for the pathetic little yammering homophobes: 1) Why are so many straight men obsessed with gays? 2) Why do they see gay men as a threat to ‘their’ women? are you worried you’re not enough to satisfy them?
This is immensely amusing, boys, but there’s a serious topic going on here. Try to stay quiet if you don’t have anything to contribute. (In case you’re wondering: you don’t.)
By RS
May 24, 2005 02:39 PM | Link to this
HARD (you wish!) 40: A Chris by any other name is still an a——-e. Try another gym; maybe your wish will come true & some man there WILL find you attractive. Rejection is tough, huh?
By Tim
May 24, 2005 02:42 PM | Link to this
HARD40… don’t forgot me… over here!!! I’m a F* too!!! hahahahaha
By Ben
May 24, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this
For the record Brian Curtis, I’m not threatened by gay men and my woman. Hell, I would welcome her gay friend because that means I don’t have to go shopping with her and look at every item on the rack in every store. And she could talk coupons and Sunday sales paper with him. That would work out perfectly and I could golf every Saturday. lol.
By RS
May 24, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this
Archie: I’m not sure exactly what goes through Rocky’s mind & I wouldn’t put words in his, or anyone’s mouth, but from my own perspective, I assure you it’s not a race thing at all, it’s a lifestyle thing. I tend to be distrustful, in general, it’s called self-protection but if I’m leaving the mall walking to my car & the sun is already setting, you bet I’m not going to blythely walk into that group of loud, swearing, foul-mouthed gold-toothed, gaudy-jewelry-wearing young men in baggy pants who are making comments such as “Dawg, Ima smash that fine-a$$ b—-tch!”; why take a chance? That’s just silly. And they can (& ARE) any race.
By lozen
May 24, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this
Chris, you sound a lot like Zack. I’ve never heard gay men refer to a woman as a fish either. My, don’t we learn a lot on this blog? I have heard many straight men refer to women as tail, bi—hs, stupid, a nag, and I’ve heard straight talk about how women smell like fish. I’ve heard a straight man call his wife an old hag while celebrating her birthday! And then laugh and say he was kidding of course. I have heard a young, father enter a department store alongside me telling his five year old son, “…women are all stupid.” Nice thing to be brainwashing your son with. Do you ever hear of a woman being beaten, raped or murdered by a gay man? Duh!
By Tim
May 24, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this
hey why did my F* get a star but not anyone elses… I must be special
RS… ‘Try another gym; maybe your wish will come true & some man there WILL find you attractive. Rejection is tough, huh?’… you win for quote of the day… that is some funny stuff… hahahaha :)
By TheRealScott
May 24, 2005 02:52 PM | Link to this
Brian Curtis - since we’re all being very PC here, I’d like to point out that I am offended at being lumped in with ignorant bigots when you refer to them as rednecks…good grief man! Can I help it I’m fair skinned and burn easily??!?! (hehehe)
By Brian Curtis
May 24, 2005 02:55 PM | Link to this
Sorry, Scott! What WAS I thinking? (laugh)
By Eaton
May 24, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this
“yammering homophobes”…my day is now complete. Thank you!
By lozen
May 24, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this
I’ve never understood why some straight guys get so upset just because some gay guys like to look at them. It’s such manley behavior. Women don’t get so hysterical because some straight guys like to look at them. I wonder what the deal is with that.
By Sam
May 24, 2005 02:59 PM | Link to this
As a lesbian child of straight partents I can definitely say being gay or straight does not have an effect on the child’s sexuality. ALL of my gay and lesbian friends come from straight parents and some of my straight friends came from gay parents that married just to “pass”. All people are capable of engaging in dangerous sexual behavior. Test the donated sperm, donated blood, and donated eggs…don’t just decide that because someone has a different orientation that they are higher risk. Thanks to all those who have supported those of us with “alternative lifestyles”. To those that showed that parents can love unconditionally, thank you, I was one of the lucky ones with parents like you. To those that don’t think this is discrimination or that all homosexuals do is pass disease, please educate yourselves about yourselves and your fellow human beings.
By Eaton
May 24, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this
lozen, the guys who get upset about being checked out by other guys are the ones who are so insecure in their own masculinity that they are afraid that a gay man looking at them either means that THEY are gay or that someone might THINK that they are gay. It’s all about insecurity and fear. And a little stupidity.
What’s funny is that they are usually the same guys who ogle women and treat them like meat.
By TheRealScott
May 24, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this
Lozen - Don’t know what to tell you there…I may not be as hot as Tim apparently is, but I have had men and women make remarks/catcalls at me and other officers when working both gay, straight and mixed venues (e.g. concerts, Dogwood festival, bars, etc) on off duty jobs in uniform….I never really cared as long as they weren’t simultaneously breaking the law
By fred
May 24, 2005 03:06 PM | Link to this
Chris & hard40 (tee hee), come on! You know you’ve stuck a few things up there to see how it feels!
By lozen
May 24, 2005 03:16 PM | Link to this
Sam, you make a very good point. Gay women are the least likely of all groups to have sexually transmitted diseases. Of course the boys like Chris and Hand40 aren’t talking about gay women when they foam at the mouth. They are limiting their concern to the males because that’s what they’re so afraid of. Repression is a terrible thing.
By Archie
May 24, 2005 03:27 PM | Link to this
lozen I am sure there are gay men that have beaten up women. Sexual orientation is not usually reported. Also women have some not so flattering names for men. Gay people do the same types of things as straight people. They chase after other folks’ spouse and they cheat on their partners,lie on their taxes and yes gay people can be bigots. No one group of people have cornered the market on ideal or bad behavior. Women ask if you are married and when you say yes they ask are you sure. Translation they need a way out if they decide to cheat with you. Some of the younger women can tell you more about the schemes of women today…
By lozen
May 24, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this
Archie, you could be right but I never met a woman who had been beaten by a gay man. I worked in a shelter for battered women. It was almost always a straight husband or boyfriend but occasionally a father or a pimp.
By vonnie
May 24, 2005 04:05 PM | Link to this
Finally the FDA does something worthwhile. I am not usually too concerned with protecting fools from themselves. I usually ascribe to letting Darwinian principles take their toll, but for the sake of potential children, please. I cannot understand why any woman would want to bear the child of an unknown man with unknown diseases and an unknown genetic background, but the world is full of crazies so at least this FDA ban might save some children from the lunacy of would-be ignorant mothers and totally immoral men who sell their sperm.
By Hard40
May 24, 2005 04:08 PM | Link to this
Why do you think every man who is critical of homosexuality is a red-neck or a homophobe? I am niether. By the way I did not get satisfactory answers to my questions from the f* on the board. You say homosexuality is normal. What is next, homos having sex with animals? You Homos have some audacity, to demand the right to get married, so you can commit sodomy within the bounds of marriage. F* want everyone to accept their depraved lifestyle. I REFUSE TO LET F* BRAINWASH ME INTO THiNKING THEIR LIFESTYLE IS ACCEPTABLE!!
By Randy
May 24, 2005 04:23 PM | Link to this
I agree, on the brainwashing part. If being gay was normal it would produce offspring naturally. Weak is what comes to my mind.
By Eaton
May 24, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this
Hard40, you aren’t a homophobe like JB Stoner wasn’t a racist. If it looks like a bigot and talks like a bigot, it’s a bigot.
The reason you haven’t received “satisfactory” answers from the gay contingent is that, to quote Dilbert, your question is “ignorant and lacks merit”. It’s the same juvenille, uneducated nonsense that we’ve been hearing for years, and frankly now it just makes us laugh at you and call you a homophobic redneck.
Look, if you want affirmation of your stereotypes, misperceptions, prejudices and ignorance, then kindly go to one of the many anti-gay organizations that cater to small-minded, insecure straight guys like you and read all of the fictional, exagerated, and just plain laughable accounts of gay men raping sheep, dancing naked in the moonlight with the devil, and killing children. Nothing we say will ever change your tiny mind, so why try?
Rant and rave all you want. Call us names all you want. If that’s what it takes to make you feel like a man, I guess we can’t stop you. Just don’t expect us to take your nonsense seriously, kid. Ok?
By Randy
May 24, 2005 04:29 PM | Link to this
Actually Archie it women that beat up gay men.
By Randy
May 24, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this
I see Eaton has the right name.
By RS
May 24, 2005 04:31 PM | Link to this
Hard40: How would YOU be an authority on gay men fooling around with animals? Have any of them slept with YOU, you PIG???? Sam, good head on your shoulders! You’d make such a great, loving parent. Lozen: Actually, there are plenty of women who go ballistic when a man looks at them; I’d referred to these women in previous posts/discussions. They’re the ones who dress & act seductive & then make like they’re all offended if a man tries to flirt back.
By Randy
May 24, 2005 04:32 PM | Link to this
Actually is everybody that beats up “gay” men. Children, women, animals etc.
By Eaton
May 24, 2005 04:32 PM | Link to this
Yes, your mind is weak. Good call!
Look, NORMAL isn’t the same as NATURAL. Left-handedness isn’t NORMAL, but it is NATURAL. This “It would produce offspring” stuff is just the latest groupthink by the fundamentalists to dismiss and marginalize gay people. Does that mean that hetero sex after menopause isn’t NORMAL either? Hardly.
And seriously..Randy, is it?…if you think that people who live openly as gay men and women are WEAK then you are an idiot.
By Chris
May 24, 2005 04:34 PM | Link to this
This comment is directed toward Ben. RACIALISTIC IS NOT A WORD. Look it up in the dictionary. You won’t find it there. I’m suprised all the college-educated f* did not point that out, since they are such sticklers for proper grammar and spelling.
By Rod
May 24, 2005 04:34 PM | Link to this
HEY!!!! It’s Spring time. What ever happened to finding someone kool and responsible, and just having Good Ole mind blowin’, spine shattering SEX!
By Randy
May 24, 2005 04:35 PM | Link to this
There is no such thing as a homophobe, being phobic means you are afraid of something. Maybe we should be called homo-grossed out. They gross me out, sick, sick, sick. Pitiful life style.
By Eaton
May 24, 2005 04:44 PM | Link to this
Randy, two things, since we aren’t being civil and you’re being juvenille. 1) If you think that making fun of my name is clever, then I have some people I’d like to introduce you to…they’re people I went to ELEMENTARY school with, Randy. Even they outgrew it by junior high…how old are you? By the way, it’s an old family name and I happen to be proud of it, so laugh away. It just makes you look foolish.
2) Your comments about everyone beating up gay men are beyond silly. It’s a STEREOTYPE Randy…do you know what that word means? I would love to introduce you to a couple of gay marines I know who would happily show you exactly how silly you are.
By Randy
May 24, 2005 04:48 PM | Link to this
I can see you homo’s looking back on your life 30-40 years from now(if aids or some other disease doesn’t kill you before then). You’ll be very proud, you will have been so weak you couldn’t control your weird sexual desires, mainly rejected by society(other than hollywood) and laughed at behind your back by almost everybody. Maybe you need some backbone. You have my sympathy.
By Eaton
May 24, 2005 04:48 PM | Link to this
Keep it up Randy and friends - you’re showing what truly wonderful human beings you really are. Nothing like naked hatred to bring out the true colors in someone. Praise Jesus.
By Taoist
May 24, 2005 04:48 PM | Link to this
Hey guys, keep your sperm to yourself and you live longer.
By Fred
May 24, 2005 04:52 PM | Link to this
I know you have stuck a few things up in there to see how it felt Randy Randy. Did you like it? I bet you did. And that’s what scares you so much about being gay. You’re afraid you might like that too. Tell the truth brainiac.
By Tim
May 24, 2005 04:53 PM | Link to this
Eaton… Randy was so obsessed in that past with calling Norman ‘The Village Idiot’… and since Norman has not been around I think Randy thought we needed a new Village Idiot so he decided to take on that roll
By kimberly
May 24, 2005 04:55 PM | Link to this
Okay, THAT’s IT. I must post my “your straight boyfriend is is a homo in denial if….” checklist. Chris, Hard40, and the other homophobes, you can print it out for your women to answer IF YOU DARE! Hahaha! Look for it tomorrow.
By Eaton
May 24, 2005 04:55 PM | Link to this
Well Tim, some choose Village Idiotness, others have Village Idiotness thrust upon them.
By Simpleminded
May 24, 2005 05:03 PM | Link to this
“Live simply, and simply let others live”. Hey! Sounds good to me! I’m not gay, but i think people are entitled to whatever they decide for themselves.
By lozen
May 24, 2005 05:11 PM | Link to this
Randy, I fear ignorance and hatefulness much more than I fear gay men donating sperm! That is the real disease of our time. You don’t have to like homosexuality. But you could show a little respect for others. You are not a christian and you do not follow the teachings of jesus. You live in such a tiny world you probably have never known a gay person; I’m sure they wouldn’t be welcome in your church. I feel sorry for you. The people I know don’t laugh at homosexuals; they laugh at ignorant people like you!
By simple minded
May 24, 2005 05:19 PM | Link to this
“Live simply and simply let others live” Sounds good to me. I’m a heterosexual male, and I think that people are entitled to live as they decide.
By Ben
May 25, 2005 07:45 AM | Link to this
Well CHRIS, before you decide to correct me, I suggest you get rid of the dictionary that is as outdated as your opinion. I’m not college-educated by I KNOW the word exists.
According the Webster’s 11th Edition, racialistic is an adjective. It stems from the word racialism. Look inbetween racialism and racialize.
If you want to know what it means, let me know and I’ll be happy to help you out. DUMB A**! I’m noticing a trend with all of people that like to insult people because they are not like you. You’re idiots.
By Archie
May 25, 2005 08:17 AM | Link to this
Ben I looked up the word yesterday and I found it on the Yahoo dictionary. You don’t have to be college-educated to introduce something new on this blog. Good job.
By Ben
May 25, 2005 08:30 AM | Link to this
I’m not worried about those fools Archie. They obviously lack the mental capacity to understand anything that is outside of their box. What’s worse is they neglect to see the intent of a message, but find it necessary to shine the light on their complete ignorance.
You can tell when their little light bulbs go out when they fail to provide comments with substance and resort to their childish, ignorant and stupid remarks.
By Randy
May 25, 2005 08:36 AM | Link to this
Jesus would not be happy with posts I make yesterday. Your right, I don’t know any gay people. Jesus loves everyone and I need to be more respectful.
By Lyrazel
May 25, 2005 08:46 AM | Link to this
Whell, now that we have gotten gay-men bashing out of our system can we continue? First off, I too work in shelters—but the comment gays never busted up anyone is terribly false. Sadly there is violence against women by women, violence against men by men in domestic partner situations. It is less common but it exists with ugly warts. Human beings can be cruel…regardless of orientations.
To me, the FDA concerns itself too little and too late—for us consumers. Prescription drugs get the wink—FDA officers get kickback from pharmaceutical payrolls—then stop rigorous testing—until defects that threaten millions are finally aired. We have a litany of drugs not safe for consumers that the FDA wink winked into our mouths. The psychiatric use of zombie-drugs given to children is one gross neglect that makes me mistrust the system. Health suppliments are not medicine, sometimes dangerous, but Orian Hatch (R) Utah, got the wink wink to keep such products available to consumers. So the FDA serves politics before people—and given we are in a (R) year—and Rs want to dictate morality—the FDA change to this should concern folk by its timing alone. It did me—until checking facts.
You have to look at who will be victim over if it is homophobic issue, and you have to start looking at fertilization clinics, using sperm/egg donations, as medical proceedure; this cannot be a maverick industry. All medical facilities have regulations so why not this?
I think the comment about how few people check the medical history of partners before relationships is a good strong point. Nevertheless many people use a clinic because they want the sperm to be medically safe—not—risk death because—wink wink—the FDA doesnt want to offend anyone. I think this regulation has to come out in favor of protecting doctors and patients being its priority.
By Archie
May 25, 2005 08:54 AM | Link to this
Human beings can be cruel…regardless of orientations.
That is precisely the point I tried to make in an earlier post.
By James
May 25, 2005 09:27 AM | Link to this
Randy/Boscoe/etc.
I do not understand your obvious contempt for gays. If the word of God is like you say it is, then why are you worried about it. You are set! Your going to heaven & we are going to Hell. Done. So, stop beating us up, it is not very Christian like of you…….
As for the FDA, it is just like blood donations. 1) They go on the donor’s word. I could lie and say I have not had sex with men, and they would gladly take my blood or sperm. I am strong, healthy & good looking. My sperm is probably safer than 90% of those giving it up from the hetero world, as I am in a monogomous relationship for 13 years. 2) It is so sad how obivious some have made their comptempt for gays on this site. You actually want to breed us out of exisitence! That was the plan of the Europeons to the American Indians and several other socities. This whole things REEKS of Hitler’s idea of eradicating Jews & homosexuals from the world and populating it with the ‘superior’ genes of the Ayrian race. Face it folks, it is about to happen all over again. That Christian Fish = the Swashtika. (The Swashtika was actually a religous symbol before Germany) It is just this time, we are the bad guys. Those who do not study history are deemed to repeat it.
By lozen
May 25, 2005 09:53 AM | Link to this
James you are so right. Hitler sent homosexuals, gypsys, and other “outcasts” to the gas chambers along with the jews. It is very sad to see how many of the people on this forum would probably have snapped to and saluted “Heil Hitler!” There are many who would send gays, blacks, latinas, old hippies, college professors, news reporters, and all the libruls off to be disposed of if they had any power.
By lozen
May 25, 2005 10:02 AM | Link to this
Kimberly, where’s that post you promised yesterday about “your straight boyfriend is probably gay if….?”
By Jay
May 25, 2005 10:03 AM | Link to this
Shaunti states that heterosexuals who participate in high risk behaviors are “also excluded,” but what she fails to acknowledge is that doing so is exceedingly different from excluding “all homosexuals”. It is genetic discrimination. I fully believe that this is a “test” to see if homosexuality can be weeded out of the population be prohibiting homosexuals from propagating future homosexuals. And that makes perfect sense because my two heterosexual parents (with no history of any familial homosexuality) gave birth to a homosexual. In other words, the FDA by mandate from the religious right is playing it safe: “We know that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. However, on the odd chance that it IS genetic, let’s make sure that we keep those homosexuals from reproducing.”
By condor
May 25, 2005 10:08 AM | Link to this
for your yesterday brillant comment:
By Stan
May 24, 2005 09:02 AM | Link to this
Chris, for the life of me, I can’t understand why you would want to put your d**k somewhere that bleeds once a month? That’s sick. - If that “somewhere” you came from din’t bleed, probably you were (or are) a big piece of s…t, came from the other side.
By Jack
May 25, 2005 10:09 AM | Link to this
Lozen darling, I doubt anyone on this blog would have saluted Hitler. That sounds like a Norman comment. On a diferent note, my wife is having hot flashes and night sweats. She says her doctor told her they could last for 5-10 years. She doesn’t want HRT because of the cancer risk. What else works?!!! 10 years of this?!! Is this what happened because Eve bit the apple? Help!
By Jay
May 25, 2005 10:17 AM | Link to this
Let’s face it folks…It is politically incorrect to discriminate against blacks, jews, women, religion, or immigrants. It is still politically correct to discriminate against gays though. It is the last bastion of government approved public discrimination.
But for those of you who think you don’t know a homosexual - just remember, I’m not OUT, so you may know me. And though, were you to know about me - I have no doubt that you wouldn’t pee on me if I were on fire. However, I was raised Christian and I believe in the golden rule. So, if you were in need, I’d be there to give you a hand. It’s a shame that you can reciprocate the most basic and strongest theme of the New Testament. But I’ve found that the people who proclaim their Christianity the loudest and the ones who practice it the least. It’s the old adage: The empty can rattles the loudest.
By Chris
May 25, 2005 10:25 AM | Link to this
I wanted to know if any of the f* on the panel are aware of the new strain of the Aids virus found in a Homos in New York City. This new strain of Aids is immune to all current drug therapies used to treat AIDS. In other words, if you get this new strain of AIDS, YOU F* WILL DIE. So you can ridicule me all you want. Homosexuality is a self-destructive lifestyle. As for Ben he is afraid of being critical of homosexuality because he is black and he is afraid of being called a bigot. If your an intelligent person, you have to question the fundamental premise of homosexuality.
By James
May 25, 2005 10:26 AM | Link to this
Jack,
I really don’t doubt the ‘sheep’ mentality of many of the people on this blog. You don’t want to believe they will say ‘Heil Hitler.’ But, the truth is, they will quickly put that fish on their car while cheating on their taxes & beating their kids after ‘coveting’ the neighbors wife. They are quick to show up and vote for Dubya, but play dumb to the failing economy & usless war he has plunged us into. Their so dang quick to point out how horrible Bill Clinton was for getting a hummer in the White House, but Bill Frist is a poor soul and Enron was a big mistake and we should pity Ken Lay. These people would have gladly thrown their Jewish & Gay friends to the Nazis while saluting the SS.
BTY Jack, Your str8, and proud of it. So stop b*** about your wife. That is why all people should be gay. Men understand men and women understand women. It is so much easier. Plus! You double your wardrobe!
By James
May 25, 2005 10:29 AM | Link to this
Chris,
Empty Cans Rattle The Loudest.
By James
May 25, 2005 10:31 AM | Link to this
Chris,
Funny, Us F*S have been saying for years, the loudest, most anti-gay people are usually gay themselves. Washington State just proved that theory true.
Got a little gay in ya?
By Tim
May 25, 2005 10:40 AM | Link to this
James… Chris has probably had ‘a little gay in him’ more than once… and maybe more than a little :)
By RS
May 25, 2005 10:45 AM | Link to this
Kimberly, I want to see that list too! Jack, your wife can get safe, organic, natural medications for the relief of menopause symptoms at the health food store; I’ve always believed that holistic is the way to go. Chris, are you really that much of an idiot or are you just trying to get attention? What’s the matter, did your mommy wean you too soon??? Jay, sadly, you are right. You sound like someone who’d be a real pleasure to get to know & a lot of people would feel the same until they find out you’re gay; then their tune will change. Sad…
By rocky
May 25, 2005 10:46 AM | Link to this
I have another question, even though I’m sure I’ll be labeled something derrogatory by everyone again for asking it.
What does it mean when someone is “on the down low”? I’ve heard this several times and have no idea what it means. Is this a black thing? What is it?
By RS
May 25, 2005 10:47 AM | Link to this
Tim, your 10:40am post…..ROFLOLMAO!!! I bet you’re right!
By Tim
May 25, 2005 10:52 AM | Link to this
Rocky… I actually think that is a good question… I think the term is used more in the black community… but it is not a ‘black thing’… what the ‘down low’ is is men who are married but sleep with men… they still claim they are heterosexual but like to sleep with men every now and then… there was a guy on Oprah talking about it one day… I found it all to be very confusing
RS… Thank you :) Tim takes a bow
By Jack
May 25, 2005 10:53 AM | Link to this
James, I wasn’t b*** about my wife you piece of trash. I was looking for advise from some of my friends on the blog. Do us all a favor and either take that giant chip off your shoulder, or take a long walk off a short pier.
By Brian Curtis
May 25, 2005 10:55 AM | Link to this
Rocky: It just means to keep it quiet and not blab.
By Jay
May 25, 2005 10:58 AM | Link to this
RS - Thank you for the compliment. However, I wish I had proofread my post, since there are several spelling errors. So, to all - forgive my misspelling. The last thing I want to be thought of is an ignorant f*g. That would just be fuel for the fire so many of you would like to light under me. :-)
By Jack
May 25, 2005 10:58 AM | Link to this
Rocky, you’re not derogatory in my book.
By Jack
May 25, 2005 11:03 AM | Link to this
Jay, most of us type in a hurry so big brother won’t catch us. No appologie nessessary!
By RS
May 25, 2005 11:04 AM | Link to this
Rocky, believe me, I’d have asked the same question before I myself had heard the definition; it’s a legitimate question & I see no reason for anyone to respond to you in a derogatory manner. Yes, Tim is 100% right as to what it means. Like many slang terms, I think it originated in the African-American community & made its way out
By RS
May 25, 2005 11:09 AM | Link to this
Jay: You’re very welcome! I say it as I see it. Actually, those like Chris would say the opposite, that “you f*gs” are too fanatical about spelling & grammar…just because HE’S a monumental ignoramus. And, again, you’re right. Even on this blog alone, you’ll note that some of those who proclaim their Christianity the loudest are the most hateful bigots.
By kimberly
May 25, 2005 11:16 AM | Link to this
Okay.. since you asked. Hey GAY-BASHERS! Print this out for your ladies and leave them alone to answer it honestly: Ladies, your man might be a homo-in-denial if:
_ Does your man turn the lights out before doing the deed (and you’re both under 50)? _ Does he hurry through it even when he doesn’t have to be someplace in 30 minutes? _ Does he initiate less than twice a week? _ Do you have to initiate in order to get it? _ Do you have to initiate 22 times in order to actually get it once? _ Is your physical gratification a low low low item on your man’s priority list? _ Does your man put everything on hold to watch “Patton� for the 17th time? _ Does it make him cry? _ Does your man yap on the phone with his buddies like they’re girlfriends? _ Does he talk about his buddies in a way that you feel he’d rather be with them than with you? _ Important: Does your man tell homosexual or sodomy-related jokes or make references? _ At least three times a week? _ Every day? _ Does your man tell v**** jokes? _ Does he giggle like a girl when he does? _ Does he tell v**** jokes and giggle like a girl with his guy friends, and they’re all over the age of 12? _ Does your man appear to have an unreasonable fear of homosexuals? _ Does your man tell you how “the queer� came on to him in the store, at work, or on a business trip (Oh NO!)? _ Do you hear this more than twice a month? _ Can your man go 24 hours without making a homo-sodomy-related wisecrack? _ Think: Does your man ever have nice things to say about other women that are NOT related to their appearance? _ Does your man have ONLY bad things to say about every woman he’s ever dated? _ Think: Has your man NEVER described loving feelings he had for any other woman? _ Does your man fail to react appreciatively when you present yourself in slutty lingerie? _ Important: If you flash your man, say, through the window, or in the car, does he roll his eyes and look away? _ Again: If you present your goods, does he respond by being too busy, not in the mood, or otherwise disinterested? (Honey, a straight man will always LOOK. Confirm that with as many straight men as you need to. It’s TRUE.) __ Think: Is your man’s favorite part of a sexual conquest or adventure the admiration in the eyes of his buddies or the guys at work when he tells them about it?
If you answer “YES� to four or more of these questions, your man may be among the millions who are only going through the motions of being hetero. Sadly, he’ll never really love you, but will probably USE you as long as you let him.
Sidenote: GUYS, if this is you, set your women free to find men who really DO love them! Your LIE is your sin, not your feelings.
By Ben
May 25, 2005 11:16 AM | Link to this
Ben is not afraid of being critical of ANYBODY. For example, you are an idiot whose opinion is as worthless as the trash I take out every Wednesday! I’m not critical of homosexuals because what they choose to do with their life and who they choose to do it with, IN NO WAY affects ME. I don’t think two men should be together, therefore, I am with a woman. Now lesbians, of course, are different. lol.
Being black has nothing to do with it. And you know why people can’t call me a bigot? BECAUSE I’M NOT dumb A. I’m not prejudice nor do I have RACIALISTIC views. Well I take that back, I am prejudice. But that only extends to dumb aes. Guilty as charged.
If you are an intelligent person, you shouldn’t have to question anything about homosexuality because the bottom line is it has NO Effect on you.
By Archie
May 25, 2005 11:18 AM | Link to this
Brian Curtis gave the best definition of on the down low because straight men do cheat with straight women and they also want this kept quiet.
By RS
May 25, 2005 11:21 AM | Link to this
Thanks, Kimberly, it was worth the wait!
By themecca
May 25, 2005 11:25 AM | Link to this
Archie,
Actually that’s called ‘creepin’.
By LaShelle
May 25, 2005 11:33 AM | Link to this
Actually Archie, BrianCurtis is wrong, Tim is right. And there was a show on Oprah about it.
By rocky
May 25, 2005 11:33 AM | Link to this
Thanks, Jack. It is nice to have someone else on here who doesn’t see me as some bigoted ignorant moron for asking legitimate questions.
As for your wife’s flashes, I’m afraid I have no words of wisdom for you. The unfortunate reality is that as of now (may change in the future) there are two options for women who are going through “the change”. They can either do HRT and risk all the side effects and dangers that brings, or simply endure the physical changes and discomforts that are a natural part of menopause. My wife started going through this almost two years ago and also opted to decline the HRT because of the risks, and it’s been no bed of roses for either of us. My best advice to you is to be as patient as you can with her, and just realize that as annoying as it can be from our end, we aren’t the ones who wake up sweaty every night or feel like we have no handle on emotions (she points that out to me whenever I say something about her getting a grip). Wish I had better words of comfort for you, buddy.
By Ben
May 25, 2005 11:34 AM | Link to this
The “down low” and R. Kelly says, is no one has to know. So for the slang challenged, it means “Keep It a Secret”
By rocky
May 25, 2005 11:36 AM | Link to this
So when someone says “he’s on the down low” that means he’s a married guy secretly having sex with other men? Wouldn’t that just make him gay?
By lozen
May 25, 2005 11:37 AM | Link to this
RS, that’s because those who proclaim their religion the loudest are just people who are scared to death about everything. They’re terrified of death so they cling to the folktale that tells them believing in Jesus is all they have to do to get into heaven, although it makes absolutely no sense to a rational mind. Jesus is supposed to be their big buddy, but they’d much rather live by the cruel old testament so they ignore what he taught. They’re afraid of gay people because they live in tiny little worlds and don’t get to know anybody different from them. They’re afraid of every other country because they know nothing about other cultures, so they’re all for blowing everybody else off the face of the earth. They’re afraid of knowing themselves so they project the evil in them onto others and the devil. They can’t understand the complexity of this world so they put down educated people and reduce everything to black and white which is all they can understand. I grew up with that ignorance and those closed minds and I really feel sorry for those poor people until they start their stupid self-righteous moralizing. Then I get angry. I’m not saying all christians are this way, just that most southern baptist fundamentalist uneducated christians are and unfortunately that’s an awful lot of folks in the south. I love the bumper sticker that says, Dear god, please save me from your followers.
By James
May 25, 2005 11:40 AM | Link to this
Jack, JackA$$! There, the name calling is even. Now, stop stooping to the lowest level and keep it intelligent. And I am not the only one (in many national opinion pages) that compares the hatred of homosexuals today to the hatred and disgust for Jews in the early part of the 20th century. It is very scary the way our country is going. You are not the one being persecuted. Would you have helped a Jew by hidding them or been a good Nazi and called the SS? Think really hard before answering. Would you call the hate police on a homosexual today if given the chance?
Ben, I agree with the fact that if what I do has no effect on you, you need not worry about it. But, it still gets me how str8 men LOVE lesbians having sex, but can’t stand gay men. Talk about hypocritcal!
By lozen
May 25, 2005 11:44 AM | Link to this
Jack, primrose oil comes from the health food store. It works for some women. Black cohosh works for some women. There are many other things she can try that might help. I’ve been going through this since 1991 off and on. Nothing has really helped me except HRT and I’ve taken it on and off. It has nothing to do with Eve biting a fruit. It has to do with female anatomy.
By Ben
May 25, 2005 11:46 AM | Link to this
I said that as a joke James. A homosexual is a homosexual to me, but guess what. I DON’T CARE. But not to be mistaken, I never said I couldn’t stand gay men. I said I don’t think men should be with men — I have no ill will toward those that think otherwise.
By Tim
May 25, 2005 11:50 AM | Link to this
kimberly… thanks… that was definitely worth that wait
Rocky… that is what I thought… or at least bisexual… that is why I said it was confusing… I don’t totally understand it either
By James
May 25, 2005 11:52 AM | Link to this
Ben,
I understand your making the joke. However, it mystifies us gays like a Tar Baby joke mystifies you. How can people still laugh at these things. You have the right to your opinion, and I can respect it. I appreciate your semi-acceptance. I just want a peaceful, happy, uneventful life like anyone else. I could marry a woman and make Boscoe & Jack & Chris happy and be miserable or I can marry the man I love and make them unhappy. I choose me.
By Archie
May 25, 2005 11:55 AM | Link to this
Thanks Ben I was going to mention the song. Lashelle, you are wrong and I am aware of the book and the Oprah show. Check the 11:34 post by Ben. Creepin’ is a term used for cheating. See the song Creep by TLC and she says “so I creep, creepin’ on the down low …” I believe you have that record Lashelle(smile). You are a young person in your twenties… That song debuted in 1992.
By RS
May 25, 2005 11:58 AM | Link to this
Rocky, if a man is on the down low, it makes him either gay or bi, depending on whether he’s attracted to women at all. Lozen: Ohhhhh, but Christians aren’t afraid of death, because the moment their hearts stop, they catapult straight up to Heaven; so they say. James, I agree that the virulent homophobia we see IS synonymous to the Nazi “witch-hunts” against the Jews, as well as pre-1960’s civil rights discrimination against blacks. James, yes, a lot of straight men, men who claim to be disguted at the thought of men with men, are titillated (uh, no pun intended!) at the thought of two WOMEN! What they don’t bear in mind is that 1) More than 50% of the lesbians I’VE seen make it a point of cultivating a physical appearance that will turn straight men off & 2) No self-respecting lesbian will fool around with/put on a “show” for the benefit of a man.
By rocky
May 25, 2005 12:02 PM | Link to this
Thanks, Tim. Although I don’t really believe in bisexuality. If you’re a man, you’re either gay or you’re not. Either you suck d*ck or you don’t, and if you do, you’re gay. If you don’t, you’re not. It’s pretty much an either or situation.
I feel sorry for the women married to these guys. It’s one thing to make your own decisions on whom to be sexually active with if you’re single, but it’s another to lie to someone who is directly impacted by it, and whose life would be forever altered by it. I would certainly hope that gay men would never knowingly sleep with a married man. Has anyone on here (only the gay men) been with a married man, knowing he was married? Just curious.
By Eaton
May 25, 2005 12:03 PM | Link to this
It’s nice that Rocky has been informed that he isn’t derogatory by a man who just called someone else a piece of trash. Lends a lot of legitimacy to the claim.
By RS
May 25, 2005 12:03 PM | Link to this
Archie: I’ve heard the term “Creeping”, when used to mean cheating, in other current r&b songs too. James: Good point! If you deny who you are & marry a woman, not only will you make YOURSELF miserable but will ruin HER life as well, plus such a thing has a ripple effect; it will also negatively impact other family members such as kids & parents but hey, so what! Boscoe, Randy & Chris will be thrilled.
By Eaton
May 25, 2005 12:05 PM | Link to this
Rocky, if you and your fellow anti-gay types didn’t make it so hard on gay men in this country, there would be far fewer gay men living a lie with a married woman. Something to think about before getting so sanctimonious.
By LaShelle
May 25, 2005 12:05 PM | Link to this
Archie, that wasn’t the inital question. The question was “What does it mean when someone is “on the down lowâ€?? ” Check Rocky’s 10:46 post. And once again the answer is…”on the down low” is currently a phrase used to describe married men who have sex with other men. And no, I don’t have that record, although it is a good one. I remember listening to that in middle school…
By Ben
May 25, 2005 12:10 PM | Link to this
You know what James? There really is no point in trying to fully understand someone who doesn’t accept the way you live your life, or who you are. The bottom line is you should really care less about what people think and concern yourself with what makes YOU happy.
People can tell all the Tar Baby jokes, or whatever jokes they want. Hell, I might even laugh at a couple of them. If they choose to display their ignorant, intolerance or whatever it only reflects on them. And the people who laugh and encourage them are no better.
It’s interesting that you say, “my semi-acceptance.” I don’t have to accept the way you live your life and who you live it with. My point is, I don’t accept nor reject you based on who you share a pillow with. I accept you because you seem intelligent and most probably are a productive member of society. I don’t look for people to accept me as a black man, I look for people to respect me as a man. And I think you should do the same, just substitute black for homosexual, gay or whatever. lol
I choose to battle the ignorant fools on here for the shear pleasure of making them look more stupid than they already do. I could care less what they think of me, black people, religion or whatever. There is no point in trying to convince them they are wrong because they didn’t get their beliefs overnight. It’s fun to exploit their ignorance though.
By Ben
May 25, 2005 12:13 PM | Link to this
I have to step in LaShelle. That’s not exactly what “on the down low is.” It could be used in that context, but someone on the down low is undercover, so to speak. Doing something secretive. So it applies to any situation. You are both right.
I’m on the down low right now, because I’m not supposed to be blogging. lol
By Archie
May 25, 2005 12:17 PM | Link to this
Lashelle it’s a matter of interpretation because as a straight I would definitely keep it on the down low if I was dating one of your fine friends. I say that because I am married. You have heard the R. Kelly and Isley Bros song “Down Low”, they weren’t talking about gay people. Anyway Stevie Wonder made a song called Creepin’ that had absolutely nothing to do with any of this. Thanks RS because music is where a lot of slang is moved forward. That was a good question that rocky asked.
By LaShelle
May 25, 2005 12:26 PM | Link to this
LOL@Ben, Archie, that’s why I say “is currently being used” because slang changes daily. But ben is absolutely right as well, it can be used in many contexts, so “down low” and “creepin” both mean cheating or doing something you have no business doing. :o)
By Jack
May 25, 2005 12:48 PM | Link to this
Eaton, I’m not against gays. I’m against a…..es with chips on their shoulders and think because they are the way they are should be treated special.
By Eirik
May 25, 2005 12:52 PM | Link to this
Hey Rocky,
I’ve been with quite a few married guys…most of them just see it as a diversion and have no desire to live as gay men…and they still are attracted to women. Some people do have physical attractions to both sexes…but few can handle the emotional attachments and conflicting roles. By the way, every married guy (ok, it’s been three) I’ve fooled around with insisted on the “passive” position, if you get my drift. I’m sure you will pass judgement on me and them and that’s your business but there are a lot of different boats that float out there.
By Eaton
May 25, 2005 01:07 PM | Link to this
Jack, I don’t really see anyone wanting to be treated specially. What I do see is the typical response of a member of a majority calling what is in reality EQUAL treatment “special” treatment.
I get that you think of yourself as an accepting guy, and probably in your way you are. But it seems to me you’re like those people back in the segregation days who supported segregation but claimed not to be racist because “you had black friends”.
No gay man in this country wants special laws or special treatment - we want equal treatment. To you, we already have equal rights because we could marry a woman just like you could. That’s kind of like saying we have freedom of Religion - as long as that religion is Christianity.
By the way, based on your posts this week, I would suggest that you look to your own shoulder before pointing at the shoulders of others…
By Jack
May 25, 2005 01:17 PM | Link to this
Please find a post where I said something against someone because they were gay. I don’t trash someone because of their particular orientation. I don’t give a rat’s a* what you or your ilk think of me either. No matter what you say, its not normal. If it was, it would be totally accepted by society. Which it is not.
By Tim
May 25, 2005 01:23 PM | Link to this
Rocky… I think it is sad to put a woman in that position as well… these guys need to be honest… I personally wouldn’t sleep with anyone in a relationship… I am worth more than that and so is the person that would be being cheated on
By Ben
May 25, 2005 01:28 PM | Link to this
Later people. I’m going on vacation. Catch you on next week’s topic.
By Eaton
May 25, 2005 01:37 PM | Link to this
Sorry Jack, but that’s a logical falacy if I ever heard one. Just because something is not completly accepted by society does not make it “not normal”. Guess what - interracial marriage in this country was not and still isn’t accepted by “all society”. Many parts of this country don’t welcome and accept non-Christians or foreigners. Various scientific truths throughout history haven’t been accepted by “all society”, including gravity, the nature of the solar system, the fact that Earth is a sphere.
Now you’re just making poor excuses for what you claim isn’t prejudice, but sure seems like prejudice to me. Or maybe you’re just this rude and insulting to everyone?
By Brian Curtis
May 25, 2005 01:55 PM | Link to this
“Acceptance by society” is a pretty poor marker of what’s right or wrong. Almost every advance we’ve made as a society has started out as something unpopular: the 40-hour work week, the end of slavery, civil rights legislation, women’s suffrage… the list goes on.
I’m kind of surprised to see an apparent religious conservative making the ultimate moral-relativism argument: “it’s okay if enough people SAY it is.”
Eaton: Good examples! And don’t forget your options every election day: “Vote for the rich white-male Christian of your choice!” Call for Hobson, calling Dr. Hobson….
By RS
May 25, 2005 01:59 PM | Link to this
Jack, I’m surprised at you! A bit hurt/offended as well. Women who are not young, thin & gorgeous are not accepted by society. Does that mean that any woman similarly afflicted is a bad person & should be treated as such?? Ben, have a safe, happy vacation! Tim: You really have good, solid values; your partner is so lucky to have you
By TheRealScott
May 25, 2005 02:06 PM | Link to this
Okay, enough….I am getting a little tired of Diane Glass and several people on this blog using the word “Christian” as an epithet. Christianity does not condone hatred against others, as all people are seen to be God’s perfect creations at birth. When people on this blog use Christian as a derogatory term it is insulting to those of us who do not hate or discriminate and pay attention to the teachings of Jesus. You scream from the rafters when Muslims are lumped into the “terrorist” pile because of their faith, you deride people for their ignorant bigotry of blacks for the color of their skin, you spew your caustic venom at anyone who discriminate against Jews or women based on their faith or gender…you rail against any hint of discrimination against gays or lesbians…AS WELL YOU SHOULD!!
BUT IT IS COMPLETELY HYPOCRITICAL AND BIGOTED TO LUMP ALL CHRISTIANS INTO THE BIGOTED ROLE, GOING AS FAR AS TO COMPARE IT TO NAZI GERMANY, SOLELY BASED ON THE RANTINGS OF A FEW PEOPLE YOU READ ON THIS BLOG! I TAKE MY FAITH SERIOUSLY, I UNDERSTAND ITS TENETS, AND I DO NOT CONDONE NOR PRACTICE BIGOTRY. I DO NOT ASSOCIATE WITH OR HAVE RELATIONSHIPS WITH THOSE WHO DO, NOR DO I BELONG TO A CHURCH THAT CONDONES OR ACCEPTS THAT TYPE OF BEHAVIOR…SO QUIT YOUR OWN BIGOTRY AND KNOCK IT OFF!!!
By Tim
May 25, 2005 02:07 PM | Link to this
RS… thank you!! that means a lot… his values aren’t too shabby either :)
By lozen
May 25, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this
I can understand people not knowing what to make of homosexuality if they have never known anyone who’s gay. I can’t understand calling people names and taunting them about their masculinity because they’re gay. Imagine telling all women they’re disgusting, spreading disease and death, because some women are prostitutes? All gay men are not promiscuous. Some straight men are promiscuous. Most gay women are not promiscuous but some are. Some straight women are promiscuous. Anyone who is having unprotected sex with several people in this day of disease is spreading disease and possible death. And there are people of all kinds doing that. It is pretty obvious (and it’s backed up by research) that men who get so hysterical about gay men have some issues with their own repressed desires. They have done many studies Chris, Hard40, Randy. They put men who say they’re staight into a room and show them films of men having sex. They are wired so that they can’t lie about what turns them on. The ones who get turned on are the very ones who really hate and despise gay men. You’re not fooling us at all!
By Paul
May 25, 2005 02:37 PM | Link to this
Off the subject, have you guys seen the idiot at Forsake the Troops….this guy is a total jerk!!!! WWW.FORSAKETHETROOPS.INFO makes me want to puke!!!
By lozen
May 25, 2005 02:54 PM | Link to this
TheRealScott, Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
You should be rejoicing Scott!
By Netbanker
May 25, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this
Hey kids! I’m really late to the game due to a heavy work load this week…boy I hate that! Especially because I’m supposed to be in Amsterdam and stoned off my a*s RIGHT NOW!
I just knew that this was going to be an interesting blog as soon as I saw the word Gay in the question. Kudos to all who supported rigorous testing of ALL sperm donations.
Just a couple of observations and questions:
For those who wouldn’t choose to have a gay child because of how harsh their experience growing up and living in society would likely be, why wouldn’t you work to change society instead of not have the child?
To those with the whole it’s unnatural, they can’t procreate, it’s a mental disorder argument. Try this line of reasoning on for size. For most of humanity our survival has been based on the survival of the tribe or clan. Having some gay members of the tribe would actually increase the overall survival chances of the tribe because the gay people become contributing adult members of the tribe without burdening the tribe with additional children to watch or feed.
Repeated studies indicate a fairly consistent rate of 10% of the population being gay. Given the consistency of that rate it would seem like a good hypothesis that God/Nature intended for a portion of the population to be attracted to members of the same sex in order to help control population and to ensure survival of the tribe.
Where this hypothesis hits the wall of religious faith is when it is defined as a sin. This also makes logical sense in that in the times those books were written the survival rate of infants was extremely low and wars extremely frequent. Discouraging or ‘outlawing’ the very behaviors that quietly helped the tribe survive in the past in order to ensure or encourage population growth also makes sense.
By Jim
May 25, 2005 03:02 PM | Link to this
Diane - Shaunti has a point, but only one, testing is not a reliable answer, especially if the donation must be used quickly or if it cannot be retested. But then Shaunti is way, way off base to think that a ban on gay people will likewise keep users of tissue or sperm donations free of infections. If asked, are you gay, who would respond, if the law says you can’t donate? So all who know the laws and donate are “Not Gay!”
Get real Shaunti. Laws against a particular group of people, who actually are NOT the most prevalent in getting HIV (heterosexual women are, by number, not percentage), is discriminatory and not productive toward prevention.
Think if only 10% of all men in the US (150 mil at 10% = 15 million) are at risk for one or more diseases of all types, that is at least the total number of all homosexuals (based on an understood 10% population estimate) And all homosexuals are NOT HIV.
Targeting one supposed at-risk group and not all at-risk groups, again, is discriminatory and not reliable.
Actually, it only assuages some people who think (actually do not use any cranial grey matter activity) that this law would do something.
By lozen
May 25, 2005 03:10 PM | Link to this
I think the forsakeourtroops website is a spoof and a takeoff on all the venom toward women on welfare. If you take that site and replace troops with welfare queens you get the idea!
By kimberly
May 25, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this
Isn’t anyone going to blast me for my Patton reference?
By TheRealScott
May 25, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this
Lozen…thanks for the flippant answer…I would have expected nothing less
By rocky
May 25, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this
Don’t attack Jack for being honest about his feelings and views. It amazes me how many people come down on others for intolerance, and are yet so intolerant of those whom they label as such. Isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black? There are a lot of chippy shoulders on here.
Tim, it’s nice to know that there are scrupulous people on both sides of the fence. It really amazes me how people who knowingly cheat with someone married feel it isn’t their problem. I’ve known men and women like that, and it says a lot about their own (lack of) sense of worth. Pretty much like you said.
RS - my wife is neither thin nor young, but she is the most amazing and beautiful woman I have ever met, and I count myself as the luckiest man on earth to have been the one who ended up with her. I’m betting your husband feels the same way about you, just judging by what I know from this blog. Just wanted you to know that there are those of us out there who would much rather have someone of substance in our lives than some kind of shallow trophy.
By Netbanker
May 25, 2005 03:22 PM | Link to this
KImberly if it makes you feel better…BLAM! POW! SPLAT! You may know consider yourself blasted. hehehe
By Boscoe
May 25, 2005 03:26 PM | Link to this
God did not make them that way! According to Census 2000 figures, there are a total of 106,741,426 households in the U.S., only 00.42% of those are unmarried same-sex households. This is less than one percent. Yet activists claimed that these figures showed a surge in same-sex households since 1990. Bruce Voeller, a gay activist has admitted in his book, Some Uses and Abuses of the Kinsey Scale that the 10% figure was a myth used to promote the homosexual agenda. According To Voeller: …after years of our educating those who inform the public and make its laws, that concept that 10 percent of the population is gay has become generally accepted as “fact.” As with so many pieces of knowledge and myth, repeated telling it made it so. Netbanker, where your hypothesis hits the wall is that the same book you state would “discourage” behaviour that “helped” the tribe also tells one “if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other: And if a man will contend with thee in judgment to take away thy coat, let go thy cloak also unto him” (Matt. 5:38-40). This hardly sounds like a plan to eliminate the enemy.
By rocky
May 25, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this
kimberly - I can’t find your Patton reference anywhere, but if you’d like I can assume it was something smarta*sy and chastise you for it.
By Tim
May 25, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this
Randy… you are very correct… anyone who willingly sleeps with someone that is in another relationship… well let’s just say I honestly think that deep down inside they don’t think very highly of themselves… or other people for that matter
By RS
May 25, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this
Netbanker: Interesting points! Yes, that’s one of the reasons I’ve chosen not to breed but there are many many many more as well. Rocky: I agree 100% regarding Tim & his fine values. It’s always good to know there are men out there who are NOT shallow & treasure inner beauty. As someone who spent her adolescence & young adulthood in a perennial “awkward stage”, & suffered for it at the hands of ignoramouses, I’ll be the first to admit my shoulder gets a bit “chippy” on this topic. Not long ago, when I was lambasting a close male friend for drooling over some “hot” actress (as I pointed out, her “hotness” is a combo of makeup, plastic surgery & an accident of birth anyhow) his reply was to the effect of “RS, my dear, on a scale of 1-10, I see you as a 9. And considering that I find women who are a ‘3’ attractive enough, I’d say you look GREAT. So, no need to be so sensitive” & yes, my husband, bless his heart tells me every day that I’m beautiful. I know that’s all in his mind (ha) but I love to hear it!
By Jack
May 25, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this
RS, Apples and Oranges.
By TheRealScott
May 25, 2005 03:42 PM | Link to this
RS - “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”, and it seems your husband holds you in the highest esteem…something to be treasured….I can’t go on physical looks but true beauty is often a product of a person’s interior so based on that I would agree with your friend that you’re a 10
By kimberly
May 25, 2005 03:47 PM | Link to this
Rocky, that was beautiful what you said about your wife. She’s a lucky woman!
My Patton reference was embedded in my “is your man gay” checklist because, IMO, a man who cannot be seduced because he’s watching Patton for the 17th time has something really GAY going on in his heart. Of course, I have been known to interchange “gay” with “misogynistic.” They are not the same but often overlap.
By RS
May 25, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this
Rocky, Jack & RealScott, I swear, you all did as much as my husband to re-affirm my faith in men & that is quite a compliment! Scott, what you said embodies what Christianity is supposed to be about, as opposed to those who spew hate in God’s name. Remember what the Bible says about us being created in God’s image, so that’s what beauty SHOULD be about; the essence of a person.
By Tim
May 25, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this
I don’t know if I am going to sound dumb (probably wouldn’t be the first time)… what is Patton?
RS… that is Jack’s response when he is challenged and doesn’t have an argument
By Netbanker
May 25, 2005 04:03 PM | Link to this
RS…your point about beauty is one of the reasons that I really can’t stand people whose focus and identity is all wrapped up in being pretty. These shallow idiots are one car crash or bad accident away from ugly themselves…what will they have then?
And ‘pretty’ people don’t always have things as great as everyone thinks. When it comes to dating most people assume that the ‘pretty’ people are out of their league and don’t realize that ‘pretty people’ are more likely to end up talking to no one and going home alone…again!
By Netbanker
May 25, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this
Tim you silly gay boy…it’s a movie.
By TheRealScott
May 25, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this
RS - I completly agree with you that we are made in God’s image and that is what beauty should be about…I am flattered for your compliment and hope (with little doubt) that your husband will always re-affirm that faith in you!!
By Eaton
May 25, 2005 04:08 PM | Link to this
Rocky, I’m not attacking Jack for his views…I’m simply pointing out the irony of his accusing people of having chips on their shoulders while calling those who don’t agree with him names and insulting their masculinity. I may not agree with his position, but at least I know how to remain civil. It’s not “intolerant”, as you put it, to expect civility out of people.
RealScott - I personally don’t lump all Christians into a single malevolent group. Far from it - I know a great many Christians who are marvelous, generous, loving people. However, I also know that those people who go to great lengths to label themselves as Christian, and to even greater lengths to make sure everyone knows that they label themselves such, tend to be rigid, uncaring, hateful people who rarely if ever follow the exhortation of Christ to “Love thy neighbor”.
You’re right though - we need to remember to separate the actions of the unbendable fundamentalists from the real Christians.
Boscoe, your criticism of NetBanker’s theory hits the wall when you come to the realization that he was talking about the OLD Testament and not the New. You DO know the Bible was lumped together from numerous disparate sources over many years, don’t you?
By kimberly
May 25, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this
Hahahaha! Tim… you’re so young and sweet. It’s an excrutiatingly painful, oft-quoted, four-hour movie about the life of American WWII icon General George Patton, played by George C. Scott. The movie portrays him as both war hero and inherently evil, or at least half-evil. He was so obnoxious, even IKE (President Dwight D. Eisenhower)couldn’t stand him! It drags on and on.. I think the last TWO HOURS are of him in the fetal position, whining and dying. Ugh!
By Eaton
May 25, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this
Oh Tim…
By TheRealScott
May 25, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this
Tim - She was referring to the movie, “Patton” based on the career of U.S. Army General George Patton (WWII)
By Netbanker
May 25, 2005 04:12 PM | Link to this
I apologize in advance for going totally off topic, but has anyone seen “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” yet? I loved the books and the old BBC series that was around at about the same time as Dr. Who. I was wondering if the movie was decent and do I need to bring a towel?
By RS
May 25, 2005 04:12 PM | Link to this
Netbanker: You’re probably with me on this one; I find people who are wrapped up in their looks to be incredibly conceited & boring. Your ending paragraph brings up a valid point. Between the time that my ex died & I met my husband, I’d lost a lot of weight & I guess I was considered attractive, cute, whatever & I had several men tell me “I’d wanted to talk to you earlier but you look like the type of lady who’d be a real b—-tch”. My goodness! I’d NEVER cop an attitude like that!
By Eaton
May 25, 2005 04:16 PM | Link to this
Netbanker, as a fan you should know that you ALWAYS should take your towel.
I haven’t seen the movie version yet - I do have the DVD of the BBS series and read the books to pieces when I was a kid. I’ve not heard good things about the movie version, however.
By RS
May 25, 2005 04:18 PM | Link to this
RealScott, note what Eaton just posted re the difference between REAL Christians like yourself & th phonies who spew venom in God’s name. Clearly, you’re in the marvelous, generous, loving category & that’s EXACTLY what Jesus had in mind.
By lozen
May 25, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this
Here’s a little article that seems appropos to our present discussion.
For Dr. W. David Hager, a prominent obstetrician/ gynecologist and Bush Administration appointee to the Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), moral and ethical issues all appear to revolve around sex: In both his medical practice and his advisory role at the FDA, his ardent evangelical piety anchors his staunch opposition to emergency contraception, abortion and premarital sex. Through his six books he has established himself as a leading conservative Christian voice on women’s health and sexuality. Hager casts himself as a victim of religious persecution, “You see…there is a war going on in this country,” he says gravely. “And I’m not speaking about the war in Iraq. It’s a war being waged against Christians, particularly evangelical Christians.” To his former wife of thirty two years, Linda Carruth Davis,co-author with Hager of Stress and the Woman’s Body, Hager’s public moralizing on sexual matters clashes with his treatment of her during their marriage. Davis alleges that between 1995 and their divorce in 2002, Hager repeatedly sodomized her without her consent. Several sources on and off the record confirmed that she had told them it was the sexual and emotional abuse within their marriage that eventually forced her out. “I probably wouldn’t have objected so much, or felt it was so abusive if he had just wanted normal [v****] sex all the time,” she explained to me. “But it was the painful, invasive, totally nonconsensual nature of the [anal] sex that was so horrible.” Linda Davis remarried in November 2002 to a Methodist minister.
By TheRealScott
May 25, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this
Netbanker - read the books but haven’t seen the movie…and you know that a towel is the most useful item in the universe!!
By kimberly
May 25, 2005 04:24 PM | Link to this
To quote Bill Maher re: David Hager: “A gynecologist who can’t find his wife’s va*a? It just doesn’t get any better than that!”
But THIS is the man Bush picks to make decisions of reproductive policy affecting women (since reproductive policy almost NEVER affects men.) Just another example of him making the ABSOLUTE WORST choices based on some far-right religio-nut-job agenda instead of indulging reason or logic in matters of government.
By TheRealScott
May 25, 2005 04:29 PM | Link to this
Thanks RS, I appreciate your comments very much
By lozen
May 25, 2005 04:39 PM | Link to this
Scott, I was just reminding you of what Jesus said about people being mean to you. I was also very careful in a post today about saying some christians, some gay women, etc. since I know you cannot judge all people of any group by the crazies that exist in every group. But I admit, I do get sort of tiried of some of you christians whining about being picked on. It is the christians who make you all look like you’re demented, you should be angry with. If you aren’t one of the fundamentalist christians who hate gay people and you don’t do the self-righteous moralizing, don’t take it personally. We’re not talking about you honey.
By Tim
May 25, 2005 04:40 PM | Link to this
Ok… I have heard of the General… never heard of the movie… from kimberly’s description I think I will pass on renting it tonight
everyone have a FABULOUS memorial day weekend!!! I am outta here for the rest of the week… movin on up to Alpharetta :)
By RS
May 25, 2005 04:43 PM | Link to this
Scott, I’ve said it before & I’ll say it again, I say it as I see it, hon.
By lozen
May 25, 2005 04:45 PM | Link to this
Bye Tim. I expect every piece of furniture to be in place, track lights installed, and latest colors on the walls by Saturday morning, son! Make me proud!
By Tim
May 25, 2005 04:49 PM | Link to this
lozen… I won’t let you down Ma… it will be done by Friday :)
By Jack
May 25, 2005 04:56 PM | Link to this
Beat me. Beat me Captian!!!
By Netbanker
May 25, 2005 04:56 PM | Link to this
Easton…thanks for the support, but it’s only Boscoe. I knew when he started the post with “God did not make them that way!” you know he’s not going even consider the thought as possible. Approaching a topic with an open mind isn’t exactly one of his strong points.
I think it might have been Lozen responding to Chris WAY back there in the blog about gay people adopting unwanted children. Her point supports my gays help survival of the species hypothesis that is still happening today in that in ages past orphaned children could easily be adopted by gay tribe members and not impact another household within the tribe who already had children. Gay people are still doing that today. In my neighborhood there are 3 gay and lesbian couples who adopted children from Russia. The condition of these kids when they first arrived in this country was heart breaking. Everyone one of them was very small for their age due to malnutrition. Now that they are a part of a family household they’ve all blossomed into healthy, rambunctious, well-mannered children.
By TheRealScott
May 25, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this
Lozen - I DO get angry about those “crazies” that purport to be Christians and then spew garbage…I see your point, but let’s try this for a second….
“But I admit, I do get sort of tired of some of you __ whining about being picked on. It is the ___ who make you all look like you’re demented, you should be angry with.”
Insert the following words where the blanks are…
women, blacks, gays, lesbians, jews, muslims, or any other group you’d like…
Said in that context, you’d be one of the first ones coming over the wall with torch in hand
By Netbanker
May 25, 2005 05:02 PM | Link to this
Eaton…well yes, I knew that, but wanted to see who else might get the reference. I hate that the movie probably isn’t all that good. With today’s computer graphics it could have been WAY COOL.
By Jack
May 25, 2005 05:04 PM | Link to this
Bush is blowing it on the stem cell research. The Republicans are going to go down. Pitiful. Still better than Kerry.
Thanks for the defense Rocky. I stirred them up didn’t I? Still won’t change my mind. According to some on this blog, it is not right to look at a member of the opposite sex physically. I guess I’m just a dog.
By Fran
May 26, 2005 08:35 AM | Link to this
I’m definitely with Rocky & Whiley on this issue. Ban all gay, lesibans & homos the right to donate sperm it’s unethical. The FDA suppose to test reguarly just like the American Red Cross However they still received some bad blood so you really can’t count on the technology count on the fact that no one should be giving or receiving when so much it is out here for free. U be the judge of your own sperm.
By Jack
May 26, 2005 09:06 AM | Link to this
Hey Lozen, call I call you Ma too?
By JustMe
May 26, 2005 09:06 AM | Link to this
Since some say it’s genetic, and gays say it’s not an easy life, then I don’t think I would want the possibility of the donor being gay.
By lozen
May 26, 2005 09:22 AM | Link to this
“Her name was McGill, she called herself Lil and everyone knew her as Nancy.”
Jack, sure you can call me mom if you’re under 40. If you’re over 40, you can call me sis.
Fran, I don’t think you have to worry about lesbians donating sperm! Lesbians and gays are both homos…your whole post is very funny!
By Jack
May 26, 2005 09:22 AM | Link to this
Just kidding Lozen. How bout Sis?
By Jack
May 26, 2005 09:29 AM | Link to this
If lesbians can donate sperm, it won’t be long before men can have babies. Cool!
By lozen
May 26, 2005 09:34 AM | Link to this
Scott, I’ve been giving some thought to your 4:58 post yesterday and I am considering your point of view. Thanks for making me think.
By Eaton
May 26, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this
Did everyone die?
By Jack
May 26, 2005 10:56 AM | Link to this
Everyone is either worn out from yesterday or have started the holiday festivities early. I’m starting mine at 5:00 today. Yee Ha!
By Eaton
May 26, 2005 11:07 AM | Link to this
Dangit, some of us have to work tomorrow. Don’t rub it in!
By Netbanker
May 26, 2005 11:15 AM | Link to this
Eaton, I think that most people are starting their holiday weekend early…which I’m depressed about. We were supposed to leave last Saturday for 10 days off, but it was cancelled due to some of my partner’s clients…who now want us to work this Saturday. Isn’t it bad enough that they trashed our 10 day vacation less than a week before we were supposed to leave and when they had a month’s notice that the business would be closed? Now we’re supposed to give up the long holiday weekend too?!
I need HELP! I know my life is significantly better than most people, but I’ve also worked hard (starting at 13 deliverying newspapers) for it and am having a hard time not feeling down. No trip, no holiday weekend, just MORE work!
By Netbanker
May 26, 2005 11:26 AM | Link to this
I love idiocy of those comments that gay men shouldn’t donate sperm because it might pass on the gay gene. HELLO! This here gay boy has hetero parents who’ve been married for 41 years and a hetero brother who is married and has a 3 year old. Banning ‘gay’ sperm isn’t going to reduce the chances of having a gay child.
Jack is on the money with the Bush team. When your own party has enough votes to over turn a veto and they tell you that a reasonable person would take the out. Bush should just make a statement that his position is unchanged, but obviously there is enough support among The People and in Congress so he’ll do the honorable thing and not throw up a road block.
By Eaton
May 26, 2005 11:33 AM | Link to this
He is incapable of making that statement. He is too invested with the religious right and too caught up in his own ideology. To heck with what the country thinks - it’s what George W. Bush thinks that matters…didn’t you know that? King George has spoken. Hmm. Maybe it’s time for another revolution ;)
I wonder if people will realize the dangers of electing a religious ideologue when the United State’s position as a leader in medical research in technology is usurped by South Korea or China, and when, instead of being a nation to which foreign scientists flock, we become a nation from which our own scientists flee?
By Eaton
May 26, 2005 11:42 AM | Link to this
er, that should be medical research AND technology. Dunno what I was thinking.
By Mary
May 26, 2005 12:08 PM | Link to this
Eaton “instead of being a nation to which foreign scientists flock, we become a nation from which our own scientists flee?”
That is already happening. They had a huge special on said topic on nightline one night this week. Korea will be the first to find the cure for cancer — so several researchers stated.
That’s ok. I am a affluent lesbian with no overwhelming financial responsibilities except to myself and my Partner. I have the money to fly to Korea to get my cancer (or whatever) cured if need be.
The general population — the heteros with kids that live pay check to pay check, they are the ones that are going to suffer the consequences. Well, make your bed…
By TheRealScott
May 26, 2005 12:10 PM | Link to this
Lozen - sorry I am late, glad to hear I could provoke some reflection. Thanks for giving it a chance
Netbanker - Sorry you have to work, bro. that sucks and sounds like you got a real raw deal from your company. hopefully you get to do something fun this weekend
By Netbanker
May 26, 2005 12:26 PM | Link to this
thanks scott. I’m done crying in a bucket now. I can’t change the situation so I need to change my attitude. It isn’t my company that messed things up, it’s my partner’s company. That is just one of the risks of owning your own business or having a spouse who does.
Good point, Mary. The assault on basic science by our own administration is frightening. I’m starting to believe that Bush is really a Manchurian candidate put into place by Asia or China to draw attention away from their economic rise and to facilitate America’s selling out of our own future.
By Eaton
May 26, 2005 12:57 PM | Link to this
Well, we are the only “civilized” Western nation where our leaders and teachers still are debating whether or not we should be teaching evolution. Science isn’t exactly top priority in this country these days.
By LaShelle
May 26, 2005 01:05 PM | Link to this
Afternoon all, did I miss anything?
By Boscoe
May 26, 2005 01:15 PM | Link to this
Eaton, actually Netbanker didn’t mention either the Old Testament or the New Testament in his Hypothesis. That both texts condemn the act of homosexuality to suggest that this is written to somehow reduce the chances of survival of some group of people makes me think Netbanker was stoned at the time he thought of it. In 1990, Wayne Tardiff and his partner, Allan Yoder, were the first homosexuals permitted to become adoptive parents in the state of New Jersey. Tardiff died in 1992 at age forty-four; Yoder died a few months later, leaving an orphaned five-year-old. If getting stoned is what provides Netbankers ability to view topics with an open mind, I would rather maintain my rigid stance. I make no pretense of being unbiased. I am convinced that homosexuality is personally and socially destructive. I am convinced the Bible is clear on that subject, and that an empirical analysis of homosexuality will corroborate the assessment that homosexuality is not what God intended for individuals or society. The fact that you view the authors of the books in the Old Testament as disparate makes me question whether you even have any clue what the text is even about.
By TheRealScott
May 26, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this
Ok kids, well I have to head out of the office for work, so y’all have a good weekend if I don’t see you. I doubt I will be in tomorrow (going camping)
By Eaton
May 26, 2005 01:49 PM | Link to this
Well Boscoe, I know enough to know that what we call the Bible didn’t spring into existence whole-cloth, and that it was assembled over time into its modern form from different sources, authors and time periods.
I know enough to be able to intelligently infer from NetBanker’s statement that he was refering specifically to the Holiness Laws of the OT, as he mentioned wandering tribes struggling to survive. I don’t need things spelled out for me, I can use logic and reason to aprehend the author’s intent.
I know enough to know that MANY scholars have made the same hypothesis about the Leviticus condemnations, of not only homosexuality, but many other things that lead to a low birth rate or increased mortality rate (such as eating shellfish and pork, which we know easily become tainted).
I know enough to know that Christ never condemns homosexuality - that the only condemnation of Homosexuality in the New Testament comes from Paul who condemed ALL sex that didn’t directly lead to procreation, and who had serious issues with human sexuality in general.
I know enough to know that your reference to the first gay couple to adopt is utterly and totally meaningless to this argument, or to any argument, and that your insults to NetBanker are the result of a total lack of anything resembling a substantive argument.
By Carol J. Dennis
May 26, 2005 01:50 PM | Link to this
I take it from your column that hating white Christians is the only acceptable discrimination in this country.
I think it’s safe to say that we have something to fear from left wing liberals in these next few years, maybe genocide or ethnic cleansing?
By Eaton
May 26, 2005 01:56 PM | Link to this
Seriously Carol, it’s really funny when Fundamentalist Christians act as if they are being persecuted. It’s sad and a little pathetic, but it’s also funny. Tell me, do you know what a persecution complex is? Or maybe you are just super-anxious to be a martyr.
By Pearl
May 26, 2005 02:05 PM | Link to this
Netbanker, what do you have against beautiful women? Are you ugly? Do you have a chip on your shoulder, because no one notices you or gives you compliments? Do you find that beautiful women are out your league? I am considered very attractive,(thanks to my mixed ancestory) with exotic features, and tired of turning the wrong heads. I am so tired of people like you judging me entirely based on my looks, and thinking I am shallow and self-absorbed, because I am not.
By Eaton
May 26, 2005 02:14 PM | Link to this
Hey Pearl…you’re not paying attention, ‘cause Netbanker is gay…I’m thinking he couldn’t care less what you look like…and y’all don’t play in the same sport, so league’s not really an issue…
By RS
May 26, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this
Pearl, where are you getting your info? I have NEVER once seen Netbanker post a word against any woman, beautiful or otherwise. You brag about how exotic-looking you are, yet you resent being thought shallow & self-absorbed? Oh, PLEASE! I don’t know about turning heads, but your post has certainly turned my STOMACH. You might try a little human compassion for once. Try being an ugly woman just one day & see how you’re treated…no worse than you deserve, I’m sure. I actually feel sorry for you, because with your superior, conceited attitude, you will undoubtably end up either alone or in a series of miserable relationships where you’ll be used & mistreated. They say what goes around comes around…
By lozen
May 26, 2005 02:25 PM | Link to this
Well you see Carol, we left wing liberals (some of which are christians) fear you right wing conservatives (some of which are christians), because we don’t like the idea of genocide or ethnic cleansing. Can you read the comments on this forum from people who hate homosexuals and not see that? I think gay people in this country, women who need to have abortions, people who want birth control information, people who want to live their lives without being controlled by 2,000 year old rules and regulations that are meaningless to us, have more reason to fear you than you have to fear us.
By Eaton
May 26, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this
Yes, we have two groups being persecuted on here today, friends…it’s not gays and liberals, it’s Christians and Beautiful People. Welcome to Bizarro World!
By lozen
May 26, 2005 02:38 PM | Link to this
Boscoe, who do you think wrote the OT? Where do you think it came from?
By lozen
May 26, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this
You’re right RS. Netbanker has never said anything against beautiful women or any women for that matter.
By TheRealScott
May 26, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this
Ok..so I’m back…didn’t take as long as I thought…what did I miss?
By RS
May 26, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this
Lozen, contrary to anything Chris thinks (?!?!), I have found that the majority of gay men are very respectful & genuinley affectionate to women & almost never refer to us as “fish”. Netbanker is a terrific guy, why would he care if any woman, particularly one as self-absorbed as “Pearl”, finds him attractive or not? He’s involved in a committed relationship with what sounds like a perfectly lovely man.
By Boscoe
May 26, 2005 03:09 PM | Link to this
Eaton, perhaps you should use a little more of that so called reason and logic you claim to posses. If you know that the Bible was written over time from different authors, it would seem reasonable that you should know that it was assembled after Christ had died and his Apostles assembled it based on His teachings. Which implies although he may not have said it himself He told them, who proceeded to put it into text to pass through the generations. Christ did say not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments [which would include homosexuality], and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven� (Matthew 5:17-19). Your reference to Leviticus puts a serious flaw in the use of logic and reason to apprehend the author’s intent claim! Let me clear things up for you. With shrimp (Leviticus 11:10), the full phrase is “they shall be a detestable thing to you.� The description of homosexual behavior as an “abomination� excludes any reference “to you.� For shrimp, this might be interpreted as “detestable to the Jewish people,� but for homosexual activity, there is an implied “abomination to God,� not “to you� - a major difference. No, God does not “hate� shrimp, but He does instruct the Jewish people that they should not eat it as one part of their particular spiritual regimen to be a “holy people� and a “light unto the nations.� Catholics abstain from meat on Fridays for the same reason. FYI Peter and Jude also condemn homosexuality. The reference to the first gay couple proves the uselessness of Netbankers hypothesis. Was that child removed as a burden of society as Netbanker claimed was a use for homosexuals? NO.
By Lola
May 26, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this
DANG IT! I just now got time to blog and it has been a wonderful day on here (just read all the posts). Eaton, you absolutely cracked me up with your 2:35pm post!! LOL!
Netbanker - if it makes you feel any better, I am working tomorrow as well, and my entire weekend is already full of obligations to others. I don’t have to work my job this weekend, but I will definitely be working on other things.
I’ve been told that I have to have my daughter weened off her bottle by the time she has her 15 month check-up. YIKES! Guess this is a bad time for me to ween myself off the bottle, if you know what I mean. :)
Pearl - um, no offense, but you sound like you’re a legend in your own mind.
By Eaton
May 26, 2005 03:26 PM | Link to this
Well Boscoe, A) I realize that you BELIEVE the Bible was assembled at the word of Christ, but…that’s just a religious belief and not really borne out historically, considering that the contents of bibles have changed over the centuries.
B) I’ve read through my RSV Leviticus and seen the “abomination” phrase used for shellfish, pork, etc., and there was none of the distinctions you claim. It’s typical of you folk - OH, it’s only REALLY an abomination for gays…on the rest of the stuff God was just kidding. Here we have another example of fundamentalists saying “The Bible is innerant except for those parts we want to ignore”. Do you know what quibbling is?
C) You aren’t seriously arguing that since one gay couple died shortly after adopting that gay adoption as a whole is flawed are you, because that would be just…stupid. I mean, how many gay couples with adopted children who HAVEN’T croaked are there? How many HETERO couples have had similar misfortunes befall them? If this is an example of your reasoning ability, it doesn’t say much.
Boscoe, please go back the Dark Ages where you belong.
By Lola
May 26, 2005 03:27 PM | Link to this
I’m absolutely blown away that someone would accuse Netbanker of saying something bad about women! He’s a doll and I’m totally with RS on this. Sounds like Pearl needs to get over herself and her exotic “beauty”.
By Lyrazel
May 26, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this
You people are obsessed nuts! Love it!! Be good and think of the many who have died serving your country this Memorial Day weekend. Share a part of the tradition of respect. Enjoy life!
By Jack
May 26, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this
RuffffRuffff! Pant,pant! Yeah, I’m still here. Been too busy to post. Pearl, what did you maen by turning the wrong heads?
By Randy
May 26, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this
Boscoe is right the Bible was assembled as the word of Christ. Some who don’t want to follow it, will assume it has been changed over the years to mean different things, without any knowledge of the truth. Ever heard of the Dead Sea Schrolls, which proved the bible to be legimate and Jesus to have fullfilled all the old testament conditions for the messiah.
By Jack
May 26, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this
Sounds like the commercial, “Don’t hate me cause I’m beautiful” LOL
By Eaton
May 26, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this
Randy, you belong in the Dark Ages too.
By Pearl
May 26, 2005 03:52 PM | Link to this
There are a few gay men who are jealous of me and say snide things to upset me. Then on the other hand, there are gay guys who adore me and want to do my makeup and my hair. They are the best makeup artist.
By RS
May 26, 2005 03:53 PM | Link to this
Well, I’m working tomorrow too (but am off Monday, yay!) Netbanker, that was truly lousy what your partner’s company did. Working folks like us reeally get ——ed on. Lola: Legend in her own mind! Ha! You hit the nail right on the head with that! And happy weaning?!?!! (Jack, don’t encourage Pearl! Ask yourself this; do we really want her to stick around?? LOL!)
By Eaton
May 26, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this
I’m still having a hard time understanding why a gay guy would be jealous of Pearl. Personally, I have no desire to look like a woman.
By Netbanker
May 26, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this
Thanks all for coming to my defense. I just think Pearl had a misunderstanding…no big deal. The Pretty People comments never mentioned gender at all so she was working on an assumption. Honestly, I do love women and think that they are the most wonderful creations…I just don’t want to have sex with them nor do I want to wear their clothes just in case anyone was about to go there.
Eaton…here’s a quote from today’s paper to keep in mind when attempting to spar with Boscoe..”You believe what you believe. That’s the nature of religion. But it is also the nature of religious debates that they are impervious to rational argument.” Once Boscoe is convinced of something the only thing that will change his mind is evidence of which he approves…and that ain’t gonna happen.
Boscoe…referencing a single couple who died 2 years after adopting children means what exactly? You know that isn’t intellectually honest. I’m assuming that when you state “his Apostles assembled it based on His teachings” that you are NOT referring to the 12 original apostles. In fact, you must certainly mean the apostles in the mid-1880’s who removed all 14 of the Apocrypha from Protestant Bibles, but only 12 from the Roman Catholic Bible.
To clarify the record I was talking about the OT not the new.
I’m not upset about working tomorrow at all…it’s SATURDAY when I’ll be working for my partner’s business that I’ll be cranky.
By RS
May 26, 2005 04:08 PM | Link to this
Eaton, I think “Pearl” is a drag queen!
By Carol J. Dennis
May 26, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this
IOZEN,
That proves my point: we ARE being discriminated against. Most Christians I know do not hate gays, get involved in politics-they just love Jesus with all of their heart. We all get lumped together with every kook who makes the news killing somebody ‘in the name of God’ or destroying abortion clinics, etc. It’s not fair! We DO care about people as Jesus commanded us to.
By Randy
May 26, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this
Eaton, The proof is there, like it or not. God has proved everything, scientific, spiritual, etc. Some people don’t want to hear it. If I wasn’t a Christian, I wouldn’t want to hear that I wasn’t prepared for eternity either, but I would need to hear it. Time is very limited here on this earth, you could be one breathe away.
By Jack
May 26, 2005 04:12 PM | Link to this
If they make snide comments to you, you know they’re losers. Don’t know why they would be jealous lest you attract men they want. If you are as you say, no way could they ever look like you.
By Lola
May 26, 2005 04:19 PM | Link to this
I’m having a hard time understanding why ANYONE would be jealous of Pearl. I can’t figure out what is so attractive about Pearl to begin with. It certainly isn’t her level of humility. And news flash, honey - you don’t have to be of mixed ancestory to be beautiful. And on here, you are judged ONLY on your personality and not your looks, and I have to say that you’re not looking too pretty to me.
By Netbanker
May 26, 2005 04:19 PM | Link to this
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/index.html
Timeline of Bible Translation History 1,400 BC: The first written Word of God: The Ten Commandments delivered to Moses.
500 BC: Completion of All Original Hebrew Manuscripts which make up The 39 Books of the Old Testament.
200 BC: Completion of the Septuagint Greek Manuscripts which contain The 39 Old Testament Books AND 14 Apocrypha Books.
1st Century AD: Completion of All Original Greek Manuscripts which make up The 27 Books of the New Testament.
315 AD: Athenasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, identifies the 27 books of the New Testament which are today recognized as the canon of scripture.
382 AD: Jerome’s Latin Vulgate Manuscripts Produced which contain All 80 Books (39 Old Test. + 14 Apocrypha + 27 New Test).
500 AD: Scriptures have been Translated into Over 500 Languages.
600 AD: LATIN was the Only Language Allowed for Scripture.
995 AD: Anglo-Saxon (Early Roots of English Language) Translations of The New Testament Produced.
1384 AD: Wycliffe is the First Person to Produce a (Hand-Written) manuscript Copy of the Complete Bible; All 80 Books.
1455 AD: Gutenberg Invents the Printing Press; Books May Now be mass-Produced Instead of Individually Hand-Written. The First Book Ever Printed is Gutenberg’s Bible in Latin.
1516 AD: Erasmus Produces a Greek/Latin Parallel New Testament.
1522 AD: Martin Luther’s German New Testament.
1526 AD: William Tyndale’s New Testament; The First New Testament printed in the English Language.
1535 AD: Myles Coverdale’s Bible; The First Complete Bible printed in the English Language (80 Books: O.T. & N.T. & Apocrypha).
1537 AD: Tyndale-Matthews Bible; The Second Complete Bible printed in English. Done by John “Thomas Matthew” Rogers (80 Books).
1539 AD: The “Great Bible” Printed; The First English Language Bible Authorized for Public Use (80 Books).
1560 AD: The Geneva Bible Printed; The First English Language Bible to add Numbered Verses to Each Chapter (80 Books).
1568 AD: The Bishops Bible Printed; The Bible of which the King James was a Revision (80 Books).
1609 AD: The Douay Old Testament is added to the Rheims New Testament (of 1582) Making the First Complete English Catholic Bible; Translated from the Latin Vulgate (80 Books).
1611 AD: The King James Bible Printed; Originally with All 80 Books. The Apocrypha was Officially Removed in 1885 Leaving Only 66 Books.
1782 AD: Robert Aitken’s Bible; The First English Language Bible (KJV) Printed in America.
1791 AD: Isaac Collins and Isaiah Thomas Respectively Produce the First Family Bible and First Illustrated Bible Printed in America. Both were King James Versions, with All 80 Books.
1808 AD: Jane Aitken’s Bible (Daughter of Robert Aitken); The First Bible to be Printed by a Woman.
1833 AD: Noah Webster’s Bible; After Producing his Famous Dictionary, Webster Printed his Own Revision of the King James Bible.
1841 AD: English Hexapla New Testament; an Early Textual Comparison showing the Greek and 6 Famous English Translations in Parallel Columns.
1846 AD: The Illuminated Bible; The Most Lavishly Illustrated Bible printed in America. A King James Version, with All 80 Books.
1885 AD: The “English Revised Version” Bible; The First Major English Revision of the KJV.
1901 AD: The “American Standard Version”; The First Major American Revision of the KJV.
1971 AD: The “New American Standard Bible” (NASB) is Published as a “Modern and Accurate Word for Word English Translation” of the Bible.
1973 AD: The “New International Version” (NIV) is Published as a “Modern and Accurate Phrase for Phrase English Translation” of the Bible.
1982 AD: The “New King James Version” (NKJV) is Published as a “Modern English Version Maintaining the Original Style of the King James.”
2002 AD: The English Standard Version (ESV) is Published as a translation to bridge the gap between the accuracy of the NASB and the readability of the NIV
What was that about The Bible NOT being changed?
By Eric
May 26, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this
I’m completely disgusted by this topic. Think about this, when a person walks into a sperm bank and they are asked about risky behaviours…how hard is it to lie? Are you going to put all potential donors through a lie detector test? Wouldn’t the most prudent way to reduce health risks be through stringent testing? Gay, straight, moral or not…this is not the real issue. The real issue is ensuring safety. Stop the discrimination based on theories that are not a part of reality.
By Carol J.
May 26, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this
Eaton,
We may try to ignore the warnings about pork and shellfish but it indeed has been proven that these increase the risk on certain types of cancers.
Certain things we do eventually have certain consequences, now or later. Eating bad, having sex with more than one heterosexual partner, gay sex, incest, all of these are considered ‘risky’ behaviors according to the Bible.
By RS
May 26, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this
Lola, your most recent comment, as always, is right on target. I’ve noticed that those who constantly toot their own horn generally have nothing to offer others, be it looks or, MUCH more importantly, inner qualities & are just trying to mask their own insecurity. Too bad it doesn’t work
By Carol J.
May 26, 2005 04:29 PM | Link to this
Netbanker,
The wonderful and life-changing thing about all of these Biblical ‘changes’ is that they all are saying the same thing!
It’s like 50 different eye-witnesses to the same event.
Jesus died for our sins and rose again to bring us new life.
By lozen
May 26, 2005 04:31 PM | Link to this
Boscoe, from the very beginning christianity was rooted both in oral traditions about its founder and in written texts it inherited from judaism. Jesus himself, as a jewish teacher and prophet, discussed, explained, and debated the hebrew scriptures. (I still can’t find where he ever mentioned homosexuality!) By the middle of the first century C.E. many christians considered the words of jesus to be as authoritative as the words of scripture found in the Hebrew bible. (And some did not.) Two kinds of christian authority had begun to emerge: traditions about jesus, and writings by his apostles. Around the middle of the second century, forceful and charismatic christians came forward, advocating beliefs and practices that were totally unacceptable to other christians, so battle lines were drawn with each side claiming to represent the authentic christian tradition passed down from jesus himself to the disciples. In the debates that sprang from this, christians of various stripe put forth their own “authoritative” texts. The side that won the debate decided the contours of the canon that was to be passed down to christian posterity. Still, the arguments about which books should be considered scripture did not end for centuries. Around 200 C.E., some christians saw Paul as the only final authority for faith and practice, while others saw him as an arch-heretic and enemy of god. It was not until 367 C.E. that any christian author listed the twenty-seven books of what we know as the N.T. and only these books as the christian scriptures. The author was Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria who penned his list precisely because so many people disagreed. The NT is a historical construct, not a “given”. And it is not fully representative of the views and writings of the early christians. Numerous texts produced during christianity’s first hundred years did not even survive. Biblical scholars know that the twenty-seven books of the nt were produced by at least 17 different authors living in different countries.
By Jack
May 26, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this
You’re right on Lola.(as usual, dang it!) Pearl does sound like she has confidence. Nothing wrong with that. You can have confidence in your looks as well as your mind.
By Carol J.
May 26, 2005 04:42 PM | Link to this
IOZEN you said: “(I still can’t find where he ever mentioned homosexuality!)”.
Jesus said that a man will leave his mother and a woman her home to become one flesh. There’s only one kind of relationship where that is possible: One man, and one woman.
Just stick to the basics of Scripture to find the Truth, i.e., “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son….”.
By Kris
May 26, 2005 04:44 PM | Link to this
This FDA ban is totally discriminatory. My partner and I have been together for three years and we were married in our church here in Atlanta and by the State of Massachusetts last year. We are both STD free, we have only been intimate with each other since we met and we intend on keeping it that way until the day we die.
This ban is based completly on an unfair stereotype. This country is full of gay families just like mine. Gay men do not all participate in risky sexual behavior. When I was single, I dated just like any other normal American person. In fact, I can count on one hand how many people I’ve been intimate with in my life. For the love of god, can everyone please have some compassion and understand that being gay is not a choice and stop punishing us for being the people god made us to be.
By Netbanker
May 26, 2005 04:49 PM | Link to this
Carol…can you point out specific examples of the discrimination? How many christians are being fired from their jobs, denied public accomodations such as hotel rooms or service in restaurants, denied credit, are being physically attacked. What exactly is the evidence of discrimination and persecution of Christians that I keep hearing about? I just don’t see it.
Eaton…here’s the other interesting thing about Leviticus. Even if one spots Boscoe on the shrimp argument I don’t much hear any christians attempting to enforce or follow the other rules in there. Chapter 5 talks about animal sacrifice for sin offerings and where the blood shall be spread upon the alter. Now when exactly was the last time anyone brought a live animal to church to be killed in order to say one is sorry for sinning? One either takes ALL of Leviticus or NONE otherwise one is being dishonest. And we know that is as likely to happen as seeing a church group picketing Red Lobster with signs telling patrons they’re going to hell because it says so in Leviticus
By Jack
May 26, 2005 04:52 PM | Link to this
The ban is really bogus. Think about it, if one were to lie about their sexual preferences and number of partners, what are they going to do? perform a polygraph on everyone?
By lozen
May 26, 2005 04:53 PM | Link to this
Randy’s argument: It’s true, it’s true, it’s true. I say it’s true, therefore it’s true.
Carol, beef which they were given permission to eat, causes much more cancer than pork and shellfish!
Boscoe’s argument: I read this in a book my priest recommended. The book supports everything my priest told me. Therefore, it’s true.
By Eaton
May 26, 2005 04:56 PM | Link to this
Carol J., there are more things on heaven and earth that have been proven to cause cancer than are dreamt of in your Leviticus. Ya’d think if God was REALLY revealing his infinite wisdom, he would have made his prohibited list more inclusive.
As for sex with more than one heterosexual partner…how many man in the Bible had multiple wives? Or how many people had what would be considered incest by today’s standards?
Net - thanks for that list!
Randy - has anyone ever told you that one of the most irritating things about fundamentalists is that they not only assume they are right about everything but they condescend to anyone who hasn’t “seen the light”? Thanks, but I don’t need your help to “prepare for eternity”.
By lozen
May 26, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this
Yeah that’s right, David, god’s favorite had how many wives he became one flesh with? I remember Solomon had 300 concubines! And who was it who sent his wife to bed with Pharoah to get some favors/land?
By Eaton
May 26, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this
Carol, do you know what a stretch is? If not, you’ve hit it with your attempt to suggest that the “leave his mother” line was some oblique condemnation of homosexuality. By your logic, Jesus would be speaking out against bachelors too.
By Netbanker
May 26, 2005 05:02 PM | Link to this
But Carol isn’t that a case of Jesus saying do as I say, not as I do? He hung out with 12 men in his 30’s and there is no evidence he ever married. Also that statement doesn’t mention homosexuals at all. Lastly the term homosexual wasn’t even coined until the 1820’s, it is a German word, and the concept of homosexuals today did not exist prior to then.
As a multi-lingual person, I can say with all authority that there are phrases in languages that are very much impossible to translate and others that may be able to be translated, but that make no sense without a culture reference point, and finally that English is one of the most imprecise languages. We have single words to describe what other languages have multiple words to describe.
Just to pull this out one more time.
“…it is also the nature of religious debates that they are impervious to rational argument.â€?
By Carol J.
May 26, 2005 05:03 PM | Link to this
Netbanker,
Jesus sacrficed Himself…no need to do the animal thing anymore.
And discrimination?
Maybe not the drastic attacks you mentioned, but the subtle and not so subtle attitudes that Diane Glass has that could one day be law.
Born-again Christians are assumed to be hate-mongers, therefore they may one day be jailed for speaking out about their beliefs. That is happening right now in many countries around the world as we speak. It doesn’t happen overnight. It takes time, like it did with the Jews, where they were criminalized by the media, then it progressed into outward hostility, and then laws.
By TAIWANA
May 26, 2005 05:06 PM | Link to this
I think all sperm should be tested. I also feel that Homosexuals should’t be able to donate due to the fact that it has not been decide if Homosexuality is genetic or choice. Also, I don’t think that Lesbians should be able to purchase sperm because you are bringing a child into a difficult and confusing situation. Homosexuality is a sin (per the bible in any religion that you are apart of) and to add a child to that mix is just cruel and unusual punishment for that child even if they are getting the same love and affection from a heterosexual couple due to the treatment of outsiders.
By Pearl
May 26, 2005 05:10 PM | Link to this
Lola, I deal with catty, jealous women like you all day long. So nothing you say suprises me. I did not say you have to be of mixed ancestry to be beautiful. I just mean i have very distinctive features. My dad is from India and mom is from Brazil. Why is it that others always confuse having confidence with being concieted or arrogant. I am noone of those things.
By Brian Curtis
May 27, 2005 07:48 AM | Link to this
Taiwana: Homosexuality is not a sin in “any religion that you are a part of.” It’s a problem for Christians only, and not even all sects of Christianity.
And if the treatment of outsiders is a problem, shouldn’t we fix our society, rather than forbidding gays from having or raising kids? (Or, as most fundamentalists secretly want, hoping that gays somehow “die out”?)
By Carol J.
May 27, 2005 08:14 AM | Link to this
Brian,
Please don’t tell me what I secretly want.
My brother, who was gay, just recently passed away and I loved him.
Many of us have relatives and friends who are gay.
By Lola
May 27, 2005 08:24 AM | Link to this
First, let me apologize for my catty remarks yesterday regarding Pearl. That is not my usual character and I let the stress of my day affect my attitude to her on the blog, and that was wrong.
Okay, with that off my chest, I’m ready to take on whatever our topics are today! I’ve got a feeling there will be a skeleton crew on the blog today, since many of us (not me) got to start the long weekend early.
Happy Friday, everyone! What’s our topic today?
By RS
May 27, 2005 09:05 AM | Link to this
Lola, I don’t see where you were being catty at all. Like me, you are offended by arrogant people who think they’re superior to the rest of us. There is a big difference between self-confidence (healthy) & conceit (unhealthy.) In my opinion, you had NOTHING to apologize for, hon. Taiwanna, it’s these outsiders who are being cruel by mistreating people who they hate just for being different. Taking an unwanted child into one’s home & giving that child love is anything BUT cruel.
By Lola
May 27, 2005 09:55 AM | Link to this
Thanks, RS. I had mixed feelings about it, honestly. I just resented someone coming on here proclaiming how attractive she was and asking for pity because she’s judged only by her looks. I say WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD! We’re all judged by our looks, whether it’s fair or not. Whatever. I’m just going to decline to engage in convo about it.
Taiwanna - I have never heard anything but stories of unconditional love and support from children raised by a gay couple, and to this day, I still have never ever heard a single abuse claim involving a gay couple and their child. How can it be cruel and unusual punishment to place a child into a home where they have two loving parents in a committed relationship? Even if it is two men or two women, there is usually a role of “mother” and “father” assumed by either or both parents, so they are getting the benefit of a two-parent home. There are thousdands of kids who would love to have that, no matter what the sexuality of the parents is. If the gay men on this blog are any indication of the kind of caring and genuine characters typically found in gay men, I would count any child lucky to be adopted and raised by such sincerely kind people.
I’m a Christian, and I can’t possibly see how God would frown upon giving a child a loving home with two people in a stable, committed relationship. That just can’t be wrong.
By Lola
May 27, 2005 09:58 AM | Link to this
Carol J - I am so sorry for the loss of your brother. The love you felt for him is crystal clear from the tone of your posting and your grief is evident. You’re in my thoughts.
By lozen
May 27, 2005 10:02 AM | Link to this
I really don’t care what ignorant bigots think or believe. The two lesbian mothers in my neighborhood are much better parents than many straight women I’ve known. Their children are lucky to have them. I don’t care what your book of mythology and folk tales says about homosexuals either. It just simply is not relevant or important in 2005. All human beings deserve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in this country. So live in your tiny world, hate people you don’t know if you need someone to hate. But stop expecting educated, intelligent, open minded people to live by your superstitious religious beliefs or your “moral” rules and regulations. It just ain’t gonna happen.
By Sandy/Sanhan
May 27, 2005 10:04 AM | Link to this
If God really thinks homosexuality is the abomination that many believers insist it is, why wouldn’t He have included in the Top Ten Commandments handed to Moses? Instead it has received second billing in Leviticus along with poly-cotton blends…
If one turns the logic that many fundamental Christians, i.e. those who teach and perpetrate intolerance of other faiths/philosophies, etc., upon itself, perhaps they deserve the criticism they are receiving. Sure, everyone wants all the benefits of belonging to the “club,” but no one wants to shoulder any of the responsiblity for its sins. Judge not, lest ye be judged.
Carol is correct when she stated, “Certain things we do eventually have certain consequences, now or later.” Just be sure that intolerance and pride, sitting in judgement, marginalizing other people and groups, never questioning how your faith may hurt others, insistence that only those who are saved by a narrow definition are moral and thus correct in having their religious laws thrust upon others through the formerly secular courts, and disparaging others’ attempts at religious evolution are all included in that definition of “certain things we do.”
If one becomes a Christian for the accolades, good feelings, and salvation, but does not abide by Christ’s teaching of unconditional love, both human and divine, then their conversion is suspect and they open themselves up to the criticism of those they disdain. I’m not so convinced that this is persecution, but more Karma or sowing what your reap. Don’t blame others for your lack of fulfillment. Life is pain; it doesn’t matter if you’re a believer or not. Through unconditional love, we alleviate that pain. It’s almost never easy at first, but always worth doing.
For some of us, not belonging to an organized religion is an act of faith and conscience, particularly when we recognize the hurt and division they have caused, purposefully or not. We are still capable of unconditional love, but just prefer the quest without being tripped up by the intolerance and in-fighting that inevitably ensues with strict interpretation or misguided modification, and corruption of absolutely power. Lets leave judgement to God. Personally, I think we’ll find God to be more merciful than we can possibly imagine.
David Brooks, a conservative columnist for the NY Times had a great column yesterday about how “liberals and evangelical Christians can work together to fight poverty at home and abroad.” If he can embrace this as a Jew, I think I can embrace it as a liberalish Democrat. If the goals exclude religious conversion, a great deal can be done to alleviate suffering.
While I am not a conservative, I have increasing respect for Brooks’ opinions and ideals, as well as his recoginition that the political disparity in the country is feeding our egos, but starving the nation.
Reading the blog this week, I am amazed at the gamut of responses; perhaps life really is all about checks and balances, yin and yang, positives and negatives, etc.
Namaste. Have a safe weekend.
By lozen
May 27, 2005 10:16 AM | Link to this
CarolJ, your experience on this forum would have been drastically different if your first post had been, “I just lost my brother who was gay and I loved him very much” instead of the self-righteous preaching. Jimmy Carter is one of my favorite people in the world and he’s a born-again christian. But he’s educated, traveled, and open minded; he is a loving man and he doesn’t go around all the time judging and criticizing and playing the self-righteous card. He’s doing what he can to help people in this world instead of worrying about homosexuals! He has his religious beliefs but he doesn’t try to force that on others or preach to muslims that they’re going to hell because they don’t believe what he believes. I’m sorry you lost your brother.
By lozen
May 27, 2005 10:27 AM | Link to this
Dear Sandy - Bless you! As usual your comments are wise and powerful and give us something to take to our hearts and aspire to. I really wish you would contribute more to this forum. Namaste.
By Brian Curtis
May 27, 2005 10:29 AM | Link to this
Carol J: The comment about hating gays was directed at fundamentalists, not real Christians. Are you a fundamentalist? If not, then there’s no reason for you to take offense.
Of course, if you ARE a fundie, I certainly hope I did offend you and that I continue to do so. Fundies are dangerously irrational fools who deserve neither tolerance nor respect. And, as a non-Christian, I’m under no obligation to pretend to love them.
By Boscoe
May 27, 2005 10:31 AM | Link to this
Boscoe’s argument: I read this in a book my priest recommended. The book supports everything my priest told me. Therefore, it’s true. Lozen, time and time again you only prove how much of an A$$ you can be. You know full well I have NEVER responded to a post in this manner. It is this prevailing attitude and the minimalist approach to Biblical text such as Leviticus, as seen here, which supports the argument by those to whom religion is anathema “* I don’t agree with it therefore it cannot be true”* which HAS been used again and again. The mentality is clear, the use of religious texts against religion without the slightest knowledge of what the purpose of the text is. Good luck folks, with the applied reason and logic you used you can justify anything and you evidently have it all sorted out. When the sh*t hits the fan I hope it works out for you. Being Christian in our times, one should actually be grateful to God they believe in His word. That He allows there to be so many unbelievers for if their eyes were opened, they would not be capable, in this world of ours, of bearing the burden of faith with all its moral obligations. Those who cannot meet these obligations are concerned with how my faith hurts others. Perhaps they should be more concerned about how their crass denial of faith hurts others. Do not be deceived by the voices that cry ‘love! love!’ when they know not the meaning of love. You cry love and at the same time slaughter the children. You cry love and at the same time all manner of vileness is being permitted in the name of love The love being created by mankind is a love based on humanism and modernism it is wrapped in your love of human nature.
By Brian Curtis
May 27, 2005 10:35 AM | Link to this
Yeah, isn’t it awful how we use the brains God gave us to think for ourselves? That oughta be a sin right between eating shellfish and wearing cotton/poly blends.
By Netbanker
May 27, 2005 10:35 AM | Link to this
T…I think your position is out of whack with message of religion to love one another, do unto others, reaching out to those on the fringes of society. A child should be denied a loving home because other people view the parents poorly?
I think the problem comes down to this country’s obession with sex and especially other people’s sex lives. When it comes to gay people their individual merits and character are completely overlooked because everyone focuses on what they may or may not be doing in the privacy of their own bedroom.
Carol…the animal sacrifice was only one example of ‘rules’ in Leviticus. What about stoning adulterers to death or selling children into slavery, etc? My point was that Leviticus continues to be quoted as naming homosexuality a sin yet the rules no longer apply. Why is it that ONE thing from this OT book is still considered a sin/abomination, but none of the others are?
People like Diane are telling the religious that they can and should have the right to believe what they choose, but that those beliefs should not be imposed on others. Those Christians complaining about discrimination (over abortion or 10 Commandments, Prayer in School) don’t seem to grasp that what they are being told is that while Christianity has been the dominant faith in this country it does not have the right to trump other belief systems. The ‘Liberal’ position is one that always offers the choice to believe or not, but not at the expense of another’s belief. Somehow being told that Christianity isn’t allowed to bully the others has suddenly become discrimination or persecution.
By Brian Curtis
May 27, 2005 10:39 AM | Link to this
Netbanker: Well said; that’s exactly the problem.
Hardcore Religious-Reich types insist that anything less than full governmental support and endorsement of their faith, in every public arena, using public funds, constitutes “oppression” on a level not seen since the faithful were slaves under Pharaoh.
“Freedom of worship” does not mean “co-optation of governmental resources to promote and endorse your faith and discriminate against other beliefs,” no matter how hard the zealots try to pretend otherwise.
By Boscoe
May 27, 2005 10:43 AM | Link to this
Brian, nobody denied you have brains. You just don’t have a conscience. Your intellect justifies whatever you want. So did Hitler’s. Nobody said he was stupid.
By Netbanker
May 27, 2005 10:48 AM | Link to this
The great thing about being a fundamentalist is that the basis for ALL arguments becomes FAITH. One can not argue faith due to it’s inherent nature. One never has to be wrong.
One can can fling statements like “The mentality is clear, the use of religious texts against religion without the slightest knowledge of what the purpose of the text is” while at the same time using the same religious texts as the basis of one’s own position. It’s PERFECT! People not of your faith are not allowed to use your religious texts to argue a point while you get unlimited use of the religious text for the basis of your position. You’ve created as win-win situation for yourself and a lose-lose for the other side.
By Eaton
May 27, 2005 10:53 AM | Link to this
I would like to point out that Boscoes “Love, love” line is directly attributable to a woman who claims to have received that line from Jesus in a series of prophecies. If this doesn’t tell us what kind of a person we are dealing with, I don’t know what will.
I also have yet to hear a reasonable explanation for why when Fundies discount everything in Leviticus except for the homosexuality thing it’s OK, but when non-fundies point to it as yet another example of inconsistency by the Bible literalists, it’s a “minimalist interpretation”.
Boscoe, the only a* here is you, and you’re a pompous one at that.
By Eaton
May 27, 2005 11:00 AM | Link to this
I usually don’t like Neal Boortz, or however you spell his name, but I happened to turn on the radio when he was talking and he was raking this guy over the coals for suggesting that someone who wasn’t religious couldn’t be morale.
I think that Boscoe’s accusation that Brian doesn’t have a conscience is…well, unconscionable. Obviously, he thinks he has a lock on what is right. Is there any wonder that I have such a hard time tolerating people like him? He would walk by a dying man and refuse to help him if he didn’t agree to sign his declaration of faith.
By Susan
May 27, 2005 11:08 AM | Link to this
This Boscoe guy is great!!! Does he win every argument? Looks like it to me.
By Boscoe
May 27, 2005 11:11 AM | Link to this
Netbanker the point is those that support homosexuality continuously quote this particular chapter out of context. it is under constant attack that one may not engage in homosexuality thus one may not eat shellfish because the text says so. That is a desperate comparison. That’s not what the text is telling you as I have already explained why that is. If someone is going to use a certain text to argue a point they should at least use the text in the context of what it was written. Why then would I argue faith with someone like you? You don’t have any, I doubt you understand the concept.
By Carol J.
May 27, 2005 11:13 AM | Link to this
Brian,
You admit that you DO hate someone.
Hmm.
A fundamentalist is someone who believes in the fundamentals of his faith.
By that definintion, yes I am.
By Carol J.
May 27, 2005 11:21 AM | Link to this
Sandy,
If you’ll check up on this OT word: ‘Adultery’ covers fornication, which covers any sex outside of marriage.
By Lola
May 27, 2005 11:21 AM | Link to this
The hardest thing about tolerance sometimes is tolerating those who are intolerant of you. There are those who will never, ever accept the “live and let live” stance in their lives, and are only happy when they can make everyone else believe the same things they do. This is how I see the Muslim religion and their “kill the infidels” mentality. Why can’t we both just agree to believe different things? The same thing goes for fundamentalist Christians. Why can’t you be firm in your own faith without labeling everyone who disagrees with you as a “sinner” or as being “damned”? And for those of you who don’t believe in God or are intolerant of the fundamentalists, why can’t you just let them live in their world of black and white/all or nothing religious beliefs and accept that they won’t ever change, that that’s just who they are? It makes it difficult when you are forever hearing that you’re wrong if you don’t believe or that you are somehow less of a person for not believing, but if you know who you are and are comfortable with the life you have chosen, it shouldn’t matter what anyone else says to you about it. I just really wish everyone could co-exist without the intolerance that is found on every single side of the issue. Nobody is ever going to change someone else’s mind about religion. That either comes from within or it doesn’t come.
By Mary
May 27, 2005 11:23 AM | Link to this
Lola, “The love you felt for him is crystal clear from the tone of your posting and your grief is evident.”
You were being sarcastic when you wrote this, right? This woman didn’t care about her brother and is most likely happy he is dead. She was probably first in line when the reading of the will happened, hoping he left her a dollar. If her brother had a Partner and he left his Partner anything, Carol J was probably ready to find a way to take it from him.
I will never figure out a lot of straight people. They don’t want us to have anything to do with adoption or having our own children but are always standing there with there hand out wanting a buck from us for their own family.
By Brian Curtis
May 27, 2005 11:23 AM | Link to this
Carol J: When did I claim otherwise? Of course I hate some people. I hate murderers, liars, rapists, and fundamentalists. I hate terrorists and animal abusers. I hate zealots who fly planes into buildings, and zealots who try to force other people’s kids to pray to their god.
Fundamentalism is one of the great evils that threatens our civilization; naturally I hate it. I’m curious why that counts as an “admission” to you; fundies have to hate a whole LOT of people by definition… including those who’ve done nothing wrong and never hurt or threatened them in any way.
By Sandy/Sanhan
May 27, 2005 11:25 AM | Link to this
Boscoe, the s** is hitting the fan. And people suffer for it everday, while bearing the burdens of of faith and all its moral obligations as you eloquently state, but your desperation to have everyone do it your way betrays your ego, and ultimately your lack of joy in your faith. My denial of your organized religion is not crass, but well thought out over time, and even painful for me at times. You accuse me (fairly directly, I think) of not knowing love, and of slaughtering the children, while your religious leader would watch them starve to death and insist that they be brought into a world that cannot or will not sustain them. Given this ugly context, perhaps slaughter is more merciful.
Let me make this clear. I do not deny you.
Is not love inspired by God? Indeed some of us believe that God is love; humanism and modernism are our legacy—not the only one, but a legacy nonetheless, one from which a great deal can be learned. As for knowing the meaning of love, admittedly, I’m a work in progress, as is all of creation. Part of the joy of living (do you even know what that is? I could never find in the texts you site) is that each individual can find his or her way to God, the collective soul, in his or her own way. You insist your way is right and wish to exclude me, but I insist your way is right, and my way includes you. I assume you find satisfaction in digging deeper into your texts and intellectual pursuits; I find satisfaction in observing what is revealed to me by God, humanity, and intuition. I’d say that between us, a bigger, better vision is likely.
“Love is the religion, the Universe is the book.” (Sufi proverb).
By RS
May 27, 2005 11:27 AM | Link to this
Carol, I’m so very sorry about your brother; please know I grieve with you. But think how he’d have felt viewing some of the vitriolic, anti-homosexual spewings on this blog. Boscoe, Brian clearly shows a conscience, as well as compassion & common sense, several traits that, sadly, elude you when you get on your soapbox. And Lozen is anything BUT an a. Oh, that’s right! Despite the fact that she’s a decent, caring intelligent individual, she’s an a because she doesn’t subscribe to the same pack of fairy tales that you do. Silly me…
By Carol J.
May 27, 2005 11:29 AM | Link to this
Netbanker,
About stoning adulterers to death: Jesus covered that one too when he told the woman to ‘go and sin no more’, yet he didn’t lift up a stone to stone her.
This is proof that you can call something sin and still offer unconditional love and hope for change to someone.
By Carol J.
May 27, 2005 11:33 AM | Link to this
Iozen,
Thank you for your kind thoughts.
I have a great deal of respect for Jimmy Carter, as do most people of all faiths that I know.
If you pinned Jimmy down away from the media, you would find out that he does believe in absolute Truth, however.
He is able to show love while maintaining his own personal beliefs, black and white as they are.
By lozen
May 27, 2005 11:37 AM | Link to this
thank you boscoe. when someone like you calls me an a** I always take it as an extreme compliment. I hope someday you will be able to open your mind and that something will crack open your hard heart. If you truly had faith you wouldn’t need to cling so desperately to a 2000 year old book and church and try to prove your moral superiority by telling us how you “bear the burden of faith with all its moral obligations.” Your level of consciousness is fascinating to hear on this forum because I don’t personally know anyone who is trying so hard to live in the dark ages. You are pompous and self-righteous and a model of what I would never want to be.
By Carol J.
May 27, 2005 11:39 AM | Link to this
Mary,
That’s quite judgmental. You are making many assumptions about me and my family that are ludricrous.
God bless you anyway.
By Boscoe
May 27, 2005 11:40 AM | Link to this
Eaton, what kind of person does it say I am? There have been several apparitions of this kind throughout the century. Some have been proven false others have received the full support of believers and skeptics alike. There have been actual medically proven physical cures from some of the well known places such as Fatima. It’s not a dogma of the Church that one has to believe in these but some have been given the approval to do so, it’s up to the individual. I’m willing to bet the one you mentioned (You didn’t say the name of which one it is) echoes what the sentiments of the Church are. Does that make my point any less valid? If the conscience assists one in determining right and wrong I would say that one’s conscience is flawed if, on one hand, they argue that children should be taken care of by anybody who loves them regardless of their nature, as long as they love them, but then on the other hand supports the slaughter of the unborn because those children will just wind up with miserable existences anyway. Evidently only select children need be loved rather than all. I thought it was about the love? Clearly not. Child molesters in many cases think they love children also don’t they? Is that OK because they “LOVE” them?
By Netbanker
May 27, 2005 11:47 AM | Link to this
Of course Boscoe always wins (in his mind) because one CAN NOT argue faith. It is the impervious shield that allows him to tell me that because I do not support his brand of religion or faith that “You don’t have any, I doubt you understand the concept.”
Faith enables him dismiss any counter argument that he chooses because the other person doesn’t understand the context while not demanding that he explain why some passages apply and others do not even though they are from the same Chapter of the same Book. Where is the rule that says abominations shall remain in place, but perversions or detestable things don’t apply any more?
Y’all need to check out http://www.bettybowers.com/bibleinterpretation.html
By Lola
May 27, 2005 11:50 AM | Link to this
Actually, Mary, I was 100% sincere when I said that Carol J had love for her brother. It’s possible to have conflicting beliefs and still care deeply for someone who doesn’t go along with your beliefs, and I could tell from her posting that she was feeling a deep sense of loss about her brother’s death, regardless of his sexuality. I would guess that there were great feelings of conflict in Carol J because of her religious beliefs and her brother’s lifestyle, but there was no doubt (in my mind) that she did love him.
My sister and I are the most different people in the world, with really very little in common, other than our bloodline. But we are still able to look past the VAST differences we have in our beliefs, politics, lifestyle, everything really, and find common ground in our love for eachother, and respect for eachother’s chosen paths. It is possible to look past the superficial and get to the core of a person, which is truly where (in my opinion) we should judge each and every person. Who cares if someone is gay if they are a wonderful human being and genuinely cares about others? I would call that person a friend before someone straight who is shallow, self-righteous and harshly judges anyone who has a differing opinon than theirs. Again, I am a very devout Christian with a very strong and true faith in God and Jesus. But that is my own faith and it makes no difference to me whether or not that belief and faith is shared by everyone else or no one else.
What I’m saying is that I know it is very likely that Carol J loved her brother deeply, no matter what her faith or beliefs said was right or wrong about his lifestyle. Sometimes love for someone can exist in spite of those differences, and that’s the feeling I got from her post.
By Carol J.
May 27, 2005 11:51 AM | Link to this
Iozen & Lola;
Thanks for the kind words about the loss of my brother.
I almost started crying again here at work, which I haven’t done in a few weeks.
By Dave
May 27, 2005 11:56 AM | Link to this
I think I would rather see a child in a gay home only if there are no other alternatives. No child should languish in an orphanage. But what if the child walks in on his gay parents, and they are engaging in anal sex. How are they going to explain to the child, esspecially, if its a little boy what they are doing? A child witnessing such sexual acts is doomed to have sexual and emotional problems, not to mention being an outcast among his peers. Do you really think that is fair to a child? What are your honest opinions?
By Boscoe
May 27, 2005 11:59 AM | Link to this
but your desperation to have everyone do it your way betrays your ego, and ultimately your lack of joy in your faith. Sandy you’re reaching here. This is not an ego driven stance. I do not condemn homosexuals themselves, or points of religion separated from my own. But I will not let the dogmas of my Faith get trampled upon, by those who have no use for it. Which I would hope implies that it brings me joy otherwise I wouldn’t defend it so staunchly. What you’re saying then Sandy is that since they can go another way in good conscience, they can reach salvation. The idea of an erroneous conscience given by God Himself in order to save men by means of such artfulness - the idea, so to speak, of a blindness sent by God for the salvation of those in question. Being happy would mean not being burdened with having to believe or having to submit to the moral yoke of the faith of the Catholic church. The erroneous conscience, which makes life easier and marks a more human course, would then be a real grace, the normal way to salvation. Untruth, keeping truth at bay, would be better for man than truth. It would not be the truth that would set him free, but rather he would have to be freed from the truth. I think the good pope Benedict XVI points out the fatal flaw of that logic. Thanks Lozen, I hope the same for you. Thanks Susan ;)
By Netbanker
May 27, 2005 12:01 PM | Link to this
Carol…that doesn’t address my question of why does the homosexual sin from Leviticus still apply for most believers, but all the other ‘rules’ don’t?
Boscoe…is it your judgment that the nature of a homosexual makes them incapable of providing a good home to a child? Specifically what in that ‘nature’ is the problem in your opinion that would keep them from providing a good home?
By RS
May 27, 2005 12:06 PM | Link to this
Dave, what if a child walks in on his hetero parents playing with whips & chains? In any case, if you have anyone living in your home, kids OR adults, it is common sense to lock your door when engaging in any intimate acts. Mary, I immediately picked up that Lola was expressing very sincere condolences to Carol..I’ve “known” Lola for a little while now, via this blog, & compassion is typical of her. I’m wondering if you ever received any flak from your family for being gay; I hope not, as that is despicable. My sister-in-law is a lesbian & her parents make no bones about the fact that they’re disappointed in what they ignorantly refer to as her “chosen lifestyle”. That sort of mentality saddens & disgusts me to no end.
By Lola
May 27, 2005 12:07 PM | Link to this
David - I walked in on my parents having sex when I was 8 years old, and believe me, seeing anal sex rather than v**** sex wouldn’t have horrified me any more than I already was. I’m still trying to wipe that image out of my head. If there were a way to gouge out my mind’s eye, I would have done so. But even so, I didn’t grow up with emotional and sexual problems from seeing that.
My point is that there are locks on doors, so your scenario is hardly one of realistic consideration. And any child raised in a home with gay parents is going to see those two people the same way as a child with a male and female parents, so seeing them be affectionate with eachother would be the same as with a hetero couple: A natural and wonderful thing. And personally speaking, I always got grossed out when my parents got affectionate. Now, after seeing them married for 44 years, I find it adorable, but as a child it was icky.
By Boscoe
May 27, 2005 12:08 PM | Link to this
You accuse me (fairly directly, I think) of not knowing love, and of slaughtering the children, while your religious leader would watch them starve to death and insist that they be brought into a world that cannot or will not sustain them. Sandy are you 100% certain the world cannot sustain them? Based on that you are willing to kill? I’d say you don’t have any idea of love.
By Mary
May 27, 2005 12:08 PM | Link to this
Dave you are an idiot! What if the kids walks in on his straight parents and catches them doing anal sex or any other sex? What if he catches his mommy giving daddy a blow job?
You would say the same thing to the child of straight parents that you would of same sex parents. Your parents love each other and sometimes they express that physically.
By RS
May 27, 2005 12:11 PM | Link to this
Give up, Netbanker; don’t continue to frustrate yourself. Boscoe’s only answers as to what makes a homosexual incapable of providing a good home to a child are his usual nonsensical spoutings: It’s against the Bible (backed up by a lot of cutting-and-pasting, the bosom buddy of those incapable of independent thought), “the majority are against it” (SHEEPLE!!), “it’s not normal” (45 yers ago, it wan’t “normal” for black & white customers to sit together at lunch counters either) & “it’s a sin”, however he will be unable to locate valid proof as to WHY it’s a sin & WHY children in a loving, gay home are at any risk.
By Eaton
May 27, 2005 12:13 PM | Link to this
Well Boscoe, since a quick Google of your obviously plagarized lines resulted in multiple hits for the same person, I didn’t feel the need to point out the name. As for what kind of person you are, it says that you are irrational, credulous and superstitious. Two hundred years ago, the ravings of a delusional woman might have been given credence, but today we know that it’s called schizophrenia.
By RS
May 27, 2005 12:16 PM | Link to this
Boscoe, you anti-abortion fundies define being pro-life as maintaining that people should have rights from conception until birth and not beyond that. Based on that, I’d say Sandy (& Lozen, Lyrazel, Whiley, myself, Brian, Tim, Netbanker, Eaton, Lola, etc) are the ones who are REALLY pro-life. Until it’s born, it’s not “life”; it’s just part of the host body, like a fingernail.
By Lola
May 27, 2005 12:25 PM | Link to this
Thanks, RS. You read my post exactly as I meant it to be: sincere.
By Eaton
May 27, 2005 12:25 PM | Link to this
I’m pretty sure that the world is not sustaining them now, Boscoe. I’m pretty sure that unreasoning, blindly dogmatic insistence of your incredibly rigid, dogmatic “Holy” Father that Catholics reproduce unceasingly, regardless of their financial, emotional, or medical well-being is one of the great crimes of the century.
That a man who wields such authority over his fiathful uses that authority to increase poverty, perpetuate the idea that a woman is no more than a baby-factory, continue the balooning of populations in parts of the world ill-equipped to deal with such expansions, and increase the mortality rate of pregnant mothers back to its medieval proportions sickens me. That he would do continue to condemn the use of birth control in the face of an OVERWHELMING HIV epidemic is almost beyond understanding.
I see very little of love in you, Boscoe. I don’t think you have the capacity for it.
No one is trampling on your dogma. Your dogma is doing a very good job of burying itself.
By Carol J.
May 27, 2005 12:32 PM | Link to this
Ntebanker,
I’m no Bible Scholar by any stretch, but I have heard that there at least 2 types of Laws in the OT:
1)Ceremonial & 2)Civil
The Old Testament Ten Commandments still stand.
Ceremonial laws such as how you wash hands before eating, and other such things are no longer needed.
There is a 3rd (maybe RealScott or someone can help with this?), but I don’t want to butcher it.
Jesus did away with the need to offer sacrfices daily for sins as He is the final sacrifice once and for all now.
By Boscoe
May 27, 2005 12:34 PM | Link to this
Actually RS these studies do make sense. Children of gay couples are more likely to be confused about their own sexual identity, more likely to engage in homosexual relationships, and more likely to be promiscuous, according to an April 2001 report in American Sociological Review. Some argue that children find as much stability in homosexual households as anywhere else. But researchers Saghir and Robins, in Male and Female Homosexuality, found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts only two to three years. The landmark study Sex in America found an enormous difference in lifetime fidelity rates between heterosexual and homosexual couples â€â€? demonstrating a basic incapacity for faithfulness in homosexual relationships. Domestic violence is higher in homosexual household too. It has now been documented through various studies that children in homosexual households are more likely to experiment sexually and to engage in homosexual behavior than children in heterosexual households. The problem with that is the inherent physical risks that come with that behavior. Studies show that children in heterosexual two-parent homes have long-term advantages emotionally, academically, behaviorally, medically, and even financially. A nationally representative survey of 884 men and 1,288 women published in the Journal of Sex Research found that 77 percent of married men and 88 percent of married women had remained faithful to their marriage vows. While that may not be ideal it is significantly better the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500.” In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners. Published in the Journal of Sex Research,. In another study of male and female homosexuality, which found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having one thousand or more sex partners. - Bell and Weinberg.
By Carol J.
May 27, 2005 12:34 PM | Link to this
RS,
Does your fingernail have the ability to squirm and kick?
By Carol J.
May 27, 2005 12:39 PM | Link to this
RS,
My theory about your sister-in-law is that this lack of love and acceptance from her parents, particularly from her mother, drove her in that direction in the first place.
By Eaton
May 27, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this
Oh look - Boscoe has quoted studies from the sixties and seventies again…
By Carol J.
May 27, 2005 12:44 PM | Link to this
Lola,
Another theory of mine is that since a lot of sexual boundaries have been all but dropped since the 60’s (boys in one room, girls in the other, the ability to shut doors, privacy, porn less accessible, etc.) that this has opened the door for a lot of the sexual trauma as you described.
You were fortunate—I still can’t get some of the things that I have seen over the years out of my minds eye.
By Boscoe
May 27, 2005 12:49 PM | Link to this
Eaton, you’re “pretty sure the world is not sustaining them now”? You justify death to a child because you’re pretty sure? That is rational to you? Catholics reproduce unceasingly, regardless of their financial, emotional, or medical well-being is one of the great crimes of the century. and you call me irrational, credulous and superstitious. The pope is medieval because he sticks to the rules of the Catholic Faith and won’t give in to the calls for the use of birth control? Eaton, don’t be a moron, HIV is a SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE. If you don’t want to get it….DON’T SCREW AROUND! It has nothing to do with the pope and birth control. You said it yourself. The pope’s authority is only over his faithful. He didn’t force them to be faithful and he’s not forcing you to be either. If you don’t want to follow his rules DON’T.
By Boscoe
May 27, 2005 12:53 PM | Link to this
Oh look - Boscoe has quoted studies from the sixties and seventies again… What are you telling me eaton….things are different now? EEEEEEE! Thanks for playing skippy try again another time.
By Carol J.
May 27, 2005 12:57 PM | Link to this
I can remember the first time that I saw a pornographic magazine as a child (in a store, in plain view for all of the children to see—in Massachusetts, no surprise there).
I felt abused devastated at the way women were treated.
I will never forget how I felt: traumatized.
I don’t understand why not the outcry against this degradation of women and children in society.
By Lola
May 27, 2005 01:02 PM | Link to this
I will admit that my views of when exactly life begins in the womb changed dramatically once I became pregnant and experienced it for myself. Seeing her heartbeat on the ultrasound at 7 weeks pregnant was extremely profound for me, and I felt her first kick when I was only 14 weeks along. That said, I still think that there are so many difference circumstances and scenarios in which it may be deemed the only solution, that it isn’t my place to pass judgement on anyone who decides that they want to terminate their pregnancy, which is still a legal procedure. I just wanted to offer the view of someone who had always been very black and white about it, staunchly pro-choice, no matter what the situation, but who now finds herself much more in a gray area on the topic.
By lozen
May 27, 2005 01:06 PM | Link to this
Boscoe, so your Pope isn’t trying to force his opinions on anyone but his followers. Why don’t you follow his example and don’t try to force your opinions on anyone but other Catholics?
By Carol J.
May 27, 2005 01:07 PM | Link to this
Lola,
awesome.
In my case, I would rather err on the side of the child.
By Sandy/Sanhan
May 27, 2005 01:10 PM | Link to this
Boscoe, yes, that’s what I am saying. Through conscience, introsection, and prayer directly to whatever your perception of God is, then yes, you can attain salvation, as it is guaranteed by God.
As for killing, through observation, we are not sustaining unwanted children, and sometimes not sustaining those that are wanted, despite our ability to do so. I believe that we have the capacity and responsibility to sustain as much as we can, but we are thwarted by differences of culture, religion, our own etnocentrism, and lack of understanding. I do what I can on a personal level, as I am sure you do. I believe in birth control and choice. Your pope doesn’t, and uses his authority to prevent people from choosing whether or not to procreate in poverty stricken regions, thus contributing to the problem. If you’re comparing my capicity to kill with that of the pope’s, then you might have an argument. I could even declare my position infallable if you like, but that would be rather presumptuous of me, and I probably wouldn’t be inclined to do so out of conscience.
My becoming a member of organized religion is unlikely to change that, despite my good intentions, prayers, and and wishes that people not suffer from neglect or misguided dogma, religious or political.
As for whether I have any idea of love, that’s a leap of faith, isn’t it, ultimately between the creator and me, and those I touch. Benedict presumes to know some truth, and so do I; mine is concerned with here and now, and the possbilities of what might be. If your joy of faith is as you say, then go and be joyful. Your dogma will survive if it is meant to. The proof is in the celestial pudding.
I am not trying to trample on your faith; I am trying to include folks who have been shut out and shut up. You know, the least of our brothers.
Now, for the love of creation, I must get some work done!
By God
May 27, 2005 01:14 PM | Link to this
Hey you hating christians. I sent my only son down to get your heads out of your butts and this is what you do with my sacrifice? These are the messages you pulled out of my words? You make me ashamed of being your God.
I would send another son (had one in the meantime) but he is gay and would be killed even quicker than my precious jesus was.
By Eaton
May 27, 2005 01:16 PM | Link to this
Boscoe, no one is killing a child by using birth control. And “pretty sure” was a facetious use of language. I realize that you don’t understand facetiousness, so I’m sorry I didn’t use plain language.
HIV is a sexually transmitted disease? Really? Wow. I didn’t know. Are you paying attention to the real world? Men in many of the third world most affected by your archaic standards view extra-marital sex as normal and even requisite to proving their masculinity. They aren’t going to stop just because you think your puritanical WASC views of sex should apply to the rest of the world. Meanwhile, by refusing to encourage and condone the use of condoms more and more women are being born HIV positive because Daddy is screwing around and the Pope says he can’t wear a condom.
This is the REAL world Boscoe, where REAL people are dying by the thousands every day. That’s REAL people, not imagined theoretical people that you pro-lifers get so worked up about. I realize you don’t care about the REAL people, only the little babies that don’t actually exist. Like I said - you have as much compassion and human feeling in you as a rock.
And Boscoe, I’m sure that if you look at MODERN studies you will, indeed, find a different picture. Skippy.
By Lola
May 27, 2005 01:21 PM | Link to this
ROFLMAO at whoever just posted as God!!! That was absolutely HYSTERICAL!!! Thank you for a great laugh. :)
By God
May 27, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this
See, I do have a sence of humor; but Budda told me to do it.
By Boscoe
May 27, 2005 01:42 PM | Link to this
I’m not the pope lozen!* I believe in birth control and choice. Your pope doesn’t, and uses his authority to prevent people from choosing whether or not to procreate in poverty stricken regions, thus contributing to the problem.* Well Sandy, I see you have the Final Solution then. OOPS! Sorry Eaton there I go plagiarizing again. Men in many of the third world most affected by your archaic standards view extra-marital sex as normal and even requisite to proving their masculinity. They aren’t going to stop just because you think your puritanical WASC views of sex should apply to the rest of the world. by refusing to encourage and condone the use of condoms more and more women are being born HIV positive because Daddy is screwing around and the Pope says he can’t wear a condom. Eaton did you think about this before you posted it? To solve this dilemma you suggest the Pope go against hundreds of years of Catholic teaching and allow the use of birth control to save woman from being born HIV positive because these men break another Catholic law that forbids adultery which is why these women are being born HIV positive in the first place? Eaton, explain to me how the Pope is responsible for this mess.
By Hard40
May 27, 2005 01:43 PM | Link to this
Hey, Dave that’s a reasonable question. If a kid walks in and sees his “DADS” pumping each other in their dodo holes i think he would say “DAD why does this room SMELL LIKE S**?” and then run out horrified. Kids should not see sexual acts until they are teens, so they can put it in a better context. And as for our EXOTIC BEAUTY, PEARL, are you single? Brazilian women are HOT !! LOzen can you explain why women are so “catty” and have the hardest time working together? I have never seen a guy jealous of another guys looks.
By Boscoe
May 27, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this
And Boscoe, I’m sure that if you look at MODERN studies you will, indeed, find a different picture. Eaton, show me those studies that some how indicate to you that the nature of homosexuality has changed in the last thirty years. They’re still screwing around as much as they ever have.
By Eaton
May 27, 2005 01:53 PM | Link to this
Well Boscoe, because humans by nature are perverse. And I don’t mean sexually. However illogical it may seem, the FACT is that yes - condom use in third world countries with high Catholic concentrations are low because of the Catholic stance, and yes, extra-marital sexual activity is also high. It may not make sense, but it is FACT.
By Boscoe
May 27, 2005 02:00 PM | Link to this
Eaton, if they are Catholics and follow the Catholic rules they wouldn’t be having affairs and contributing to the HIV problem would they? Changing Catholic rules to fix a problem caused by people who don’t follow the stated rules for Catholics won’t solve the problem. Either you are a Catholic or you’re not. If you’re not, don’t b*** that it’s the Pope’s fault because he doesn’t change the rules to suit your nature.
By Eaton
May 27, 2005 02:00 PM | Link to this
Welcome Back Hard40. I see your parents ungrounded you and let you back on the computer.
By Eaton
May 27, 2005 02:07 PM | Link to this
Boscoe, forget it. You just don’t understand do you…those men having sex and not using birth control ARE CATHOLICS. Do you read anything that isn’t stamped as approved by the Vatican? Do you keep up with the REAL world?
By DeltaX
May 27, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this
Boscoe, Back to basics: Even after one accepts the bible was written by god’s influence:
Who is interpreting the bible for you? - Yourself? Another human?
Why should these people and yourself be thought as right? The reason so many sects exist is because as soon as one man says “this is the only right way” he is alienated from the rest of the group and creates a new sect. These have all been for the gain of power and money as an added note.
You do Christ a dis-service son.
I suggest if you truely want to learn about Christ, you need begin anew with some kind people to help you.
Good luck and God Bless.
By lozen
May 27, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this
Hard40, so you’re not worried about the children of lesbians seeing their mothers caressing each other, bathing each other, washing each others hair, holding hands, taking turns cooking, washing, helping the kids with their homework, caring for the kids, kissing, holding each other? You’re not imagining that? You’re only worried about gay dads and what they do! You picture it in your mind and dwell on it and hate gay men! You know what that proves to me!
By Netbanker
May 27, 2005 02:20 PM | Link to this
DAve…what do you say to a kid who walks in on any parents having sex? In the future you must KNOCK on our door before entering.
Why would that be more damaging than the kids who walks in on the man wearing his wife’s panties while she is spanking him with a hair brush? Or the hetero couple having anal sex? In studies and interviews with teens and early 20 somethings who were raised in gay households they weren’t damaged in any way.
By Boscoe
May 27, 2005 02:21 PM | Link to this
Eaton, read my last post again. Why should the Catholic Church change the rules for those that refuse to follow its rules in the first place? There are multitudes of Catholics that do follow the rules that contribute nothing to social problems of the world. The Catholics you see and the one you’re talking about aren’t acting as proper Catholics. This problem wasn’t created by the Church’s refusal to change the rules, it was created by those who take it upon themselves to do what they want.
By Eaton
May 27, 2005 02:21 PM | Link to this
And now that I think about it, I’ve let myself allow you to sidetrack me with the HIV thing. Let’s talk about the moral and ethical implications of refusing to allow a poverty-stricken family living in a third-world country to use condoms within the confines of marriage. Let’s talk about what kind of person allows and encourages women to bear children beyond the capacity of their ability to care for them and beyond the capacity of their bodies to bear them. Let’s talk about what kind of compassionless human being thinks that it is better to cleave to some arbitrary dogma than to actually take steps to relieve human suffering.
By Eaton
May 27, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this
Why am I arguing with Boscoe? Would someone please smack me to snap me out of my argument cycle? It’s like arguing with a robot.
By Boscoe
May 27, 2005 02:29 PM | Link to this
You do Christ a dis-service son Delta, what do you do that makes your service to Him better than what I do? To by any means am I God’s greatest servant, but I’d like to know what I’m doing wrong if you don’t mind. Perhaps you could help me improve.
By Lola
May 27, 2005 02:31 PM | Link to this
Eaton - WHAP!! Sorry I had to do that, but you needed to snap out of the argument cycle. Hope that helped. :)
By Netbanker
May 27, 2005 02:33 PM | Link to this
That’s IT! Boscoe thinks things are still the same as the 60’s and 70’s. NO wonder we can’t communicate…we’re not even in the same Millenia as he any more.
By Bruce
May 27, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this
Eaton,
My guess would be that even if birth control were allowed by the Catholic Church the folks in the third-world countries you are talking about would buy food before birth control. If my child were hungry the BC pills/condoms, etc. would just have to wait. The basics such as food shelter and clothing would first and foremost. Don’t you think?
By Lola
May 27, 2005 02:36 PM | Link to this
Boscoe - I understand your strict Catholic beliefs and I do respect your faith and level of knowledge about the bible. But seriously, it doesn’t really affect you one way or another if some people choose a different path and have different beliefs than you do, right? I also know that there are many people on here who judge you as harshly as you do them, and I don’t condone it from either side. Sometimes it’s okay to just agree to disagree and move on.
By Lola
May 27, 2005 02:39 PM | Link to this
Bruce - that’s a good point, but there is an irony in choosing food over birth control because you have hungry children. Wouldn’t choosing not to use birth control only produce even more hungry children who need to be fed, thereby exacerbating the problem even further? The answer is that there needs to be some kind of free condom availability to these third-world people, so they aren’t forced to make a choice between food or condoms.
By DeltaX
May 27, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this
Boscoe: I will not enter a you vs me dialog. There is too much heat in these blogs.
I believe that you, as well as everyone else in the world, can take a step backwards and re-evaluate your stance and action on these difficult issues.
If you understand that noone is absolutely ‘right,’ including yourself; only then can we all learn.
With love as your purpose and guide, one can always find resolution.
By Dave
May 27, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this
Hard40, its nice to see someone agrees with me and atleast is totally honest, all the homos on the board were so busy defending their perverse lifestyles they cannot admit that leading an openly gay lifestyle is not compatible with raising a productive, well-adjusted child. I would feel sorry for any child who has to go home to such confusion, and lack of moral structure in their lives. Children like these would be ostracized and constantly have to defend their parents. And as for Stan saying he does not know how straight men have sex with women, he’s being a complete a*****. NEWSFLASH STAN, you would not be alive, to say all the degrading things you say about women, unless your parents had heterosexual sex in the first place. So shout up!!
By Lola
May 27, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this
I’ve got it!!!
Here’s the solution to the third-world overpopulation problems:
We send them all the food they need to survive, and put the birth control meds IN the food, thereby eliminating their need to be responsible for taking/wearing birth control.
That doesn’t solve the HIV problem, but it does substantially put a dent into the number of children born into poverty and condemned to an early death by starvation or disease.
By Boscoe
May 27, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this
That’s what I’m asking Eaton. You didn’t get anywhere with the other argument so you simply change the question. You ask this without any knowledge of the Catholic Faith in regards to this matter, but are as quick as possible to criticize the philosophy and deem the Pope to be a compassionless human because he enforces what you consider to be arbitrary dogma. Destroying a child isn’t arbitrary?
By Lola
May 27, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this
Dave - Stan doesn’t degrade women. He’s simply saying that as a gay man, he can’t relate with being physically attracted to a woman. I haven’t ever heard him say anything derrogatory about us.
By lozen
May 27, 2005 02:52 PM | Link to this
Eaton, I’ve been thinking along the same lines today. Why do I voluntarily expose my mind to people like Boscoe, Hard40 and others? Garbage in, garbage out. I choose where I work and where I live so that I don’t have to deal with people like that. Then I spend far too much time arguing with them on this blog! On the other hand though, I do get to hear the things you, Sandy, Brian, Netbanker, RS, Tim and others have to say too, and that’s good. And it’s good that we all live in a time and place where we can express our thoughts without fear. May it always be so.
By Boscoe
May 27, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this
Time out Delta! Don’t tell me I do Christ a disservice then say we all need to step back and reevaluate my stance. Show me how I do Christ a disservice. If you can’t I don’t feel I need to step back. I am convinced that homosexuality is personally and socially destructive. I am convinced the Bible is clear on that subject, and that an analysis of homosexuality will corroborate that homosexuality is not what God intended for individuals or society. I said this before in an earlier post and it still stands.
By Bruce
May 27, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this
Lola,
Maybe the children came because the man and woman were concerned with providing the basics for themselves and the first child was born, hence more was needed for the basics, so on and so forth. It is called survival. We cannot understand this because we have never lived in these conditions. When is the last time any of us went to bed hungry EVERY night. Or watched our spouse starve becuse you had to buy birth control instead of food? What choice would you make? Think about it Lola, what if every penny you make today was spent, before you got home, on food, shelter and clothing. Which of these would you foresake to get your Bith Control?
By Hard40
May 27, 2005 02:59 PM | Link to this
LOZEN, I don’t care if you think i am deeply closeted homo, I have nothng to hide. I don’t complain about lesbians because they are harmless, they don’t use their bodies as vehicles to spread deadly diseases, nor do they have casul wanton sex with total strangers. Lesbians, are more likely to be monogamous, TOTALLY UNLIKE GAY MEN, Homos constantly thirst for sex. All lesbians can do is bump fuzzies all night long, how are they going to transmit AIDS to the general public? I do know that gay women use dildos to imitate straight sex, but that’s all. So the basis of my remarks are about homos. Your overactive mind can read anything you like in my comments, frankly i don’t care. And by the way, your comments about Pearl, sound like your green with envy. What’s a matter LOZEN? No one has ever told you are beautiful? You have to admit that women who KNOW THEY ARE BEAUTIFUL, HAVE MORE CONFIDENCE THEN THOSE WHO DON”T. By the way, is our EXOTIC BEAUTY WITH US?
By Boscoe
May 27, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this
Cut it out lozen, you’re hear like everyone else to argue your point. I’d say you enjoy it.
By Eaton
May 27, 2005 03:06 PM | Link to this
Argument…cycle..starting…
Bosoce, I abandoned the argument because arguing with you is like running into a brick wall. It’s not worth the pain and it’s relatively pointless. I returned to my core argument, which you’ve yet to address in any way.
Please explain to me where “destroying a child” has entered into this discussion…we’re talking about birth control here, so I’m pretty sure that no children are being destroyed. There are a lot of ‘em starving to death because their parents can’t afford to feed ‘em though.
By Lola
May 27, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this
lozen - your words are very true. It is the exchange of such varying voices and opinions on here that make it such an enriching place for me. Even people like norman (wherever he is now) added their own “special” spice to the blog, and as maddening as some postings can be, they also often inspire me to open my mind about things that I perhaps hadn’t really put much thought into before. Your postings are always thought-provoking and intelligent, and I appreciate them.
By lozen
May 27, 2005 03:09 PM | Link to this
Destroying a fetus is one thing and it’s still not an easy thing to do for most women. Prolife people would have us believe women just go have abortions as easily as they decide what to have for lunch and that is NOT true. Destroying a child is something entirely different. And Boscoe if you believe destroying a fetus is a sin, don’t have an abortion. But do not try to force a woman who does not believe what you believe to follow your religious beliefs. Motherhood should always, always for every single woman be a choice and not something forced on her.
By DeltaX
May 27, 2005 03:10 PM | Link to this
Your anger worries me Boscoe.
If you have not found out yet, anger and hate have their own selfish purposes and it is never inline with the loving soul.
I will leave you to your devices, for they will work on your soul like aphids on a budding flower: Leaving it wilted and empty for their own purpose is elsewhere. Only then will you see what you have made - and destoyed.
By Lola
May 27, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this
HARD40 - you made me LOL at your “bump fuzzies” statement. Sorry to get off topic, but that was really funny!
By Netbanker
May 27, 2005 03:16 PM | Link to this
EATON…SNAP OUT OF IT! Think Cher and Moonstruck when she slaps what’s his name…nuts…what IS his name. anywho…the Cher reference should bring you back my gay friend.
By Eaton
May 27, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this
Boscoe and Hard40 and Dave are competing in the “Who’s the most ignorant” competition, I see.
By Lola
May 27, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this
Bruce - I honestly can’t say that I would choose birth control over any of those three things. You’re right. It just seems to me that once that first child is born, they are in a vicious cycle that gets worse and worse with the birth of each additional child. The only solution I would see is providing FREE condoms to these people, along with the education needed to understand the importance of using them and how their lives could be bettered by preventing child after child from being born into poverty and disease.
By Eaton
May 27, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this
Sorry to disappoint you Netbanker, but I’m not really a Cher kind of guy…make a sports reference! :-)
By Lola
May 27, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this
The name you’re looking for is Nicholas Cage, Netbanker. :)
One of the best movies of all time, IMHO.
By LaShelle
May 27, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this
Lozen,
Unfortunately for some women, abortions are a form of birth control. For those women I condone hysterectomies, it would be cheaper than repeated abortions or having children and not being able to support them. As for myself I half-agree with you. I personally don’t believe in abortions but will not push my beliefs on someone else.
By Lola
May 27, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this
As always, it has been a pleasure chatting with all you fine folks today, and I wish you all a wonderful long weekend! See you Tuesday!
By lozen
May 27, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this
Lola, thank you and the same back at cha. Hard40, I haven’t said one word about Pearl. I did have a gay friend once who had just moved to Atlanta from a small town and he went a little crazy and was promiscuous for a while with so much available to him suddenly; he’s now settled with a partner he’s been with for 7 years. And one of my sons had a friend who moved here from a small town and he went crazy for a while and lived in the pick up bars, slept all over town, and ended up getting an std; he’s been married four times and, since he cheated on the three previous wives, is probably cheating on his latest! With the ban the way it is, the straight man could donate sperm but the gay man could not, and that’s why it’s discriminatory. Young, straight men are as promiscuous as they can be. If young women were as willing to engage in meaningless sex as young men, straight men would be much more promiscuous. Sometimes I think you straight men are just jealous!
By Netbanker
May 27, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this
Hey Hard40 don’t you think that ALL men “constantly thirst for sex?” You obviously don’t know much about AIDS since one can’t a syndrome. How exactly do you think gay men transmitting AIDS to the general public? Do you realize that heterosexual WOMEN are the most infected group on the planet, yes? Try looking at the CDC and NIH web sites before accusing GAY men of anything.
Boscoe…just because HIV CAN be transmitted sexually doesn’t mean that is the ONLY way it is transmitted. There is also breast milk, blood transfusion, infected blood entering an open wound, etc.
Lola…are they still fuzzies if one is waxed?
Thanks for a lovely week everyone. PLease have a safe and sound Memorial Day and in this time of war (OK, it’s not officially a WAR since Congress never declared war) please say a prayer for our troops and a moment to remember all those whose prior service to our nation and it’s ideals has allowed us the freedom to bash the bejeesus out of each other on here for having differing ideas, beliefs, and opinions without fear of reprisal. Hugs and Kisses to those who will take them and a manly handshake to the rest of you!
By Bruce
May 27, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this
Lola,
Maybe one day man will learn the error of his ways and begin to love one another as God intended.
My you all have a blessed weekend and please shake hands with all the military persons you may meet. Thank them for their service because without them we would not be able to BLOG! BLOG! BLOG! BLOG! BLOG! BLOG! BLOG! BLOG! instead of working…….
By Eaton
May 27, 2005 03:42 PM | Link to this
lozen, great point. What really cracks me up about some of these guys is that they act like straight guys don’t have sex. I mean, half the guys I graduated from high school with 15 years ago were banging every woman that moved - they had more sexual partners in that four year span than I’ve had my whole life.
What’s REALLY funny is that Hard40 was bashing gays for being promiscuous AND hitting on a woman he’d never met in the same message.
By lozen
May 27, 2005 04:16 PM | Link to this
Weekend! La, la, la, la, la, weekend! A loooong weekend! Yay! Everyone be safe. Hugs and kisses accepted Netbanker…
By HARD40
May 27, 2005 04:34 PM | Link to this
Netbanker, I know for a fact your totally wrong. The newest group to be infected with Aids are women who are married to bisexual men or men who are drug addicts. You can quote all the statistics you can find. I don’t care, common sense shoud tell you these women are being infected with AIDS from men who are in the closet, who pretend to be straight. And as Chris said how can anyone defend such behavior? I admit that men are by nature far more sexually oriented then women, but homos are constantly on the look out for anonymous sexual encounters . The average homo has 300 sexual partners in his lifetime. That is how the aids virus was spread in bathhouses in New York City. When gay men “date” there is no such thing as courtship, they get right to screwing. Netbanker, can you explain why? As for Pearl she aroused my curiosity with her post, that does not make me promiscious. Regarding the issue of abortion, if your against abortion DON”T HAVE ONE. I really think women should use birthcontrol anyway. There are too many single parents in this town. It is really sad, that these women have to shoulder the burden of raising kids alone. There kids are far more likely to be drop out of highschool, become a drugaddict, endup in prison, or become single parents before they are 21. I just wish that men had the option to take a male birthcontrol pill, so they can help solve the issue of unwanted children.If it were possible, the rate of abortions would drop dramatically. If it were available i would certainly take it. By the way, I choose not to have kids.
By Eaton
May 27, 2005 04:49 PM | Link to this
Just out of curiosity Hard40, how many sexual partners have YOU had in your life, and how old are you?
By RS
May 27, 2005 04:53 PM | Link to this
Carol: My fingernails do have life (ie they grow) as long as they’re part of my body..see the correlation? My sis-in-law had the same upbringing as her brother & he’s as straight as 6 o’clock, honeyy! I should know; I’m married to him! I do not feel sorry for women who are in porn mags & films. They choose that lifestyle. Boscoe: Nice try. You can talk yourself blue in the face, attempting to rationalize why gays should be deprived of basic rights, but none of that has any basis in facts. Hard40: Straight couples engage in anal sex too. DUH!!! You & Pearl deserve each other. You’re both shallow. And both ugly. I don’t expect you to understand this concept, but true beauty comes from within & you sorely lack any. A genuinely intelligent woman has no reason to be jealous of an empty vessel with no substance. Dave: I’ve never once seen Stan dis women. To all my friends & fellow thinking people: Have a happy, safe holiday weekend!
By sage
May 27, 2005 04:55 PM | Link to this
At the heart of the world’s various spiritual traditions is a common core of wisdom and essential practices. These form the basis for a perennial psychologyâ€â€?including the cultivation of love, supportive attitudes, and wisdom.
Perennial practices rooted in ancient traditions, are critical today. They address and redress the psychological and spiritual roots of our contemporary crisis. Do you realize this is the first time in history that publicly acknowledging that you follow two or more distinct spiritual traditions would not have you burned at the stake, stoned to death, or facing a firing squad?
We tend to forget what an extraordinary time this is, that for the first time in history we have the entirety of the world’s spiritual and religious traditions available to us, and we can practice them, at least here, without fear.
We are discovering that underlying this vast array of practices and traditions and theologies and beliefs is a common core of wisdom and practices. Beneath the surface we find a deeper wisdom, not usually recognized but hidden in the depths of each and every one of the great religious traditions, a wisdom known as the perennial philosophy and the perennial psychology, which encompass a set of perennial practices.
The Perennial Philosophy
The perennial philosophy has been known for some time, and at its heart are four statements about the nature of reality:
This physical world we live in and see and touch is not all there is to reality; underneath itâ€â€?in fact, at its sourceâ€â€?is another world, a sacred world, a world of spirit or consciousness or Mind with a capital “M”, or Geist, or Tao.
We as human beings partake of this reality. We are rather like amphibians. We have a part of our life and being in this world we see and touch, but in a deeper part at the core of our being, at the center of our minds, at the center of our awareness, we experience this other sacred realm, and we partake of it, and we are it.
We are capable of knowing this other realm. If we train and develop the mind sufficiently, if we hone our awareness, develop our attention, refine our perception, then we can come to know this reality directly for ourselves. This is what differentiates the perennial philosophy from dogma. *It is not a truth-claim to be believed simply on someone’s word. It is an experiment that is offered to us, that each and every one of us can try. *
Coming to know this sacred realm and coming to recognize it as ourselves is the highest good and the highest goal of human existence�that it is the means by which we can best serve ourselves and others.
The Practices of Essential Spirituality by Roger Walsh