Friday, October 13, 2006

Thoughts After a Day or Two

(I say "a day or two" because I don't actually know what day it is, or how long it's been since the citizens committee meeting... you'll see...)

I've been thinking a little bit about this new 8th grade curriculum. I appreciate the thought of structuring it around the idea of tolerance and empathy versus bullying and stereotypes, but I'm not sure that's really the way to approach it.

Is that really the defining quality of sexual orientation -- bullying? Is the issue really tolerance and empathy?

I would've thought it was about who you like.

(Hey, you wouldn't believe where I am right now. It's four-something in the morning where you are, but it's four-something in the afternoon here. I'm inside a little room or booth with bamboo curtains and a high-speed Internet connection and a picture on the wall of an ivory lady with chopsticks in her hair. I've got a big table here with neat little engraved toothpicks.

A guy just got about a fifteen-dollar tip, I think, for getting me this room and ordering some coffee for me. Hmm, I'd better learn the money while I still have some.)

So, anyway, I will be very interested to hear what people say about this curriculum. I understand that some people are disappointed, but a couple of people I got a chance to chat with mostly said they wanted to think about it. Of the two days of classes, the first day (as I recall, I don't have it in front of me) mainly just mentions sexual orientation in a question for students to think about. It's more about healthy and unhealthy relationships... It's good to address issues of bullying and tolerance, but is the sex-ed class the place for that?

It shouldn't be a total mystery, figuring out what to tell eighth graders. By that age, most of them, but not all, have gotten through puberty or they're well into it. They're having feelings. Some small number of them are likely very confused about those feelings. I think eighth grade is a time to say, look, most people are attracted to somebody of the opposite sex, but not everybody is. It's a good time to talk about the diversity of feelings that they may be experiencing, to help those who are worried about themselves and to help the others understand their friends. If you're talking about sexual orientation in eighth grade, that seems like the issue -- how you feel is normal even if it's different from most of the other kids, and how your friend feels is normal, even if you don't feel that way yourself. There's no freaks here, there's just a lot of normal differences between people.

I remember being in about eighth grade, and realizing that there's somebody in this world for everybody. I was looking out the window at two special-ed students holding hands and just as happy as you can be, and it was one of those epiphanies that you don't forget. The fact is, nobody needs to be lonely. Somebody who's just coming into their adult emotions might be feeling like there will never be anyone for them, but that's not right. Everybody can find love.

Isn't that what this should be about?

Next week's citizen's committee meeting is cancelled, so we'll have some time to put together our comments and get them in. It will be interesting to see what people propose.

77 Comments:

Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Jim writes,

Of the two days of classes, the first day (as I recall, I don't have it in front of me) mainly just mentions sexual orientation in a question for students to think about. It's more about healthy and unhealthy relationships... It's good to address issues of bullying and tolerance, but is the sex-ed class the place for that?

If not, where? Is there a class called Human Ethics 101?

Look, one of the primary justifications comprehensive sex-ed advocates give for bringing up the issue of sexual orientation in the course of teaching sex ed is because of bullying and intolerance. As a matter of fact, these same advocates will claim all manner of bullying and intolerance is taking place (and directed at students either self-identified or perceived to be homosexual)...until these same people are asked to provide documentation for the problem they allege.

There is a way to address this issue that really should be quite uncontroversial.

Simply state a fact up front first: tell the students that most of them will likely be (at some point in their lives) attracted to members of the opposite sex. However, there will be a smaller number in their midst, that for reasons we do not fully understand, will be attracted to members of the same sex. This will make them different than most of the rest of us.

Then go into Human Ethics...talk about the Equality Principle, best explained by Lincoln, about how everyone, even (and especially) those that are different from us deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. This can be emphasized by stating that more than anything else (money, clothes, social status, etc), how we treat others says so much about who we really are.

October 13, 2006 7:46 AM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

Jim writes: “I've been thinking a little bit about this new 8th grade curriculum. I appreciate the thought of structuring it around the idea of tolerance and empathy versus bullying and stereotypes, but I'm not sure that's really the way to approach it. Is that really the defining quality of sexual orientation -- bullying? Is the issue really tolerance and empathy? I would've thought it was about who you like.”

Orin responds that “one of the primary justifications comprehensive sex-ed advocates give for bringing up the issue of sexual orientation in the course of teaching sex ed is because of bullying and intolerance.”

The full health education curriculum includes segments on mental health, and certainly bullying is pertinent there. And, Orin, I believe the approach to ethics you posit is pretty much what MCPS proposes. That is good.

I think the question raised by Jim, however, is whether, in the 8th Grade (the 10th Grade unit has not yet been presented) sexual orientation should be discussed SOLELY in the context of bullying.

The curriculum that the BOE unanimously approved in November 2004, that was derailed by the lawsuit, placed the few items about sexual orientation in the context of sexuality generally. This approach was presented by the MCPS Staff to the CAC in 2003, the CAC agreed that it was a sound approach. I think the Staff thought was that if MCPS provides the basic facts about sexual orientation -- that the mainstream medical and mental health professional associations have concluded that homosexuality is not a disease or illness and that it is not a choice -- then much (albeit not all) of the reasons for bullying based on sexual orientation would be ameliorated. Certainly, providing that basic information would strengthen whatever else MCPS did about the bullying issue generally. But the Staff did recognize that bullying was not the only problem created by the absence of discussion of sexual orientation in the curriculum.

If the ONLY thing said about sexual orientation in the 8th Grade Health Curriculum is that people should not be bullied over it, then we are missing a very important aspect of what belongs in the curriculum. Even if all bullying were to cease, gay and lesbian students would still have health concerns must be addressed at this age (if not sooner, as the American Academy of Pediatrics experts told Superintendent Weast last winter).

Here are some reasons why:

1. Students may be afraid that if they are homosexual, then they are “sick.” MCPS should let them know that the medical/mental health profession concludes that they are NOT sick, and did not “choose” to be homosexual.

2. Students may think they can somehow “will” themselves to be an orientation that they are not. I believe it is appropriate to let them know that the American Medical Association opposes therapies that seek to do this because they are harmful.

3. Students who happen to be gay or lesbian may be afraid that they can never be happy. They should be told that the experts say they can be happy.

4. Students may worry that they cannot have any religious faith and be homosexual. This is not the case, for there are religious communities that are completely accepting of homosexuality. MCPS reserved the right, in the Settlement Agreement, to note that different religions have different views about sexual behaviors, and it should do so, once again.

The concerns I have just set forth are not abstract. They are precisely the agonies my own sons went through, alone, when each was in the 8th Grade. In the years since they each came out, I have heard countless similar stories from gay people who (barely) survived middle school.

This is an important health issue, and it should be addressed with the wisdom provided to us by groups like the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Psychological Association.

October 13, 2006 11:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This response from David demonstrates why he should not have been the chairman of this committee. From what has been revealed of the new proposals thus far, I've been pleased to see that value judgements have not been made and that science hasn't been improperly extrapolated into territory it hasn't yet reached. No statements about what constitutes normality vs disfunction should be made. No statements about the immutability of sexual attraction should be made. There is no evidence justifying any conclusions in these areas and making them, in either direction, offends the moral sensibilities of a large portion of our population.

I agree with Jim that this is not the right place to conduct discussion about bullying and harassment. This should be a part of no academic work but a component of the code of conduct. In other words, this type of activity should not be tolerated against any students. The singling out of sexual preference as a protected group is not appropriate unless there seems to be a problem at a particular school. Most of what is called bullying against gays is really just picking on kids who are vulnerable or don't adjust well socially. "Gay" just happens to be the epithet of choice. Whether that really constitutes an epithet is a value judgment that the school has no business ruling on. The school should simply make clear that uncivil behavior won't be tolerated. Classes on helping victims of this type of treatment develop coping strategies might also help but could be tricky to implement.

Middle school, by the way, David, is rough on everybody. Personally, I'd suggest anyone considering some private or home schooling do it during these years. The socialization during this period in MCPS is negative on balance and almost any environment is more healthy. "Barely surviving" is a common experience.

H.A.

October 13, 2006 12:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

More evidence of global cooling:

"Season's First Snow Hits Midwest, Northeast

By CAROLYN THOMPSON, AP

BUFFALO, N.Y. (Oct. 13) -- A rare early October snowstorm left parts of the Great Lakes and Midwest blanketed with 2 feet of snow Friday morning, prompting widespread blackouts and closing schools.

The snow downed scores of tree limbs and toppled power lines, leaving more than 220,000 customers without electricity in western New York.

By early Friday, 14 inches of snow had been recorded at the Buffalo Niagara International Airport, with reports of 2 feet elsewhere, said Tom Paone, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service. The snowfall was expected to continue throughout the morning, he said.

On Thursday, 8.3 inches of heavy snow set the record for the "snowiest" October day in Buffalo in the 137-year history of the weather service, said meteorologist Tom Niziol. The previous record of 6 inches was set Oct. 31, 1917."

October 13, 2006 12:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another nut bites the dust:


"NEW YORK - Air America Radio, a liberal talk and news radio network that features the comedian Al Franken, has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, a network official told The AP.

The network had denied rumors just a month ago that it would file for bankruptcy protection."

October 13, 2006 12:22 PM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

H.A.,

Yes, middle school/junior high school is tough. One of the reasons we have health education classes is to make it less difficult by presenting information that will help children navigate through those difficult years.

It is not an impermissible value judgment to let students know, in a health class, what that the mainstream medical and mental health professional associations have concluded about sexual orientation. Conveying that information will make many of their lives easier -- indeed, it will even save lives. This should not bother anyone, unless they sincerely believe that the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, on these issues, are no better than barbers with leeches.

October 13, 2006 3:18 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

H.A. said " No statements about the immutability of sexual attraction should be made. There is no evidence justifying any conclusions in these areas and making them, in either direction".

H.A. There is evidence that in the vast majority of cases sexual attraction is immutable. Robert Spitzer took 5 years to comb "exgay" organizations for 200 claiming to have changed out of an estimated 250,000 clients for a "success" rate of .04%. Out of those he interviewed whom he believed to have succeeded the majority of them were employed by "exgay" organizations and thus had tremendous incentive to lie (you may have to cut and paste this into the browser address area):

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_exod1.htm

October 13, 2006 5:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"what that the mainstream medical and mental health professional associations have concluded about sexual orientation"

Their opinions on moral and social issues don't trump anyone else's. We're a nation of barbers and waitresses, lawyers and programmers. We're not elitists.

October 13, 2006 5:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Superstition and ignorance reigned during the Middle Ages, a time when characters we now consider to be simply from fairy tales; pixies, trolls, hobgoblins and so on, were thought to truly exist. Health was controlled by the stars, and affliction was a sign of impurity of the soul-a curse from God.

Disease was a constant concern, as was infection from injuries. Hygiene was not always a priority and medieval diets were lacking in vital nutrition. Barbers doubled as surgeons, and a good bleeding was often the cure prescribed.

Medieval science progressed slowly, and treatments for the sick were quite often out of reach, especially for the poor. But little by little, doctors were learning information that led to better cures, and understandings of how diseases were transmitted.

Hospitals began to be constructed, and schools established for those wishing to practice medicine. Superstition remained, and medieval science certainly did not have all the answers. Information lost from the burning of the library at Alexandria by Christian zealots was slowly being rediscovered."

http://www.medieval-life.net/health_main.htm

October 13, 2006 5:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Dr. Robert L. Spitzer is a Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University. He was chair of the task force of the third edition of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III) which was released in 1980. He has been referred to as a major architect of the modern classification of mental disorders which involves classifying mental disorders in discrete categories, with specified diagnostic criteria.

He was controversial in 1973 for arguing that homosexuality is not a clinical disorder, although the mainstrain psychiatric community was eventually swayed to this point of view.

In 2001, Spitzer delivered a controversial paper at the 2001 annual APA meeting arguing that "highly motivated" individuals could "successfully" change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. The APA immediately issued an official disavowal of the paper, noting that it had not been peer reviewed and bluntly stating that "There is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of reparative therapy as a treatment to change one's sexual orientation."

Two years later, Spitzer published the paper in the Archives of Sexual Behavior. The publication decision sparked controversy and one sponsoring member resigned in protest. The paper has been criticized on various grounds, including using non-random sampling and poor criteria for "success"."

Well, this guy, who was revered by gay advocate groups until he issues this paper seems convinced that, regardless of the claims of the APA, that change is possible. Of course, the lunatic fringe gay advocacy groups claim there are no reputable researchers who believe this. Of course not- if they did they wouldn't be reputable. And anyone who dares look into it knows what kind of treatment they'll from these groups.

The nuts also claim no one has ever changed. Aside from arguments about sampling, Spitzer showed that these people did exist. Of course they have a conflict of interest. They have changed and want others to know its possible. Another catch-22.

By the way, Randi, I've heard the gay advocate nuts claim this study is invalid. I never heard anyone claim it proved that change is not possible. You appear to be a whole new kinda nut.

October 14, 2006 9:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Superstition and ignorance reigned during the Middle Ages,"

Like now when, despite the facts, we have nuts claiming that homosexuality is perfectly normal and safe. And want to teach this to kids.

October 14, 2006 9:17 AM  
Anonymous Warning, facts ahead said...

"I anticipated some misuse of the study results but I did not anticipate that some of the media would say such ridiculous things as that the study raised the issue of homosexuality and choice. Of course no one chooses to be homosexual and no one chooses to be heterosexual. I did anticipate, and in my presentation warn, that it would be a mistake to interpret the study as implying that any highly motivated homosexual could change if they really were motivated to do so. I suspect that the vast majority of gay people - even if they wanted to - would be unable to make the substantial changes in sexual attraction and fantasy and enjoyment of heterosexual functioning that many of my subjects reported. I also warned against the study results being used to justify pressuring gay people to enter therapy when they had no interest in doing so and I have already heard of many incidents where that has happened. That is what troubles me the most about this controversy." - Dr. Robert Spitzer, May 16, 2001

http://www.hatecrime.org/exgay.html

October 14, 2006 10:36 AM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous at October 14, 2006 9:13 AM

The fact that it tooks Spitzer years to come up with 200 people claiming to have changed out of an estimated 250,000 seeking change for itself.

October 14, 2006 11:41 AM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Oops, that should have said "The fact that it tooks Spitzer years to come up with 200 people claiming to have changed out of an estimated 250,000 seeking change SPEAKS for itself. "

October 14, 2006 11:43 AM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

October 14, 2006 11:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I suspect"

Not exactly a scientific term.

"that the vast majority of gay people - even if they wanted to - would be unable to make the substantial changes in sexual attraction and fantasy and enjoyment of heterosexual functioning that many of my subjects reported."

Again, he had subjects that reported this.

"I also warned against the study results being used to justify pressuring gay people to enter therapy when they had no interest in doing so and I have already heard of many incidents where that has happened."

Saying they could change is not the same as saying it should. True scientists shouldn't change the truth they've because of fear about the effects. This is similar to statements this summer from the APA after its president first said he has nothing against reparative therapy and then changed his mind under pressure with a lot of language about "discrimination".

This issue is so politicized that peer research is not reliable. But anyone should wary of conclusions reached in studies where the researchers decided long before what conclusions they wanted. (think 1970s with no studies)

October 14, 2006 12:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The fact that it tooks Spitzer years to come up with 200 people claiming to have changed out of an estimated 250,000 seeking change for itself."

You're saying he spent 2 years dedicated to nothing but interviewing one-quarter of a million people? I think this needs some elaboration. (hint: it's a misleading statement)

October 14, 2006 12:14 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous atOctober 14, 2006 12:14 PM

No, 250,00 is the estimate of the number of clients that went through "reparative therapy" during the time it took to come up with the 200 Spitzer interviewed. You can read more about it in detail in the link I previously included.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_exod1.htm

October 14, 2006 1:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anonymous asked,You're saying he spent 2 years dedicated to nothing but interviewing one-quarter of a million people?



Anyone care to elaborate on how these "interviews" took place and the lack of quality?

http://www.exgaywatch.com/blog/archives/2005/03/researchers_don.html

In the interview that follows, Columbia University professor Dr. Robert L. Spitzer acknowledges the following:

Spitzer submitted a summary of results during his 2001 study of exgays to the head of NARTH, Joseph Nicolosi, as a price to obtain Nicolosi's further assistance with the study.

Spitzer misrepresents the clearly explained objections of his colleagues to the methodological weaknesses of his study.

Spitzer indicates he is not particularly interested in knowing whether the "change" is only temporary.

Spitzer says:

Some people have said, "Follow these people, interview them five years later, see how many of them have switched back," since it's well known that some ex-gays give it up.

But suppose you found that 5 percent or 10 percent did switch back. I mean, so what? You'd find the same thing if you followed people who had treatment for drug addiction. Some are going to relapse.

The study that ought to be done is a controlled study where people go into the therapy, and then you initially evaluate them, and then you evaluate them later and see how many actually changed. But that study is not going to be done, unfortunately.

Spitzer's interest in knowing only half the truth -- and some gay scientists' disinterest in conducting any studies at all -- are equally regrettable.

Without studies of the long-term impact of exgay therapies, prospective patients can only guess which exgay programs (if any) will be effective, and which ones are ineffective or counterproductive.

______

another:

http://www.waynebesen.com/2006/02/new-book-examines-spitzer-travesty.html


Ted

October 14, 2006 1:22 PM  
Anonymous Warning, facts ahead said...

Anonymous (H.A.?) said (think 1970s with no studies)

From Spitzer's bibliography:

Adams, H. E., & Sturgis, E. T. (1977). Status of behavioral reorientation techniques in the modification of homosexuality: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 84 1171-1188.

Barlow, D. H., & Agras, W. S. (1973). Fading to increase heterosexual responsiveness in homosexuals. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6, 355-366.

Bieber, I., Dain, H. J., Dince, P. R., Drellich, M. G., Grand, H. G., Gundlach, R. H., et al, (1962). Homosexuality: A psychoanalytic study of male homosexuals. New York: Basic Books.

Callahan, E. J., (1976). Covert sensitization for homosexuality. In J. Krumboltz and C. E. Thoresen (Eds.), Counseling methods (pp. 234-245), New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Ellis, A. (1959). A homosexual treated with rational psychotherapy. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 15 338-343.

Freeman, W., & Meyer, R. G. (1975). A behavioral alteration of sexual preferences in the human male. Behavior Therapy, 6, 206-212.

Hadden. S. B. (1966). Treatment of male homosexuals in groups International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 17, 13-22.

Hadfield, J. A. (1958). The cure of homosexuality. British Medical Journal, 58, 1323-1326.

Hatterer, L. J. (1970). Changing homosexuality in the male. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Liss, J. L., & Welner, A. (1973). Change in homosexual orientation. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 27, 102-104.

Masters, W. H., & Johnson, V. E., (1979). Homosexuality in perspective. Boston: Little, Brown.

McCrady, R. E. (1973). A forward-fading technique for increasing heterosexual responsiveness in male homosexuals. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 4, 257-261.

Mintz, E. E. (1966). Overt male homosexuals in combined group and individual treatment. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 30, 193-198.

Poe, J. S., (1952). The successful treatment of a 40-year old passive homosexual based on an adaptational view of sexual behavior. Psychoanalytic Review, 39, 23-33.

Socarides, C. W. (1978). Homosexuality, New York: Jason Aronson.

Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15-28.

Wolpe, J. (1969). The practice of behavior therapy. New York: Pergamon Press.

===========

Bieber's book noted in Spitzer's bibliography above contains 64 studies, reviews of studies, books, and book excerpts on the topic of reorientation therapy and all of them were obviously published before 1962. The bibliography of Socarides 1968 book (The Overt Homosexual, New York: Grune & Stratton) contains 178 items published prior to 1968.

The assertion that there had been no studies on this topic by the 1970s when the APA decided to remove homosexuality from the DSM is a lie.

October 14, 2006 5:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Former U.S. Rep. Gerry Studds, the first openly gay person elected to Congress, died early Saturday at Boston Medical Center.

In 1983, Studds acknowledged his homosexuality after a page revealed he’d had a relationship with Studds a decade earlier, when the page was 17.

The scandal recently resurfaced when former Republican Rep. Mark Foley resigned after exchanging sexually explicit instant messages with a page.

Republicans accused Democrats of hypocrisy for savaging Foley, but saying little about Studds at that time.

October 14, 2006 10:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The 1983 Congressional page sex scandal was a political scandal in the United States involving members of the United States House of Representatives.

On July 14, 1983 the House Ethics Committee concluded that Rep. Dan Crane (R-Ill.) and Rep. Gerry Studds (D-Mass.) had engaged in sexual relationships with minors, specifically 17-year-old congressional pages. In Crane's case, it was a 1980 relationship with a female page and in Studds's case, it was a 1973 relationship with a male page. Both representatives immediately admitted to the charges and the committee recommended reprimand for the two.

However, Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) demanded their expulsion [citation needed]. On July 20, 1983, the House voted for censure nearly unanimously[1], the first time that censure had been imposed for sexual misconduct. Crane, who subsequently apologized for his transgression, lost his bid for reelection in 1984.

Studds admitted "an error in judgment." While Studds has often been reported as having "turned his back on the House" as the House read its censure motion aloud,[2] contemporary reports made it clear that in contrast to Crane, who faced the House as the motion for his censure was read, Studds faced the Speaker who was actually reading the motion, with his back to the other members.[3] Also in contrast to Crane, who left the chamber after his censure, Studds rejoined the other members of the House after his censure was read.[3] He called a press conference with the former page, in which both stated that the young man, who was 17, consented. Studds, who had been 36 at the time, claimed he did not break any U.S. laws in what he called a "private relationship."[4][5][6] He continued to be reelected until his retirement in 1996"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Congressional_page_sex_scandal

October 14, 2006 11:26 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Orin said...Then go into Human Ethics...talk about the Equality Principle, best explained by Lincoln, about how everyone, even (and especially) those that are different from us deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. This can be emphasized by stating that more than anything else (money, clothes, social status, etc), how we treat others says so much about who we really are.

I couldn't agree with these sentiments more. That's why I support gay marriage - because how we treat gay people "says so much about who we really are" and because denying them the right to marry the person they love is not treating them with "dignity and respect." Denying LGBT's this right is a violation of human dignity because it is treating them like second class citizens (or the more hateful terms some people use such as sinners, sodomites, deviants, etc., and the use of these terms is hateful, not dignified or respectful.). Gays are simply people with a minority sexual orientation and we should not discriminate against them. American gays should have the same right to "the pursuit of happiness" as the rest of us.

Aunt Bea

October 15, 2006 8:16 AM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

That's mighty sweet of you, Aunt Bea.

October 15, 2006 2:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

NAMbLA is simply people with a minority sexual orientation and we should not discriminate against them
Ted Bundy was simply a person with a minority sexual orientation and we should not discriminate against him.
ant bea aka gormer pile get off the soap box you are full of it.

October 17, 2006 11:53 AM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous atOctober 17, 2006 11:53 AM its you who are full of it.
The essence of morality is do whatever you want as long as you don't interfere in someone else's right to do the same.
Ted Bundy and Nambla have prevented others from living their lives as they would choose, that's wrong and worthy of discrimination. Gays don't hurt others with their love and no one has a moral right to discriminate against them for that reason.

October 17, 2006 1:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The essence of morality is do whatever you want as long as you don't interfere in someone else's right to do the same."

I think most would disagree with this hedonistic statement, Randi. It completely ignores any moral obligation to one's fellow man.

October 17, 2006 2:36 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous at October 17, 2006 2:36 PM the moral obligation to one's fellow man is first and foremost not to hurt him/her and I think most, including you, must agree with that. From there its a seperate issue if one wants to help their fellow man. Perhaps its better to say "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.".

October 17, 2006 3:56 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous at October 17, 2006 2:36 PM don't forget that when doctors take their oath it begins with "first do no harm". Do you disagree with that? Would you dismiss that as hedonistic?

October 17, 2006 4:04 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

"Feds Deny Death Benefits to Gay Congressman's Spouse
By STEVE LeBLANC, AP

BOSTON (Oct. 18) - Former Rep. Gerry Studds, the first openly gay member of Congress, was married to another man in Massachusetts at the time of his death, but the federal government will not pay death benefits to his spouse.

Studds married Dean Hara in 2004 after gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts. But Hara will not be eligible to receive any portion of Studds' estimated $114,337 annual pension because the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act bars the federal government from recognizing Studds' marriage.

Management, which administers the congressional pension program, said same-sex partners are not recognized as spouses for any marriage benefits. He said Studds' case was the first of its kind known to the agency.

Under federal law, pensions can be denied only to lawmakers' same-sex partners and people convicted of espionage or treason, Graves said..."


This is outrageous discrimination on the basis of gender and has no place in the land of the free. If Gary Studds' spouse had been a women, she'd be entitled to a portion of his pension. American citizens are all free to engage in our individual pursuits of happiness, unless of course we are same-sex parnters who are treated like convicted criminals in the eyes of this disgusting law. I am reminded of the days when we had laws on the books forcing "coloreds" to sit in the back of the bus and use the back door.

Shame on America. This discrimination must end.

Aunt Bea

October 18, 2006 7:19 AM  
Blogger digger said...

To me, morality consists not just of doing no harm, but of doing positive good. We are placed on this earth to make it a better place, be that improvement of the lot of our family, our friends, our neighbors, our students, people on the other side of the planet; it may consist of making the planet itself safer and healthier.

People who limit the freedom and enjoyment of life of other people in the name of some values they hold for themselves are not moral.

rrjr

October 18, 2006 9:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"To me, morality consists not just of doing no harm, but of doing positive good. We are placed on this earth to make it a better place, be that improvement of the lot of our family, our friends, our neighbors, our students, people on the other side of the planet; it may consist of making the planet itself safer and healthier.

People who limit the freedom and enjoyment of life of other people in the name of some values they hold for themselves are not moral."

Robert

We are here to glorify the Creator, who is good. You'll never be any better a person than your highest conception of who God is.

Unlimited freedom and thoughtless enjoyment of indulgence conflicts with the same for others, either directly or indirectly by degrading society as a whole. We have responsibilities beyond, as you seem to realize, beyond just not causing any direct harm or, even, directly helping individuals.

Maybe you said that yourself but making the world a better place might not be as simple as you think.

October 18, 2006 11:17 AM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous at October 18, 2006 11:17 AM, nobody was talking about unlimited freedom. I'm not under any obligation to glorify your invisible man in the sky. I've read the Old Testament and there is no more despicable character in all of literature.

I'm here to maximize the pleasure and minimize the pain for all in an equal fashion. There is no higher calling. Any all powerful god isn't in need of any help from me or any other human, it can take care of itself.

October 18, 2006 1:25 PM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

Anon,

What is the basis for your conclusion that gay people in committed monogamous relationships "degrad[e] society as a whole"?

October 18, 2006 2:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What is the basis for your conclusion that gay people in committed monogamous relationships "degrad[e] society as a whole"?"

I didn't say that David. It might be true but I'd want to give it a little thought before concluding on the matter.

I was just saying that everyone has moral responsibilities to contribute to a healthy society.

October 18, 2006 6:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

October 18, 2006

Studds' Death Leveraged by Gay Activists

by Pete Winn, associate editor


At least one group is arguing the deceased former congressman's same-sex partner should receive his federal pension.

Homosexual activists are looking to capitalize on the recent death of the first openly gay congressman, Rep. Gerry Studds, by claiming his same-sex partner is being discriminated against by the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

That law prohibits Studds' gay partner from inheriting his federal pension, worth an estimated $114, 000 annually, according to Gary Buseck of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders. So, the group plans to use the incident to "educate" Congress about the need to legalize same-sex marriage — and then work to get lawmakers to strike down the law.

The federal DOMA defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman for the purposes of federal law — and says states need not recognize same-sex relationships, even if they are defined as "marriage" under one state's laws.

Studds and his partner, Dean Hara, were married in Massachusetts — the only state that allows same-sex couples to unite in matrimony.

Bob Knight, director of the Culture and Media Institute at the Media Research Center, said if Studds wanted Hara to receive his pension, he likely could have named him as a beneficiary, but the late congressman apparently didn't.

Still, Knight is not surprised gay activists are trying to leverage Studds' death to push for gay marriage, since one of their tactics is to portray same-sex relationships as being equal to real marriages.

"They are comparing unequal things, however, and it really isn't about equality," Knight said. "It's about seizing the moral capital of marriage and applying it to a relationship that's totally different, one which is not essential for society's survival."

Knight said lawmakers should not be in the business of placing incentives into law for relationships that "can be dangerous to society."

"The only reason why the law benefits marital spouses is because marriage is indispensable to society," he said. "It does so much good that we can't do without it, so the government says, 'We're going to build these privileges and benefits into the system, because there is nothing like marriage. It's unique.'

"Here you have a relationship between two guys, and the surviving guy is saying, 'I'm entitled to the same thing a wife would get because I've given to society just what a wife would have.' No, he hasn't."

Carrie Gordon Earll, director of issue analysis for Focus on the Family Action, said the Studds incident is evidence of the real intention of gay activists.

"What this tells us is that anti-marriage gay activists will stop at nothing to dismantle, destroy and turn on the ash heap traditional marriage," she explained. "They will not be happy until every law that protects marriage and encourages heterosexual marriage is dismantled and destroyed.

"For us to think, for even one moment, that offering civil unions or domestic partnerships or some other kind of intermediate option is going to satisfy them is utterly foolish."

Studds was best known for having literally turned his back on the members of the House after they voted in 1983 to censure him for having sex a decade earlier with a then-17-year-old page.

"Americans overwhelmingly reject the equation of gay relationships with marriage," Knight said, "but you can bet that this claim by Gerry Studds' partner will get good coverage on the networks and also in the mainstream print media."

October 18, 2006 8:49 PM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

Anonymous said...
"What is the basis for your conclusion that gay people in committed monogamous relationships "degrad[e] society as a whole"?"

I didn't say that David. It might be true but I'd want to give it a little thought before concluding on the matter.

I was just saying that everyone has moral responsibilities to contribute to a healthy society.

**********************
I would think that everyone would agree with your last sentence.

But your earlier comments certainly suggest that you believe that all homosexual activity "degrades society as a whole."

Please give my question some thought. I look forward to hearing your answer and, if you believe that monogamous, committed same-sex unions "degrade society as a whole," I would be interested in hearing your rationale.

October 18, 2006 9:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"But your earlier comments certainly suggest that you believe that all homosexual activity "degrades society as a whole.""

Well, my suggestion was that they might. I was trying to stretch the thinking of Randi and Robert. I was hoping they might come to their own conclusions.

"Please give my question some thought. I look forward to hearing your answer and, if you believe that monogamous, committed same-sex unions "degrade society as a whole," I would be interested in hearing your rationale."

Sure, David. As long as you promise not to argue with me.

BTW, do you think promiscuous random homosexuality "degrades society as a whole"?

October 18, 2006 9:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anonymous said BTW, do you think promiscuous random homosexuality "degrades society as a whole"?


What is "random homosexuality?"

Ted

October 18, 2006 10:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What is "random homosexuality?"

It's when different partners of the same gender are chosen, almost nightly, without any discernible discretion.

October 19, 2006 12:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said,"What is "random homosexuality?"

It's when different partners of the same gender are chosen, almost nightly, without any discernible discretion.

-----------

For heterosexuals it is what???????

Ted

October 19, 2006 6:54 AM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

Anon,

I believe that "random promiscuity" -- whether heterosexual or homosexual -- is not healthy for society.

Now will you answer my question?

October 19, 2006 6:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"For heterosexuals it is what???????"

much rarer

October 19, 2006 10:44 AM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous at October 18, 2006 9:35 PM said "[all homosexual activity] degrades society as a whole...Well, my suggestion was that they might. I was trying to stretch the thinking of Randi and Robert. I was hoping they might come to their own conclusions.".

I can't imagine what you wanted me to think about that other then "what a biggoted, hateful, ignorant statement" - that's why I ignored it the first time around. I am a male to female transexual in a relationship with a man of which many people, like you I imagine, don't approve. The fact is we have the most wonderful fullfilling pure love and for anyone to oppose that is completely crazy.

October 19, 2006 1:21 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Still, Knight is not surprised gay activists are trying to leverage Studds' death to push for gay marriage, since one of their tactics is to portray same-sex relationships as being equal to real marriages.

I've been in a loving relationship with a woman and I'm now in a loving relationship with a man and they most certainly are equal. I speak from experience, what about Bob Knight?

"They are comparing unequal things, however, and it really isn't about equality," Knight said. "It's about seizing the moral capital of marriage and applying it to a relationship that's totally different, one which is not essential for society's survival."

My experience shows they are equal and a relationship doesn't have to be essential for society's survival to be beneficial and worthy of supporting and encouraging.

Knight said lawmakers should not be in the business of placing incentives into law for relationships that "can be dangerous to society."

My relationships with both a man and a woman have been wonderful supportive and a benefit to us and ultimately society. Knight's comments are ignorant and bigotted.

"Here you have a relationship between two guys, and the surviving guy is saying, 'I'm entitled to the same thing a wife would get because I've given to society just what a wife would have.' No, he hasn't."

Yes he has. Many male/female couples do not have children and are allowed to get/remain married. Two guys being married is exactly the same benefit to society.


[gays] will not be happy until every law that protects marriage and encourages heterosexual marriage is dismantled and destroyed.

That's absurd. Allowing same sex marriage doesn't prevent anyone from encouraging all the heterosexual marriages they want. No gays are trying to destroy heterosexual marriages and not one single heterosexual marriage has been dismantled or destroyed because two men married in a jurisdiction where its allowed.

October 19, 2006 2:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Read Bob Knight's biography at the Concerned Women for America site here:

http://www.cwfa.org/printerfriendly.asp?id=2110&department=cwa&categoryid

Read and listen to Bob Knight's presentation at the Montgomery County hatefest sponsored by the suers last spring here:

http://www.teachthefacts.org/CRCHateFest/CRChome.html

October 19, 2006 2:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:
"... do you think promiscuous random homosexuality "degrades society as a whole"?"

Do you think homosexual random promiscuity poses more of a threat than heterosexual random promiscuity?

You often reference the stereotypical promiscuous gay male, and often rigorously apply that stereotype over commen sense. You should put things into perspective. There are far less gay males than straight males. Even if every gay male was engaging in random promiscuity, they would most likely never match the number of promiscuous straight males out there who continuously look for new "birds" to "score" with.

I'm trying to see how you picture the end of things. Let's assume that all gays (including lesbians) were engaging in random promiscuity and they all died off early because of various STDs (so they don't affect the heterosexual population in any way). You would still have random heterosexual promiscuity, and not only can that lead to STDs, but unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and single mums. If you were to argue that homosexuals can affect the heterosexual population sexually, it wouldn't be through homosexual sex would it?

K.A.

October 19, 2006 7:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The type of random anonymous promiscuity prevalent in the homosexual community is much less rare than you think among heterosexuals. The number of partners even in promiscuous heteros is a fraction of the same for gays. This is the reason for the more serious health problems.

October 19, 2006 9:54 PM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

Anon,

You still haven't answered my question about whether monogamous, committed same-sex relationships degrade society.

October 19, 2006 11:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:
"The type of random anonymous promiscuity prevalent in the homosexual community is much less rare than you think among heterosexuals. The number of partners even in promiscuous heteros is a fraction of the same for gays."

Really now? I wonder what sources tell you this. Or are you just some all-knowing deity? Or are you relying on stereotypes and assumptions?

Regardless, you didn't answer my question as to whether you think homosexual promiscuity is more of a threat to society than heterosexual promiscuity.

October 20, 2006 7:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You still haven't answered my question about whether monogamous, committed same-sex relationships degrade society."

David,

I'm keeping my cards close to my chest and saving that for an October surprise.

October 20, 2006 9:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Regardless, you didn't answer my question as to whether you think homosexual promiscuity is more of a threat to society than heterosexual promiscuity."

Sorry to be oblique. As a matter of fact, yes I do but that's not to say hetero prom isn't a problem.

October 20, 2006 9:55 AM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous at October 20, 2006 9:55 AM

Actually its heterosexual promiscuity that's more of a threat to society. Both spread disease but only one causes unwanted pregnancies.

October 20, 2006 12:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You might have a point, Randi. The disintegration of the family, especially in the lower income population, is a cause of many societal problems.

October 20, 2006 1:46 PM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

Anon writes in response to my comment that "You [Anon] still haven't answered my question about whether monogamous, committed same-sex relationships degrade society," by saying, "I'm keeping my cards close to my chest and saving that for an October surprise."

*******************************
So you have an opinion, but don't want to state it? If so, then you plainly are not interested in having a civil discussion of these issues which are extremely important to the actual lives of many people. Civil discourse cannot do much good when someone does not want to work through the implications of things they have been saying.

If you think that monogamous, committed same-sex relationships are a threat to the well-being of society, then -- if you are going to participate in these discussions -- you have an obligation to explain why you believe that. If, on the other hand, on reflection, you do not think that such relationships are a threat to society, then you should so state.

Your postings are in stark contrast to those of Orin, who usually seems interested in working through these issues. Either be a stand-up person and answer, or please stop wasting everyone's time.

October 20, 2006 3:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So you have an opinion, but don't want to state it? If so, then you plainly are not interested in having a civil discussion of these issues which are extremely important to the actual lives of many people. Civil discourse cannot do much good when someone does not want to work through the implications of things they have been saying."

David, we were having a broad discussion about the philosophy of ethics. A commenter stated, at first, that the essence of morality is avoiding doing harm. A few others noted obligation to help others. In the course of the conversation, I noted the obligation to avoid degrading society. You brought up the monogamous gay implications. I'm choosing not to be drawn into a conversation about a theoretical situation that is not at all common. I usually go along with that, but not this time.

"If you think that monogamous, committed same-sex relationships are a threat to the well-being of society, then -- if you are going to participate in these discussions -- you have an obligation to explain why you believe that. If, on the other hand, on reflection, you do not think that such relationships are a threat to society, then you should so state."

By all your "shoulds" here, I assume you're adding to our morality discussion that we have an obligation to say everything we think. That's actually not true. It's sometimes better to not say anything. It should be left to discretion. I don't think anything would be accomplished in this case.

"Your postings are in stark contrast to those of Orin, who usually seems interested in working through these issues. Either be a stand-up person and answer, or please stop wasting everyone's time."

Oh, I think I've provided you lunatics with enough opportunity to argue your points. I don't think I'm obligated to follow you down every available rabbit hole.

October 21, 2006 12:11 AM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous at October 21, 2006 12:11 AM

You don't need to answer that question, we all know what the only honest answer is, your just afraid to acknowledge it because you can't give an anti-gay response and tell the truth. Of course if you want to say committed monogamous same sex relationships are a threat to society then you are the lunatic, a liar, or both. Maybe you need a little quality time with a good pyschiatrist to overcome your fears of admiting that such gay relationships are good for society.

October 21, 2006 1:58 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

"I'm choosing not to be drawn into a conversation about a theoretical situation that is not at all common."

Oh brother. Get real.

In the past 5 years there's been at least a 30% increase in that "not all that common" "theoretical situation" of committed same sex couples in the US.

"The release of new data from the American Community Survey (ACS) this month offers the first opportunity to update what we have learned and to assess possible changes in the
geographic and demographic characteristics of same-sex couples. Analyses of the ACS 2005 data reveal that:

• The number of same-sex couples in the U.S. grew by more than 30 percent from 2000 to 2005, from nearly 600,000 couples in 2000 to almost 777,000 in 2005. Such an increase is five times the six percent rate of growth in the U.S. population. Most likely as stigma associated with same-sex partnering and homosexuality in general decreases, more same-sex couples are willing to identify themselves as such on government surveys like the ACS.

• At the state level, the largest percentage increase in the number of same-sex couples occurred throughout the Midwest, an area that had relatively low rates of these couples in Census 2000. The ten states with the largest percentage increase include Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, and Ohio. In addition, Colorado and New Hampshire also ranked in the top ten in terms of percentage growth.

• Six of the eight states with a 2006 ballot initiative that would ban same-sex marriage-Arizona, Colorado, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin-experienced increases in the number of same-sex couples in excess of the national rate of 30 percent.

• There are an estimated 8.8 million gay, lesbian, and bisexual (GLB) persons in the U.S.

• Among the states, California, Florida, New York, Texas, and Illinois have the largest GLB populations along with the District of Columbia. New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, and Boston have the largest GLB populations among metropolitan areas.

• Ranking states by the percentage of the adult population who are GLB, the District of Columbia, New Hampshire, Washington, Massachusetts and Maine come out on top. Among large metropolitan areas, San Francisco, Seattle, Boston, Portland (OR), and Tampa rank in the top five in this statistic.

• Same-sex couples are found in all Congressional districts in the U.S. The release of the 2005 ACS marks the first time that data regarding same-sex couples are available for current Congressional districts. Congressional districts with the highest number and percentage of GLB individuals in the population tend to be more urban with California's 8th district (San Francisco) ranking first in both categories."


From "Same-sex Couples and the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual Population: New Estimates from the American Community Survey" October, 2006

http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/SameSexCouplesandGLBpopACS.pdf

Aunt Bea

October 21, 2006 9:13 AM  
Anonymous Dixie said...

David said ... "If you think that monogamous, committed same-sex relationships are a threat to the well-being of society, then -- if you are going to participate in these discussions -- you have an obligation to explain why you believe that. If, on the other hand, on reflection, you do not think that such relationships are a threat to society, then you should so state."

Anon replied..."By all your "shoulds" here, I assume you're adding to our morality discussion that we have an obligation to say everything we think. That's actually not true. It's sometimes better to not say anything. It should be left to discretion. I don't think anything would be accomplished in this case."

Uh Anon, "all" David's "shoulds" equal a total of one. Do you honestly think it's better not to say anything when you are having a discussion because "it" ("it" what, your opinion?) should be left to "discretion?" Discussions where one side is silent are more properly called monologues. But by all means, go ahead and hide your opinion just like you hide your identity. Actions often speak louder than words.

To add to the discussion, here's my opinion on the topic of promiscuity and society. Most people who realize that encouraging opposite sex marriage discourages opposite sex promiscuity also realize that disallowing same sex marriage encourages same sex promiscuity. Most people who are truly concerned about detrimental effects of promiscuity on society want to work to decrease promiscuity by encouraging committed monogamous relationships.

Dixie

October 21, 2006 12:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You don't need to answer that question, we all know what the only honest answer is, your just afraid to acknowledge it because you can't give an anti-gay response and tell the truth. Of course if you want to say committed monogamous same sex relationships are a threat to society then you are the lunatic, a liar, or both. Maybe you need a little quality time with a good pyschiatrist to overcome your fears of admiting that such gay relationships are good for society."

Well, as pyscho that I am, I'm still not going to be drawn into a discussion that accepts the other side's premise. David wants to discuss this because he wants to create the impression that this fairy tale world of monogamous gay couples exists. Truth is, even among the couple of hundred thousand "couples" Beatrice talks about above, there is cause to believe that there is still a great deal of promiscuity. Having a room mate doesn't prevent that. Areas where gays are openly accepted are the very places where AIDS rages most unabated. Facts are facts.

October 22, 2006 6:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Most people who realize that encouraging opposite sex marriage discourages opposite sex promiscuity also realize that disallowing same sex marriage encourages same sex promiscuity."

Any proof of this?

October 22, 2006 6:58 AM  
Anonymous Warning, facts ahead said...

Areas where gays are openly accepted are the very places where AIDS rages most unabated. Facts are facts.

Is that what you believe? Here are some real facts for you:

"Several recent developments in the Caribbean region (in Bahamas, Barbados, Bermuda, Dominican Republic and Haiti) give cause for guarded optimism—with some HIV prevalence declines evident among pregnant women, signs of increased condom use among sex workers and expansion of voluntary HIV testing and counselling.

Despite decreases in the rate of infection in certain countries, the overall number of people living with HIV has continued to increase in all regions of the world except the Caribbean. There were an additional five million new infections in 2005. The number of people living with HIV globally has reached its highest level with an estimated 40.3 million people, up from an estimated 37.5 million in 2003. More than three million people died of AIDS-related illnesses in 2005; of these, more than 500000 were children. According to the report, the steepest increases in HIV infections have occurred in Eastern Europe and Central Asia (25% increase to 1.6 million) and East Asia. But sub-Saharan Africa continues to be the most affected globally– with 64% of new infections occurring here (over three million people)....

New data show that in Latin America, Eastern Europe and particularly Asia, the combination of injecting drug use and sex work is fuelling epidemics, and prevention programmes are falling short of addressing this overlap. The report shows how sustained, intensive programmes in diverse settings have helped bring about decreases in HIV incidence— among young people in Uganda and Tanzania, among sex workers and their clients in Thailand and India, and among injecting drug users in Spain and Brazil.

The report notes that, without HIV prevention measures, about 35% of children born to HIV positive women will contract the virus. While mother-to-child transmission has been virtually eliminated from industrialized countries and service coverage is improving in many other places, it still falls far short in most of sub-Saharan Africa. An accelerated scale-up of services is urgently needed to reduce this unacceptable toll.

Levels of knowledge of safe sex and HIV remain low in many countries – even in countries with high and growing prevalence. In 24 sub-Saharan countries (including Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal and Uganda), two-thirds or more of young women (aged 15-24 years) lacked comprehensive knowledge of HIV transmission. According to a major survey carried out in the Philippines in 2003, more than 90% of respondents still believed that HIV could be transmitted by sharing a meal with an HIV-positive person."

http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2005/Nov/21-851861.html

October 22, 2006 8:56 AM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous at October 22, 2006 6:55 AM said "David wants to discuss this because he wants to create the impression that this fairy tale world of monogamous gay couples exists. Truth is, even among the couple of hundred thousand "couples" Beatrice talks about above, there is cause to believe that there is still a great deal of promiscuity. Having a room mate doesn't prevent that. Areas where gays are openly accepted are the very places where AIDS rages most unabated. Facts are facts.

Well, "cause to believe" is not facts and you don't have any genuine cause to believe this. I live in a committed monogamous relitionship with my boyfiend and this fairytale relationship most certainly exists and I deeply resent you suggesting anything to the contrary. As the poster "warning facts ahead" shows the truth is the opposite of what you said, its the places where gays are amongst the least accepted where AIDS rages.

Your blind hatred and lies are dispicable, you know there are many monogamous committed gay couples and you're too immature and cowardly to admit it.

October 22, 2006 12:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon, it's blatantly obvious that you rely on stereotypes and assumptions for any "facts" relating to gays. You've done so consistently, yet you say the "left" can't debate rationally? Your hypocrisy is always buzzing.

October 22, 2006 1:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Well, "cause to believe" is not facts and you don't have any genuine cause to believe this."

How about the fact that, here in America, where homosexuality is tolerated, the majority of new sexually transmitted AIDS cases are among those who engage in male-male sexual activity.

October 22, 2006 11:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That is not correct. Men having sex with men make up less than half of new HIV cases.

October 23, 2006 12:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

didn't say pecentage of all HIV cases

I said percentage of SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED cases

male to male accounts for 80% of those

October 23, 2006 1:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

According to THIS CDC FACTSHEET, men who have sex with men -- including drug-injecting men who have sex with men -- made up 46 percent of new AIDS cases in 2003.

That is less than half.

Your eighty percent, Anon, is simply a lie. No matter how you cut the pie, you can't make these numbers add up to eighty percent.

October 23, 2006 1:42 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous at October 23, 2006 1:32 PM said "didn't say pecentage of all HIV cases...I said percentage of SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED cases...male to male accounts for 80% of those"`

Yes you did say "the majority of new sexually transmitted AIDS cases are among those who engage in male-male sexual activity.", its right in your post at October 22, 2006 11:11 PM

Generally I take people at their word but I find your (new) claim that 80% of all cases of STDs are amongst men who have sex with men to be particularly unbelievable - how about you provide a reference for this or retract that statement

October 23, 2006 7:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A couple of months ago, Jim and I had the same exchange. Go back and look. At the most recent date then, the government numbers showed 80% of new sexually transmitted AIDS was among male to male sexual activity. The report even went into detail theorizing why that is and seemed to find it likely that the cause was the increased availablity to homosexuals for random, anonymous sex via the internet.

October 23, 2006 11:45 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous at October 23, 2006 11:45 PM first you talk about HIV, then you claim you never said HIV you were talking about all STDs, now you're back to saying you were referring to HIV.

You're blatantly contradicting yourself and failing to acknowledge it, this goes to your credibility (lack of). I don't believe you and I'm not going to dig through months of threads to likely find more of the same BS you've been spewing. The anonymous poster at October 23, 2006 1:42 PM gave a CDC link contradicting you and that carries credibility you don't have.

The fact is I and the gays I know have monogamous loving and supporive relationships and you're hatefully attempting to smear us all by saying we don't exist. An honest and fair-minded person would never condemn the innocent for the bad behavior of others but you do it over and over by blindly suggesting all gays are promiscuous disease spreaders. Most serial killers are heterosexual, you wouldn't like it if I kept saying because you are a heterosexual you are a wannabe serial killer - stop playing the same sort of sick game with gays.

October 24, 2006 11:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"the majority of new sexually transmitted AIDS cases are among those who engage in male-male sexual activity."

Here's the original statement by me. Don't know what point Randi is trying to make but I'm not coming back to this post again.

MOST NEW SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED AIDS CASES RESULT FROM MALE-MALE SEXUAL RELATIONS DESPITE THE FACT THAT HOMOSEXUALS MAKE UP A FRACTION OF THE POPULATION. IT'S BECAUSE OF WIDESPREAD RANDOM AND ANONYMOUS ACTIVITY AMONG THIS GROUP.

October 25, 2006 11:38 AM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous at October 25, 2006 11:38 AM as was pointed out atOctober 23, 2006 1:42 PM that's not the case. The point I'm making is that earlier you claimed you never said most new HIV cases were among men who have sex with men, you claimed to have instead stated that men who have sex with men are responsible for 80% of all new cases of STDs (a ridiculous claim in and of itself), in other words lies roll off your tongue with frightful ease.

This originally began with your unwillingness to state whether or not you thought committed monongamous same sex relationships
were a threat to society which any reasonable person would readily admit they are not. If you truly were concerned about HIV or STDs in the gay community you'd be encouraging such relationships and equal marriage for same sex couples but your goal is not to make things better (as you claimed earlier) its to denigrate and spread hate.

October 25, 2006 12:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"you claimed to have instead stated that men who have sex with men are responsible for 80% of all new cases of STDs (a ridiculous claim in and of itself"

Don't know if you're stupid or a liar or if there's some other possibility but I never said the above. I said NEW SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED AIDS CASES not ALL SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES. For the purposes of this discussion, I'm ignoring any drug-resistant strains of any other venereal diseases that may be a result of gay activity.

October 26, 2006 11:35 AM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous at October 26, 2006 11:35 AM yes you did say that. At October 23, 2006 1:32 PM you said and I quote "didn't say pecentage of all HIV cases

I said percentage of SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED cases

male to male accounts for 80% of those
".

You are the liar.

October 26, 2006 1:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe it is stupidity. "of those" refers to "HIV cases". Are they still teaching grammar in schools these days?

October 26, 2006 2:34 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous at October 26, 2006 2:34 PM

My bad, yes it appears I repeatedly misread what you said. I read "sexually transmitted cases" as "sexually transmitted diseases". I'm sorry I said you lied about that, it appears you were only lying about the actual numbers and the generalization that this is typical of all gays.

I've never had an STD and like others in monogamous committed gay relationships we don't deserve your blind smears, judge us based on our own behaviors not others you incorrectly apply to us.

October 26, 2006 4:23 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home