In reading a book about the 1920 presidental election (where the fates of several former and future presidential candidates intersect), I'm reminded that 100 years ago, in many states women did not have the right to vote in America - and no guaranteed federal right until 1920.

As amazing at it might seem to us today (is it even DEBATABLE whether women should have the right to vote???), in the 1910s this was quite a controversial issue. Numerous states allowed a right to vote for women by then but a constitutional amendment guaranteeing such a right wasn't passed by the Congress until 1919 (in 1918, the outgoing Congress rejected it TWICE!!!). For ratification, 2/3 of the states needed to ratify the amendment. As astounding as it might seem, eight states - Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, and Louisiana - voted down the amendment in their state legislatures. Tennessee finally made it official by becoming the 36th State to ratify.

In my mind, in 100 years, today's debates about gay rights and whether gays should have the legal right to marry or not will seem just as absurd to the people of that day as past debates about a woman's right to vote seem to us today.

Andrew

Big difference, gays want special rights based on their conduct.

In 100 years people will look back and say, what were they thinking, trying to carve out a group for special rights based soly on thir conduct.

So what? Are you saying they shouldn't be allowed to vote because they are gay? I think in 100 years they will be saying "How could have they allowed the religious fanatics to dictate public policy?", kind of what people think about prohibition. It seems to me it was the supposed "christian" who didn't want women to have the right to vote, just like they didn't want to abolish segragation.

Gays don't want special rights; they want the same right to marry another consenting adult and don't want the government telling them who (consenting adult) they can and cannot marry. I honestly don't know why anyone else even gives a damn. Boredom?

The arguments against allowing women to vote sound pretty absurd today, too.

Andrew

Gays already have the right to marry. They're trying to redefine marriage to include same sex couples.

The comparison to Women's suffrage is a Non sequitur.

It'll take a while longer, but same sex Marriage will happen. Denying them to marry one another is too hypocritcal. People will get tired of it and it'll change.

But no, women shouldn't be able to vote. That's common sense.

Andrew, that is an interesting parallel. Like any civil rights issue, it seems like such a no-brainer in hindsight. Since one woman, one vote came into effect, none of the fears of those who fought it at the time have been realized. We are not a matriarchy, and of course, we will not turn into a nation of homosexuals either.

One of Portland's finest artists died alone, without his partner, in a local hospital. I know this, because I worked there at the time. His story was not unique, and of all the people in our town who admired and loved him, I was the only one who could visit for the simple reason that I was drawing a paycheck. Sadly, no one else qualified under the draconian rules of the institution.

Under the current rules, I, as a man in a longterm loving relationship, could not visit my own girlfriend in the hospital. In fact, under the current guidelines adopted by most institutions, only her own mother would qualify. I would argue that much of the issue is less about "gay" and more about "unmarried." I find either distinction silly, antique and heartless. These are not "special rights" at all. These are human rights.

Gays already have the right to marry.

Right, DD - and before civil rights reforms blacks already had their own water fountains and hotels and such. Why did they need to stay in "Whites Only" hotels? Why were blacks asking for "special rights?" They already HAD the right to stay in a hotel and use a water fountain! What was the problem?

Of course, you know that two men or two women do not have a legal right to marry each other in our society. They don't have the right to get spousal benefits or hospital visitations. That's unfair and should be changed.

Andrew

no worries . . . history has shown selfish people are taken care of by father time. with any luck at all, some dd's of the world will pull a george wallace and do an aboutface before explaining things to the man upstairs.

Comparing gays to Blacks is not a true comparison.

It's not a lifestyle choice to be Black or Caucasian etc.

Gay people (or any other such group) should not have any special rights based on a lifestyle choice.

This is not a minority opinion either. In every state that has put it up to a vote, with the exception of one, the people have voted not to allow same sex marriages.

So if a group of people decided that they wanted to live a lifestyle of incest and be allowed to marry their brothers, sisters, cousins etc (other than in Arkansas!) should that be allowed?

I say put it to a nationwide vote, let the voters decide and put a permanent end to the debate.

Screw the liberal judges that don't pay any attention to what the majority of people want.

Skybill writes:
It's not a lifestyle choice to be Black or Caucasian etc.

Gay people (or any other such group) should not have any special rights based on a lifestyle choice.

Why should straight people be given the special right to marry based on their "lifestyle choice?" After all, they choose to be with someone of the opposite gender. Why special rights for their behavior?

Gay people are attracted to people of the same gender and (assuming we are not talking about bisexuals) are not attracted to people of the opposite gender. This is not behavior or a "lifestyle choice" any more than one's skin color was a "lifestyle choice."

Now, can gay people, not attracted to people of the opposite gender, either pretend to be and get married/have kids anyway (and presumably be MISERABLE) or live solitary, lonely lives? Or should they seek out like-minded people and be HAPPY?

I think that's what it comes down to. I suppose some people think being miserable and lonely is a better "lifestyle choice" than choosing happiness with a same-sex partner. That's where we'll have to agree to disagree.

I still don't see why anyone thinks the government should be able to dictate which consenting adults should be allowed to legally marry and which not. The government shouldn't look at this any differently than issuing driver's licenses. If you don't want to marry someone of the same gender, don't do it. End of concern.

Andrew

If your for same sex marriages then you have to be for polygamous marriages.

When does the slippery slope stop?

Skybill writes:

Screw the liberal judges that don't pay any attention to what the majority of people want.

So if a majority of the white people in some southern state don't want blacks to have the right to vote, that should be the law of the land then? Or does our constitution protect minority rights not just impose "majority rule" on everyone?

If 50.01% of the voters agree that everyone named Steve should be executed, should that be the law of the land? That's the will of the majority - why should any judge be able to interfere with it?

Andrew

I don't have a problem with two people being happy together. Whether they are same sex or different sex.

I just don't think that they should change society norms based on a choice.

If they want to live together, while I don't agree with it, I don't really care if they do.

I don't want them pushing their agenda on my kids, however. I don't think that kids should be taught in school that it is a normal way of life.

DD wrote: "If your for same sex marriages then you have to be for polygamous marriages.

When does the slippery slope stop?"

Or marriage to animals, or pedophilia or the man-boy love association (or what ever they are called) and on and on and on.

Skybill writes:
I just don't think that they should change society norms based on a choice.

Again - that "choice" is not whether to be attracted to someone of the same gender but whether to act on it. How is that choice any different than a straight person's "choice" to date someone of the opposite sex?

What does a government-issued marriage license have to do with "society's norms?"

Didn't allowing women to vote change society's norms in 1920? Should preserving the norms of the time have been a good reason not to allow women to vote?

I don't want them pushing their agenda on my kids, however. I don't think that kids should be taught in school that it is a normal way of life.

I don't think schools should teach kids that ANY way of life is "normal." The fact is, gay people exist in our society. Gay people live together, married or not. Schools shouldn't just pretend gay people don't exist. What's wrong with teaching kids that there are many different kinds of people in the world (gay, straight, white, black, etc.) and that we should learn to live with and tolerate them, even if we don't like them?

I wouldn't want overly religious people pushing their agenda on my kids, either. I'd hate to have my child's mind warped by some ultra-rightwinger. But, I accept that these types of people exist in a free society. I don't think ultra-right-wingers should be banned from wearing crosses and talking about their religion - I simply will do my best to teach my kids differently and hope they will trust my judgement over that of some religious zealot.

Andrew

As I said above comparing race to lifestyle choice doesn't hold any water.

People should not be discriminated against, period. Gays are already protected from discrimination by existing laws.

No one should be tied to a fence post and beaten to death (like the gay kid in Wyoming).

Do I think that the gay life style is wrong? Absolutely. Do I hate gay people? No, not at all, just the lifestyle choice.

"When does the slippery slope stop?"

At gay marriage. There. Problem solved.

"The fact is, gay people exist in our society."

Yep. In our schools as teachers AND students...and congress...and church...and in fathers and mothers. Yep. It's pretty much everywhere. And you know what? There is no solution. You know why? Because there is not a problem.

Skybill writes:

Do I think that the gay life style is wrong? Absolutely. Do I hate gay people? No, not at all, just the lifestyle choice.

But we're not arguing about whether you think the gay lifestyle is wrong or not. Personally, I don't care if you think it's right or wrong - that's your opinion and you are fully entitled to it.

The question is, why do you think the govenrment should endorse the "lifestyle choice" of straight people but not of gay people?

So far you've offered as reasons for endorsing the straight lifestyle choice that we should respect the will of the majority and that we should also respect society's "norms." Do you understand that these same arguments, in effect, were used to justify denying rights to blacks and denying women the right to vote? It was certainly the norm before 1920 that women weren't allowed to vote. Why was it OK to change society's norm then but not now?

Andrew

damn the lifestyle choice of bigots. we ought to ban them from having children.

Because being Black or a woman isn't a choice.

A man can't just one day say "I'm a woman" (actually, you can say it and get some wacko doctor to cut and paste, but your DNA will still be male) or a Caucasian can't just say "Well, I'm Black".

These are naturally occurring things that the person has no control over.

We could go on and on about this. I'm not going to change your mind about it nor you mine.

As you correctly stated about 9 posts above; That's where we'll have to agree to disagree.

Anyway, I have a 6:05 AM flight tomorrow, so I'm going to have to bag it for tonight!

Good night to all!

You haven't explained why the government should endorse the lifestyle choices of straight people but not of gay people. Oh, well.

Andrew

hopefully its a flight to a critical thinking seminar.

Funny, but I do not remember getting a letter of endorsment from the goverment for being straight.

anyhow being gay is a decision and not something you are born with.

Flame on libs.

Mc74 writes:
Funny, but I do not remember getting a letter of endorsment from the goverment for being straight.

Are you married, legally? Then you got a marriage license, which is government recognition of your decision to date someone of the opposite sex.

anyhow being gay is a decision and not something you are born with.

Being gay is as much a "decision" as being straight.

Andrew

mc74 needs to go to a critical thinking seminar as well.

It's great to have you back, Wayne.

Oh the ignorance!!

Pardon me, while I find somewhere else to spend my time.

Good night bigots.

"People should not be discriminated against, period. Gays are already protected from discrimination by existing laws."

Wrong.

People can be terminated from their jobs, and have any severance package nullified, because of their sexual orientation. Before you go blasting me, trust me, it happens. There is nothing in the equal housing act that says that gays cannot be discriminated against in buying, or renting, a place to live. Look it up. It's true that we don't have Jim Crow laws like 50 years ago, but the fact of the matter is that gay people are NOT protected under the Civil Rights Act. Some states have added sexual orientation into their OWN civil rights act, but on a federal level they can still be kicked to the curb.

"anyhow being gay is a decision and not something you are born with."

Care to prove that? Do you REALLY think that people CHOOSE to "live a lifestyle" where their every move is ridiculed and scorned? Do you REALLY think that these people CHOOSE to "live a lifestyle" where they are ostracized by their own families, their neighbors, their communities? Do you REALLY think that these people CHOOSE to "live a lifestyle" where they cannot attend the majority of churches because of WHO THEY ARE, and they cannot enjoy the basic rights of happiness with the one they love and the legal perks that go with it?

Before you flame away at "the lib" (which I am not), consider the source. I GUARANTEE I know what I am talking about much more than you do.

"I GUARANTEE I know what I am talking about much more than you do."

0h Really! Please explain.

What's the matter, DD? Getting excited?

Andrew

Ha Ha!

Brian seems to have more than just a vested interest in Gay marriage. I like to know why.

It's highly likely Brian knows someone personally, who is gay. That is the number one reason for people speaking as he just did. I went through the same experience with a good friend. I'm gonna be frank and say it was likely one of the most difficult conversations I've ever had. It's like the person I thought I knew was dead, and I was faced with this doppleganger.

At that point, either people reaffirm common ground, sort out the living as a lie issues and move on, or not. This is why coming out of the closet is such a significant step. It shouldn't be either. Sadly, a significant percentage of the people are complete self-interested asses.

The implication here is that anyone out of the loop on this, simply does not have the strength of character necessary to understand other people in a healthy way. Grow the fuck up, or shut up. Either is fine.

Again, from the last time we hashed out the lame topic:

Growing up, do you remember choosing who you are attracted to? Didn't you look at members of the opposite sex and find some attributes more appealing than others? I remember these childhood conversations. We all had them. Nothing has changed.

In particular, explain how some members of the opposite sex have that special spark and some don't.

These are things we are wired with. They work at a low level. Ratio of features to form, smells, colors, sounds, overall shapes, etc...

Nobody gets to choose this stuff. I find another recent conversation between me, my wife, son and daughter relevant as well:

Why exactly do Women have such a large range of self-expression? Guys are stuck with a fairly narrow range of social norms, in this regard. These days it's more permissive, but that's a tempoary bump in the road, IMHO. Kids ask this kind of stuff. It's one of the very best aspects of parenting!

Because they [women] are the attractors and as such, have a greater need to control the kinds of people they attract! Different personalities are connected to different attributes, some physical, some mental. Men do this too, but it's via deeds, status, and to some degree personal appearance as well.

Get back to me on the gay is a choice matter when you can choose to feel passion for another person you find repulsive. This is exactly what society is asking gay people to do. Living a lie is not defensible.

Sorry for the rant, but this really annoys the living shit out of me.

If you do not know a gay person personally, and I mean on the level where you can actually talk about stuff, then you've no basis whatsoever for commentary. Society would be better off if you just shut up.

Does this post sting? Good, you are better for it. If it doesn't, congrats! You are a healthy and well adjusted person. Be thankful for that.

I'm sure you'd love to change the subject away from the issues being discussed to someone's personal biases, DD. Either that or it really DOES get you excited...

Andrew

I cannot beleive Merkin has not chimed in on this one yet!
I can hear the "You Knuckle Draggers" reply already! LOL

This is the kind of "debate" that just goes round and round and round. So, I and probably others choose to bow out. No minds will be changed, or even enlightened.

DD was gone for awhile, it was nice...

"Do I think that the gay life style is wrong? Absolutely. Do I hate gay people? No, not at all, just the lifestyle choice."

I think that your choice to live your life in willful ignorance is wrong too, but that's your right.

Just like it's a person's right to marry whomever they want. If it's a "choice" for a gay person to marry a member of the same sex, then it's the same choice when you chose to marry a member of the opposite sex. Allowing society to affirm one choice while denying the other is discrimination and is WRONG.

Do I hate you for being ignorant? No, I just hate your choice to remain ignorant. And no, don't start trying to tell me that you're *not* ignorant, because we both know that if we bring documented facts into this discussion, you will lose!

"If your for same sex marriages then you have to be for polygamous marriages.

When does the slippery slope stop?"

As any right-thinking person can see, the not-so-slippery slope stops when the rights of another person are infringed.

Marry opposite sex? Fine.
Marry same sex? Fine.
Polygamist marriage? Fine! Who cares? Not me, as long as all the members are in agreement.
Marry a child? NOT fine! Child's rights are infringed! A child cannot legally make that choice, and if their parent does it for them they are guilty of abuse!
Marry a dog? NOT fine! Why? The dog can't legally made that choice, and it constitutes an infringement of society's rights- you're abusing the marriage privilege.

Warner, so true... Some of these are tough to hold the high ground on.

Your solid example noted!

Some are very hard to just sit and read without adding your two cents into it. After you do you wish you had not in some cases. (Insert foot in mouth...i'm a pro at that) Love the taste of that Crow though!

I didn't start this thread with the intention of baiting anyone into some sort of "yes they do/no they don't" spat. But I do think the issue of a woman's right to vote in a free society is not much different than a gay or lesbian's right to marry a consenting adult. And I think we've seen some of the same arguments against that ("will of the majority," "respect society's norms") that were used to argue against civil rights and women's sufferage. As I said, in 100 years I think today's arguments against gay marriage will look rather silly.

Andrew

It is fortunate that this great country can adjust to the times. Some things should never be messed with though. Free Speech, the right to keep and bear arms, freedom of choice, etc. The other issues are just social standards that will slowly but surely adjust with the times, political survival will pretty much guarantee that. It is up to society to vote on what it feels is acceptable and pass into law. The will of the majority will always prevail in this country(once we get past the will of George phase anyway)!

The "will of the majority" surely should NOT always prevail in this country. We are a country that historically protects minority rights. That's what free speech is all about. Popular speech has no need of protection; unpopular speech does. Just because 50.01% of the voters decide they don't like something or someone doesn't mean that should be the law of the land.

Andrew

I see your point but until majority favor's gay marriages they will never happen. I agree that it should not always prevail but what I was trying to get at and did not state it right was that any new legislation will ultimately be decided by the will of the majority...at least by the majority of voters on that issue.
Take Oregon state sales tax for example......the state needs one in a bad way but the voting majority defeats it every time.

Maybe what I should have said was that the majority does not automatically rule over the minority under the US Constitution. An Oregon Sales Tax doesn't infringe on anyone's individual or a minority's rights. A law requiring black people to pay a poll tax would. Just because a majority votes for some silly thing doesn't mean it should automatically be the law of the land.

Andrew

"Brian seems to have more than just a vested interest in Gay marriage. I like to know why."

Ok, I'll answer.

My mother is gay.

I would love to see a world where she can be with someone of her choosing, say she ever becomes happy with someone and wants to be with them in a married state, with not only "marriage" but the legal ramifications, perks, and privileges that go along with marriage. I would love for her to have the same rights in love and matrimony that I enjoy with my wife. I would love to see it where she is not in a society where she is cast off by others in her own family (which she has been), where she loses her job because of her sexual orientation (which she has), where she is denied basic rights that I, as a straight man, enjoy (which she has).

Anyone, ANYONE, who tells me that she CHOSE this as her life is full of shit, and I will have no problem telling them this to their face. She married my father in denial about who she was. She had me in denial of who she was. She went to church, convinced that God would "right her of her sins", and was kicked out of the congregation when it was discovered who she was. It took her over 40 years to come to grips with WHO SHE WAS, and be OK with it. Again, anyone who tells me that she CHOSE this is full of it.

Do people choose to FLAUNT their sexuality? Sure. Just like there is a population of African-Americans who flaunt the stereotype of their people. Just like there is a population of Hispanics who do the same. In all cases, the vast majority of the population of their ethnic heritage frowns upon those who make them look how they do, and the same goes for the gay folks.

If you're so grossed out and incensed at gay relationships, don't have one. If you're so mad at the "sanctity of marriage" being ruined by gay marriages, don't feed me that line of crap, with a divorce rate over 50% in this country there IS NO SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE!

Does that answer your question, DD? Have I made myself clear?

And KSKD - outstanding post above. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Brian, I greatly admire your Mom for being herself. I also want to thank you for taking the risk and honestly giving this forum an overdue dose of reality. You and KSKD put it very well.

I am someone who has had gay and lesbian friends virtually my whole life. Four of these wonderful people came out to me in high school when they could no longer deny how they were born. I am glad they felt that they could confide in me during the dark days of puberty and I did not abuse that trust. I know they are happier people having recognized the facts and time has brought them both personal success and true love.

Our Constitution already provides protections and "special rights" for a "lifestyle choice" in the First Amendment. It is called the freedom of religion. Ironically, while these folks have made a "lifestyle choice" they still expect tax free status, the ability to worship as they please and some even have the nerve to ask for prayer in school. God is an ancient and wonderful myth, while homosexuality is a genetic and proven scientific fact.

Gays and lesbians have never and will never have the influence of holy rollers, and yet, they must endure attacks on their biology without the legal protections that those who persecute them enjoy. The bigotry of churches against gays and lesbians is hypocritical, foolish, and wrong. Frankly, I believe the attitude of some Christians and other congregations toward "lifestyle choices" ought to legally undermine the ability of all religions to enjoy "special rights" under our law.

Homosexuals do not demand any rights that are not already afforded to heterosexual couples. If it is too much to ask of our country to provide for all of our citizens equally, perhaps it is time for Jesus to pay taxes and get back in the closet.

That's my biggest beef with organized religion as well Littlesongs, having grown up and seen it firsthand it totally turned me off to religion. Seeing the word of God twisted into whatever these people WANT it to say is sickening indeed, how ANYONE could use it to justify hate and intolerance is beyond me.

That said, I DO support peoples first amendment rights. I also support the actions that come along with exercising your free speech rights. DD and Herb and others have every right to not like homosexuality or gay people ... I think it's a bit misguided, but it IS their right. Using a recent example made very public, Tim Hardaway has every right to "hate gay people" and say as such on a radio show in Miami. NBA commissioner David Stern then used his right to ban Hardaway from any future NBA functions (Hardaway was a spokesman for the league) for "having views that aren't in line with the NBA". Consequence.

Getting back to the original point of the thread (and a good one, Andrew), I REALLY hope we look back 100 years from now and say, "What a bunch of frivolous crap even arguing over something like this!" We had the same argument with womens rights 100 years ago, these exact same points were brought up back then I am sure, and those who voiced their opposition to women voting look rather short-sighted now. 50 years ago, the Civil Rights movement started ... and it's the same thing, the people bombing churches and burning crosses and ridiculing our African-American brethren back then look pretty ridiculous to us now, don't they? They didn't look so ridiculous to America back then.

Brianl- Rememeber please, not all "organized" religion feels the same. Not all Christians believe the same as regards homosexuality. Sometimes it makes me a bit sad that some folks who had bad experieces with some denominations in thier early lives end up "turned off to religion." That is painting with a very broad brush, unfortunately.

Littlesongs, your post is wonderfully put. Thanks.

"Sometimes it makes me a bit sad that some folks who had bad experieces with some denominations in thier early lives end up "turned off to religion." That is painting with a very broad brush, unfortunately."

Would you say the "good" denominations/Christians are doing enough to pressure the others into backing off?

I really don't see why any of us "turned off to religion" should care about "good" demnominations/Christians when y'all are seemingly standing by being enablers.

The same amount of effort and $$ put into anti-abortion efforts should also be spent silencing the likes of the Rev. Phelps of the world.

Until then, tough cookies I say.

I'll second that.

44DD's is a no show on Brian's answer?????

I'll agree that the more enlightened ones among us don't do enough to pressure the others. It may have something to do with the whole "turn the other cheek" deal.

Although, I find that almost without fail, the Rev. Phelps and televangelists of the world seem to eventually get thier due. They normally self-destruct.

I'm just saying, don't paint all Christians as extreme conservative nutcases. Some of us are liberal nutcases.

True Warner, very true. But don't let a REICH winger hear that or you'll be labled as a FAGGOT!

"I'm just saying, don't paint all Christians as extreme conservative nutcases. Some of us are liberal nutcases."

Warner, totally agreed! Forgive me for playing, pardon the pun, devil's advocate. I believe that we all deserve rights under our Constitution and that includes the wingnuts.

Freedom of religion has nothing to do with gay marriages, marriage is an institution that existed prior to most of todays relegions.

It is to the govts benefit to promote unions that are most beneficial to society, and over the last several thousand years, societies have determined that one man with one woman is the best union for society.

Yeah but things change. This is just taking longer. No big deal - it will.

Right, Nwokie, and prior to 1920, society determined that having only men voting or only whites voting was best for society, too. Why did that reasoning not apply then too? Or could it be that "society" finally realized that it had been wrong and needed to change?

That's all I'm saying about gay marriage. In 100 years, people will look upon the eventual legalization of gay marriage as the point when society finally righted another historic wrong, as with voting rights.

Andrew

actuallu,in a hundred years people will be saying, what were they thinking ,one of the major epidimics of the 20th century that killed millions, could have been halted in its tracks, except they were afraid of offending the gay groups.

why would they even coNsider giving official recognition to a lifestyle, that jeopordized the lifes of so many?

Nwokie, if you're talking about Ronald Reagan's ignoring the AIDS epidemic for its few years, I agree with you 100%.

Andrew

Well you know if you lefties had not been so liberal then we would not be in this predicament now would we! "Sorry......Herb has not been here for a week so I thought i'd throw that in for good measure's!

A couple things here, Nwokie:

1) "It is to the govts benefit to promote unions that are most beneficial to society, and over the last several thousand years, societies have determined that one man with one woman is the best union for society."

Read this statement back to yourself. Sound kinda authoritarian/Communist, doncha think? Swinging hard left on us, buddy?

2) "actuallu,in a hundred years people will be saying, what were they thinking ,one of the major epidimics of the 20th century that killed millions, could have been halted in its tracks, except they were afraid of offending the gay groups."

You are woefully ignorant about HIV and AIDS. And there is no logic to your statement. What are you suggesting, that gay people should have been ordered to abstain from intimate sexual contact when AIDS hit the US? Round up all the gay people? Take them out back and shoot them? Your statement suggests draconian action against gays. Pitiful.

(BTW, in Africa, where the vast majority of AIDS victims have been, it has always been a "heterosexual" disease.)

Yeah, straight men having anal sex with prostitutes didn't "jeopordize the lives" of anyone - it was all those gay men. SHAME on them, they shouldn't be allowed to get married!

But what about lesbians? Since they have never been a risk group (certainly lower than straight people), couldn't we argue they have MORE of a right to get married than all the straights and gays who spread HIV? Anyway, lesbians are HOT!

Andrew

Maybe he's not talking about AIDS. He never said it. ( Which I see a farily regular pattern of " I never said that." - That's tiresome. ). That leaves him an out. I think he should take it.

So come on, Nowkie, I'm crossing my fingers: What's behind curtain #2?...*come on disco! PLEASE let it be disco*

"why would they even coNsider giving official recognition to a lifestyle, that jeopordized the lifes of so many?"

Good point CJ...If the above statement is about disco, then I agree totally.

*rolls his eyes*

If you go back and check the history of the AIDs epiodemic, you will see that the gay rights groups fought several actions that would have significantly slowed the spread of the disease.

1. They refused to allow the various gay bath houses to be regulated.

2. They fought and won the fight to prevent AIDS from being treated like any other STD, IE doctors must inform publich health officials and partner notification be done.

If is wasnt for these 2 actions by the gay rights groups, the spread of AIDS would have been significantly slowed. Even today nearly every instance of AIDs can be traced to a gay acting irresponsibly, IE giving blood , having unprotected sex with someone, then that person spreads it also, etc.

Go and watch "The band plays on" and get back to us on that.

OK - so it's not disco. You're just one of those.

Shoot.

On the contrary, gay rights groups were instrumental in educating people about the necessity of safe sex once the real cause of AIDS and how HIV was transmitted were clearly understood. HIV was spread not just by gay sex but also by hetrosexual sex, needle sharing among drug users, and blood transfusions. Anyone who would single out gay men for blame in the original spread of AIDS is nothing but a hateful homophobe.

Andrew

Remember folks, "homophobe" doesn't mean "fear of homos", it means fear of ones own gender.

Makes a lot more sense in that context.

But they were not in favor of public health officials performing partner contacts, as required by any other STD.
The were not in favor of any controls over public bath houses.
They were not in favor of quaranting men who repeatedly had unprotected sex with others and didnt notify their partner of their condition.

You'll just grasp at anything at this point. I understand. I would too if I was being proven how absurd most of my notions were. So yeah, I didn't see the " They aren't out of the doghouse yet. They really made of mess of things. It doesn't matter that they want to do something loving now - they did something bad before and it's like The Alamo for me." argument coming. So it's original - but rediculous. By your logic, you see them as animals who, as a group and without exception, need to be controlled by yourself. You are part of the old guard that keeps us from advancing - that's fine - we'll win.

You have not one leg to stand on with anyone who isn't a bigot. Good luck. I'll see you at the rally.

Nwokie, who is "they?" Not all gay people speak with one voice, just like all straight people don't speak with one voice. Should I go blaming the "straights" for something because "they" would or wouldn't do something?

And of course, you assume that anyone opposed to these rigid rules you suggest must not have been working in other ways to stop the spread of HIV. On the contrary, gay rights groups were extremely effective in promoting safe sex in their communities once the way HIV was spread was understood.

Andrew

Nwokie killed 6 million jews. And told a friend of mine's daughter that there is no Santa Claus. And is a litterbug. Nwokie is directly responsible for the mess in Iraq and that is why his wife killed herself.

Feels ugly, doesn't it?

Guess what? In all the bigotry and bluster, the reactionaries forgot to mention the highest risk individuals for contracting HIV. Before some wag says, "How do you know?" and gets all excited, I will explain, because I am in that group and had to be tested.

You see, back in 1972, I engaged in "high risk behavior" and was potentially exposed to the virus. In fact, unlike same sex relationships, parties at Studio 54, shooting up drugs or Hollywood orgies, I had a 100% chance of getting HIV if I had been exposed.

What wild thing did I do in my early childhood? It was simple: I had emergency surgery at Boston Children's Hospital and received a whopping transfusion of blood. If the donor had been infected, I would have been one of thousands of people who became sick and I would have probably died by this point.

So, before you get too crosseyed with the logic of hate, remember that a little kid -- a churchgoing, fledgling heterosexual, who was learning the Bible and playing with Colorforms -- was in the very highest risk category for the disease.

And you were in a high risk catagory, because the gays refused to allow public health notification of partners, which would have greatly decreased the danger associated with the blood supply.

How about some sort of reference here, Nwokie? Facts? A source?

Andrew

How about common sense, If someone has aids, and has sex with someone, and they dont know they have aids, they will continue doing their normal routine, including donating blood etc.

If the first person in the chain, finds he/she has aids, and the public health authoritues notify everyone he had sex with, and then the people they had sex with. The would alter their behavior, and not donate blood etc.

Its just now that the legislatures have started to stqand up to the gay rights groups, and pass partner notification laws, NY just die it this year, over the objections of the various gay groups and the ACLU.

No, I was asking for some reference regarding your insistence that "the gays" did not allow partner notification (as if some big group of "the gays" had some sort of veto over the government). You're also assuming that "the gays" who had HIV were all irresponsible men who found out they had HIV and never bothered to tell their partners and would have all continued having unprotected sex.

What about the IV drug users who spread AIDS? What about blood transfusion recipients who may continued having heterosexual sex? What about straight men who got infected by prostitutes and kept having sex? Why are you singling out "the gays?" Do you think "the gays" were all irresponsible unsafe sex sluts and "the straights" were all responsible people who immediately told their partners and stopped having unsafe sex? On what basis besides your opinion?

So again, I ask for more than your opinion; otherwise, you are just blowing smoke out of your ass.

Andrew

Do you think "the gays" were all irresponsible unsafe sex sluts

Hey! thats exactly what I think.

thanks for clearing it up

I wish being a slut was still cool. I miss it.

It would still be cool if you a blonde female pop star or a hotel heiress...

Andrew

If you bothered to Google at all, if you took even a few minutes out of your day to find the truth, you would stop parroting that "gay cancer" hooey about AIDS. Here's just a handful of theories, and none of them involve homosexuality.

If you are to believe some people, it was a medical mistake, tragic and simple. We were getting some of our polio vaccine medicine from infected primates. http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/AIDS/

Others still, have insisted that the disease is actually much older, and first became apparent in the human population between the wars, when our country was first dancing to swing bands.
http://www.aegis.com/news/ct/2000/CT000104.html
http://www.aegis.com/news/re/2000/RE001124.html

There is also the story of the missionary having sex with a chimpanzee, and then apparently, members of his congregation.

There are also those who have back-engineered the rationale and evidence that it was all cooked up by our government in the little laboratory on Plum Island in New York.

If we are to believe some people, it was a deliberate plan to depopulate Africa, or the Caribbean, carried secretly out by the governments of western nations.

Or, still others say, much closer to home, it was an attempt to kill our nation's poor through the low income clinics of New York City.

There is another -- largely correct -- school of thought that a conspiracy of ignorance by the folks in charge allowed all of the world to continue on with a lack of information.

Sure, there are myriad theories about the source of the infection, but one thing is clear, it kills you regardless of your orientation. Look at the numbers and you will see that this is a worldwide epidemic. Babies die of this disease all day and night, so using your doctorate in conjecture, explain to me how a homosexual person gives HIV to so many hundreds of thousands of babies.

Those damned facts always squelch a good ill-informed rant.

Thanks, Littlesongs.

The Polio theory is intriguing. I read about it some years ago in a thick book called "The River" by Edward Hooper. This journalist took the time to explore (exhaustively) ever possible theory, even the most bizarre. The one Hooper settled on was the Polio theory.

Basically, he determined that the one of the makers of trial Polio vaccines in the 1950s used Chimpanzee kidneys to grow the cultures in which the vaccines were grown. And HIV has been found to be genetically most like Simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV). Hooper believed that SIV contaminated the vaccine given to humans in trials in Africa.

Although Hooper was unable to find evidence that Chimp kidneys were really used, he presented a piece of compelling evidence: a map showing where the first Polio vaccine trials (from this one manufacturer) were given in Africa in the 1950s and points showing where the first AIDS cases were reported in the 1970s. The points match up almost exactly. Very eerie.

Hooper's theory was not exactly embraced but he is sticking to it:

http://www.aidsorigins.com/

Andrew