OK, very good. That's a wrap folks, another thread, another time.

Ok, Keefer, you got me. I jest get werked up in a sabre-waving lather when it comes to people yammering on about "destructive lifestyles".

Methinks it's high time for a little hara-kiri on this thread.

So, from one ronin to another....[bow].

[Slashes abdomen with sword. Dies horribly in a pool of own blood. Last words: "Cornnnutts..."]

Mythago

Nope, that's exactly what pisses people off. Me included. Someone trying to be understanding and reasonable, to invoke the constitution, and state his personal plan that affects no one but himself and his family, thus promoting equality.

And for some jackass, that isn't good enough. Let me quote:


What you really mean, though, is you can't think "homosexual" without thinking "buttfarking," and you believe your kids have that same one-track mind.


Don't put words in the man's mouth. Because its possible that he was being truthful...oh wait...you know what he really meant...that's bull$hit. What he really meant is what he really said. If you can't recognize understanding and an attempt at equality then you need to re-think this whole living in America thing you seem to be doing and go start you're own country where you can have your way.

Cherrydog:
I don't think its too harsh to call him no better. Because he is ONLY looking out for his own intrests, not the intrests of a better society. Those type of people have no business trying to advocate for rights, when they will disregard others to get the ones they want.

I gotta go..to those who have given intelligent debate on this subject today: Thanks.

Aww, Tommybob left us with some parting words, and those words were as childish as everything else he has said. "you are all going to Hell so NYA!"

An intelligent troll-Imean man is our Tommy.

Kymry

Cherrydog: Thread Hari-Kari? Your wish is my command. I present cute dog and kitty picture:



WAIT A MINUTE, THAT'S AN UNNATURAL LIFESTYLE! OH MY GOD, GET THAT FILTH OUT OF MY FACE!

Well, I don't like the whole gay thing in general. If it was "normal", then there WOULD be a way to reproduce in male-male relationships.

But it doesn't bother me as long as they keep their home life at home. I for one am not too big on having some gay bloke talk outloud about how he likes smoking male cigars and whatnot. And I'm pretty sure gays would find me ghastly annoying if all I did was talk about how I like farking hot girls all the time. Nothing against gays though, I wouldn't want to be in some nice resturant and hear a girl and a guy talk about how much they farked the night away either. I just don't want to know that kind of stuff because it just makes my skin crawl (much like hearing some guy talk about skinning a 14 year old girl makes my skin crawl in the same way).

Homosexuality isn't exactly "natural". Otherwise, we'd see examples of entire gay animal species SOMEWHERE in the world (not counting unisex plants and such). And if you consider a mutation in one's genetic makeup "natural", then I guess it is.

Now I don't have a problem with homosexuality on TV (I don't have to watch it), but then again I'm not too big on having it on a show that's format doesn't exactly fit with the nature of homosexuality (ie Spongebob). It's a kids show; ANY sexuality on that show isn't exactly appropriate for it to begin with.

But then again, Nick and homosexuals in general can do whatever the hell they want to do. I just don't have to listen to them, let alone care about it.

What you really mean, though, is you can't think "homosexual" without thinking "buttfarking," and you believe your kids have that same one-track mind. Letting them be indoctrinated into straighthood by watching Prince Charming smooch the girl, hey, that's okay, but if Spongebob had a boyfriend--my god! Next thing you know it'll be duct tape and gerbils!

I'm sorry, did I misread this? Are you not really stereotyping me?

When you have kids of your own, you will understand. I, as a divorced white male single parent who believes in God, have the dubious joy of being attacked by ALL the "minorities". It's great fun.

Sadly, despite the constant stereotyping and bashing, I'm not anti-gay, I'm not racist, I'm not a "bible-thumper". I just believe the way I do, try to live my life the best I am able so I can take care of my kids and give them a bette life, and help them understand this crazy messed up world we live in.

I don't care if you are gay or straight, if you had read completely my Boobies you would see that. I care that when my kids want to see something on TV or in the movies they get bombarded with sexual innuendo, merchandising, stereotyping and personal agendas.

The fact is, I DON'T like most disney movies because of these exact same reasons. I far prefer to read them a good book. Occasionally there is something they want to see, either on TV or in the theater, and I tape it and watch it first or go to the movie myself, before sitting them down in front of the electric babysitter.

Childrens' minds are malleable and very succeptible to suggestion. If you bombard them with images promoting anything, they will adjust their thinking to accept it. I prefer them to learn to think for themselves, and be accepting of all people, no matter what their race, religion, or sexual preference.

If people had enough class to keep their sexual preference to themselves, homo/heterosexual bashing wouldn't exist, eh?

At least they didn't say that the government is turning people into homosexuals for population control....

I'm not about to read all these posts, but damn, it's lame to have pro-gay material on a kids station. I don't care about adult programming, but aimed at kids.. that's not cool.

However, I suppose it's the parents' responsibility to make sure the kids aren't watching it if they don't approve of it.

By the way, I think it's a parent's right to think homosexuality is wrong. It's not like it's biologically natural. I don't personally care what other people do, but when they press it on my kids, that's where I get upset.

Can't we all just get along?

Keefer As to the validity of the numbers... The labels are the CDC's: (paraphrasing)

Sorry - but case in point. Please don't paraphrase. I'm perfectly prepared to accept figures, when quoted complete and in context. ie. a URL.
I had a look at the CDC site (Center for Disease Control, and Cult of the Dead Cow), the UK's Office of National Statistics, and the African support sites showing the extent of the problem of AIDS in Africa. From the CDC site I found zilch, from the UK Office of National Statistics I found zilch, from the African support sites I found a number of articles relating to the alarming rate of the growth of AIDS amongst heterosexual couples - along with a massive explosion of HIV positive children - where HIV has been inherited from their parents.

The problem is that your initial statement directly related homosexuality as being an inherently dangerous lifestyle. You have once again quoted (ahem - paraphrased) sources that "back up" you claim that hard figures don't lie. But they still do.

"Man got HIV from having sex with a man and/or sharing injections" (note that there is a complete separate "sharing injections only" stat)

What is the sharing only stat. What is the combinatorial effect of the sharing injections stat vs. sex with a man stat. What is the effect when the sex with a man stat is combined with the sex with a woman and man stat (ie. bisexual).

a group of numbers basically combined into "hetero only contact", and "cause unknown/ungiven/whatever."

Again: what percentage of this group is hetero only (and how was this information attained), and what precisely were you looking at that could determine the cause as being an unknown/ungiven etc.

So I simply used the cold hard numbers of man/man sex vs. hetero sex and applied them to an approximation of the "gay community."

which you can't do - simply because you can't derive figures from the set you've just stated.

I'm sorry - I have to stand by my original argument. Give me a specific reference - preferably one that includes larger populations outside the US - and I may give your assumptions some more credibility.

Nick15 If it was "normal", then there WOULD be a way to reproduce in male-male relationships.

You presume too much! Sex is not just about reproduction. It's about many other things beside. As BitingFaery (babe!!!) pointed out before - a number of animal species have gay sex. (I'm still wracking my brains trying to remember where I saw an article about this in dolphin communities).

And I'm pretty sure gays would find me ghastly annoying if all I did was talk about how I like farking hot girls all the time

Not just the men, but many straight women probably would too. And do. Have you ever been to a pub ? Where you get a lot of men mouthing off about their latest sexual exploit ? There is no difference here. Gays mouthing off about it piss you off. Straight people mouthing off about it piss everyone off too.

While I'm here, and still (just about) have time for a post or two:

Do I correctly presume from this thread that America has no federal laws to prevent discrimination against gays ?

Man - that sucks! No wonder some of you lot get shocked so easily. And to think that I am merely subjected to the whim of some english queeen (pun intended) ;-)

Man! I thought England with all our church establishmentism was stuck up it's own arse!

ArmchairDissident:

100% correct. They're working on it... :P As it stands, in most places in the US, you can be fired soley on the reason that "you're gay and we don't like your type", etc.

I'll never get over the people who try to make HIV a "gay disease" :P Yes, in the US, it started in the gay community and spread from there. However, in most countries in the world, especially third-world countries, it started and spread from *heterosexual prostitution* and is predominant in *heterosexual couples*. Then there's the added issue that, if HIV and other STDs are God's punishment of gay men, God must *adore* lesbians more than all of you straights ;) We have the lowest rate of transmission for almost all STDs.

What, not a single appearance, nor a single mention, of Bevets?

what absolute bullshiat. kids don't need to be taught about sex at that early of an age, especially a$$ fu*@ing. absolute propoganda. there is no demand for this in children's programming, it is some new york elite windbag trying to cram their PC lets not judge anyone or anything values down the throats of normal american families -- just to tell them they are not right and need to change how they think and believe. well screw that, a$$ fu@*ing is perverse, always has and always will be.

AD - you mean you look at the sites I referenced earlier?

Link 1: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr1202/table5.htm

Link 2: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr1202.htm

Or just at the site in general? The above is where I got my numbers from (obviously US-only).

Scofield99:

There are plenty of gay men, and virtually all lesbians, who don't like "a$$ fu@*ing". Are they a-ok in your book?

Rosie certainly isn't going to be a big advocate of "A$$ fu@*ing" - so is the show ok?

Best to keep everyone in the absolute dark about people around them, right? Meanwhile, people shouldn't be told that sex exists until they're married; people should never be told about how some people hold different religious views, everyone should be isolated to encourage as much xenophobia as possible - then the world will be a better place, right??

If a concept is defensible, it can stand up to scrutiny, let alone the very *prescence* of outside opinions. If "heterosexuality" is so defensible, why on earth, after being exposed to the "heterosexual viewpoints" of family members and friends for almost their entire life would the very knowledge of the existance of another "viewpoint" send these children into a downward spiral? Is it that weak of a concept?

Keefer:

Nice job pointing out a page titled:

"U.S. HIV and AIDS cases reported through December 2000 Year- End edition Vol.12, No.2"

As I stated, HIV in the US started, and is still more highly present in the community of *gay men* (not women, as stated); however, this is an abberation from the world's situation as a whole. Also, even in the US, the percent of the disease in the gay community has been dropping. Also, if you look at the distributions of the disease, you find that there's almost no corrolation between states on how conservative they are with AIDS for men, and there's a positive corrolation with women, something interesting to note (although, to be fair, the strongest corrolating factor seems to be population density, Nevada just being a really bad (and really conservative) outlier). Finally, one should note that "men who have sex with men" in most surveys I've seen has been incredibly broad of a definition - not referring to "gay men", but simply males who have ever had a sexual experience with another man, of any kind. (I don't see on this chart, however, the details of the questions posed).

In short, though, you really need to look at the entire world, not just the US. As much as many Americans might like to believe it, we're not the whole world ;)

Meg:

You left out some of the great ones - how to treat mildew, for example (you bring a priest over, sacrifice some doves... ). Or about clothes (God hates clothes made from multiple kinds of fabric, you sinners!). Or about working on the sabbath (put to death!!). Or about eating shellfish (it's an abomination - the same word he uses to describe homosexuality!). Etc :)

Ah, those are fun books when people try and quote from them ;) And then some people use quotes from Paul, pretty much the only person in the new testament who has anything bad to say about homosexuality (most others simply focus on the whole "loving thy neighbor" thing, the parable of the Good Samaritan about how stereotypes are bad, etc), quotes from Leviticus and Deuteronomy to support his views ;) I remember at one point in Romans, he actually quotes text from the Moses of Deuteronomy to refute the Moses of Leviticus ;)

Rei, Meg, while I have no interest in joining this flamewar, let me just point out that it isn't my job or your job to understand why God disallows clothing made from two fabrics or shellfish, OK?

Thanks Keefer Certaintly those figures seem to be thorough - although I haven't the time (it's midnight here !!) to cross-check against the other tables. I said I'd be happy to accept figures I could check, and for the moment I'll accept them.

I still don't necessarialy agree with the principle of your original post; but the figures certaintly make interesting reading. One thing to question is really why AIDS (apparently) infected more homosexual males than hetero. One thing that immedeatly springs to mind is contraception. Are gays more or less likely to use condoms than heterosexual males ? i for one can't comment - I'm a transvestite not gay. But at a guess I'd say that casual sex between gays is more likely to be done without the use of protection than between heterosexuals - as the risk of pregnancy is precisely zero. But that's speculation.

Seriously though keefer - thanks for the figures! You make an interesting argument - even if I don't agree with your summation.

Anal sex, regardless of the partners, has a greater risk of infection than vaginal sex. I'm guessing that's most likely the cause of greater infection rate in the gay male community.

Still doesn't make it a "Gay issue", as EVERYONE is succeptible to HIV infection except those who abstain from sex entirely.

Ah, and someone who actually *follows* Leviticus and Deuteronomy comes into the conversation. Hey, FarkerJew, when did you last make your sacrifices to the Lord? You know very well that the smell of their burning flesh is pleasing to him!

ArmchairDissident:

I've been interested in asking this - what is your opinion on the difference in terminology between "crossdresser" and "transvestite"? Because there seems to be a lot of confusion in the GLBT community as to what connotations the different words hold :) Most other terms are pretty clear - drag queen, transsexual, gender bender, etc - but those two often get mixed up.

Also, don't forget that Keefer was quoting only US stats, which are very different from the rest of the world.

If anyone needs to "start a new country," GreenBlood, seems like it ought to be you--since you haven't quite grasped this whole Bill of Rights thing. Go back and read the First Amendment, particularly the free-speech part. It may surprise you!

And Midian, I actually have three children, so if anyone understands being a parent I may be a bit ahead of you there. If you'd simply said you think homosexuality is wrong and you don't want your kids exposed to contrary messages--hey, no problem. But you said that children should not be "indoctrinated" into any sexual preference--well, if that's the case, you'd have to cut out all material (books included) that portrays heterosexuality in a positive light, right? Straight propaganda, that.

The people who whine about ass-farking and "natural" sex are laughable. When they themselves swear off blowjobs (no, kids, you *can't* get your girl pregnant by shooting in her mouth) and sex for other than procreation, I'll listen. Otherwise, they're buying sex-as-recreation and sex-as-social-bonding only when it gets THEM a chubby. Um, don't think so.

Rei, see the Talmud. It's the same reason that you don't get to murder people because of your religion even though we have a "freedom of religion" clause in the Bill of Rights.

Meg:

Found it :) The Romans quote is Romans 10:5-8. In Romans 5, he quotes Leviticus 18:5 as indicating that doing the law was the way to earn God's favor and live. Then, however, he goes on and quotes Deuteronomy 30:12-14 to prove that justification is by faith alone, not by doing the works of the law, to refute Leviticus 18:5. However, both books are credited to Moses, soooo... ;)

Paul is very big on selective reading of the Law. He also had a tendency to shape Jesus's words on how he thought he could sell them to the Gentiles--say, tossing out that inconvenient bit about God mandating circumcision and all.

Rei I've been interested in asking this - what is your opinion on the difference in terminology between "crossdresser" and "transvestite"?

To be perfectly honest , I really couldn't care. In different cultures each has different connotations; but ultimately they both mean the same thing. Trust me - there's far too much hot air wasted on this subject on so-called "community" sites. I got bored with that argument about 10 seconds after meeting the first tranvestite militant that thought it was worth the time to argue the case.

Personally I think that anyone who thinks it's worth arguing the toss (english phrase, not derogatory!) over one word or another needs to see more natural daylight, and less of the bottle of a jar of coffee.

Also, don't forget that Keefer was quoting only US stats, which are very different from the rest of the world

Indeed. Although I would say that i doubt British stats would be very different. But I do suspect that African stats (not a racial slur before I'm flamed) would reveal a different slant on things.

Mythago:

Nonetheless, the Talmud is in direct contradiction with many of the laws set down in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Of course, they had no other choice after the temple was destroyed by the Romans, kind of hard to sacrifice at the temple when there is none... ;) But nonetheless, its a "change" to God's direct orders to the jews for all time which, if they ever were to violate, would get them "sent back to egypt" and a host of other things. And if God can completely re-write the rules when he feels like it, why on earth can anyone ever trust such a book on how to live their life?

mmm, got to love this 50-cotton, 50-poly blend.... ;) So nice and comfy... :) And tilex, what a wonderful thing... ;) No need for priests and doves... ;)

Er, you *do* realize that there is nothing in the Torah prohibiting poly-cotton T-shirts. It's linen and wool blends, period, that are forbidden.

I'm not sure where you get your information about Jewish law, but you don't really seem to understand it. There's nothing anywhere about being 'sent back to Egypt.'

Meg - Very well put.
Yeah, lets get together and lynch all the non-Jews, all the unmarried non-virgins, all the men and women who aren't terrified of menstruation, all the alchoholics and drug addicts and those who speak back to their parents. Lets just beat 'em all to death.
Methinx I'll get mighty lonely when we're through!! :P

TommyBob is gone? Good riddance. That boy has some serious issues. Maybe his dad was a little too swishy for the rest of their bible-thumpin' kin or something.

Guys like TommyBob hate gays because:

1) Gay men are generally better-looking and definitely better-dressed than they are.

2) Women *like* gay men.

3) Gay men are, as far as they understand it, getting hot sex all the time without having to buy dinner and a movie first. To somebody who barely gets laid and then has to put on a dog-and-pony show on the rare occasions they DO get near a girl, this is infuriating.

And then there are all those lesbians who refuse to participate in hot three-ways with them.

Rei -- I'm losing respect for you with your mocking tone. First of all, sacrifices are only during the times of the Temple (am I actually answering this?) And to tell *me* that the Talmud is in contradiction with the laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy? Chutzpah! Have you studied the Talmud so extensively? If you were wondering, I started learning Talmud in 5th Grade, and have studied Talmud almost exclusively the last 2 years here in Israel. But since you are the expert, I guess I should defer to you on these matters, right?

I wish I had a kid so that I could force them to watch this show.

Wait, did I just say I wish I had a KID??? AAH 1 I take it back!

still, I think the only thing that would be better would be for a show to have a gay family that everybody accepts as normal. that would be the best, because then it would not be highlighted so strongly, like LOOK THEY ARE GAY and parents all start screaming. Just show a family without all the political and social discussion, let the kids just see and accept.

but then, maybe I have an "Agenda."

Kymry

4 children myself. 2 girls, 11 and 6, and 2 boys, 5 and 4.

And yes, I avoid any depictions of sex, on TV, in movies or books, as much as I can with my younger children, they aren't ready for it and don't need someone on TV telling them what they should and shouldn't think. I want them to be tolerant of all, but not brainwashed into thinking that any special interest group deserves special treatment over anyone else.

Prince Charming kissing Sleeping Beauty isn't sex, no matter how much the anti-hetero crowd want to make it so. A child's mind doesn't think that way, until twisted and warped by the sexual innuendo of modern media.

Kymry, the show is called Queer as Folk.

It's a good show, but I still don't want my children watching it until they are old enough to understand and deal with the concepts. A 6 year old doesn't need to worry about sex yet.

FarkerJew:

Do explain, then, how statements. Note that there's no qualifiers, no ambiguity. Also note that these are all made in the early books of the OT:

"However, if you do not listen to me or obey my commands, and if you break my covenant by rejecting my laws and treating my regulations with contempt, I will punish you. You will suffer from sudden terrors, with wasting diseases, and with burning fevers, causing your eyes to fail and your life to ebb away. You will plant your crops in vain because your enemies will eat them. I will turn against you, and you will be defeated by all your enemies. They will rule over you, and you will run even when no one is chasing you!" (near the end of Lev.)

"This command I am giving you today is not too difficult for you to understand or perform. It is not up in heaven, so distant that you must ask, `Who will go to heaven and bring it down so we can hear and obey it?' It is not beyond the sea, so far away that you must ask, `Who will cross the sea to bring it to us so we can hear and obey it?' The message is very close at hand; it is on your lips and in your heart so that you can obey it. "Now listen! Today I am giving you a choice between prosperity and disaster, between life and death. I have commanded you today to love the LORD your God and to keep his commands, laws, and regulations by walking in his ways. If you do this, you will live and become a great nation, and the LORD your God will bless you and the land you are about to enter and occupy. But if your heart turns away and you refuse to listen, and if you are drawn away to serve and worship other gods, then I warn you now that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live a long, good life in the land you are crossing the Jordan to occupy. Today I have given you the choice between life and death, between blessings and curses. I call on heaven and earth to witness the choice you make. Oh, that you would choose life, that you and your descendants might live!" (near the end of DT)

(etc - they keep going on)
These are all part of the *eternal covenant* that God made with the people of Israel (Dt. 29:1). Has his covenant expired? Has he *changed his eternal covenant*? Or was it not an eternal covenant? Please, I want to hear your explanation for how its not a contradiction - I actually am curious.

And I apologize for sounding mocking - that was not so much targetted at you as to the christians who don't believe in the OT, but choose to selectively follow rules from it.

Midian:

Prince Charming kissing Sleeping Beauty isn't sex, no matter how much the anti-hetero crowd want to make it so. A child's mind doesn't think that way, until twisted and warped by the sexual innuendo of modern media

Try this on for size:

"Prince Charming kissing a prince he saved isn't sex, no matter how much the anti-homosexual crowd want to make it so. A child's mind just doesn't think that way, until twisted and warped by the sexual innuendo modern media."

It goes both ways, m'dear.

Midian,

I respect that you wouldn't want your kids to watch Queer as folk or Sex in the City and all that. I can barely watch them without blushing.

But--and stop me if you know this, and I know I don't have kids so I am not trying to talk down to you--even a six year old makes her barbies have sex. My parents never let me watch tv, so I didn't learn about it from that, it must have been my peers, but I knew about it and I was curious as hell about it. The fact that nobody talked about it just made it more exciting. I am glad my mom and dad talked to me about it when I was like 8, because who knows? I think it is never too young just to talk to them about it. And It was not just me doing this to dolls, it was everyone i knew and women I currently know who say they did the same thing. I remember being embarassed about the talk, which if anything made me not want to have sex in reality no matter how much barbie got it on. But at least I knew what it was about.
I am not sure what i am trying to say, but kids are not as asexual as we think they are sometimes.

Midian:

let me also say that I realize that tv and the media oversex kids a lot. I can't believe what I see ten year olds wearing sometimes. But recognising them as sexual beings and encouraging that oversexiness is a different thing I think. It is not a black and white thing, but I think there is a difference.

Am I being at all clear with what I am saying? I find eloquence escapes me tonight.

Kymry

I'm also curious -- in short, what's the contradiction?

Midian, as Rei pointed out, you need to be consistent. If Prince Charming kissing the princess isn't sex and isn't propaganda, then Spongebob kissing Squidward isn't sex and isn't propaganda.

And could you please put the sentence about "special interest groups" into non-obfuscated English? What I'm seeing is that you don't want your kids to see same-sex couples on TV (or in books), regardless of whether those same-sex couples are holding hands, because you don't want your kids to think Adam and Steve is just as good as Adam and Eve.

I'm not anti-hetero, btw. Some of my best friends are hets!

Rei: Just out of curiosity, where exactly does the US law stand on gay adoption? I was arguing about it earlier in the thread, and you are the woman to ask.

Kymry

FarkerJew:

Did you by any remote chance attend the Theological Seminary in New York City? You mentioned you had studied the Talmud..

Pure curiosity, my roommate works there. ;)

Kymry

FarkerJew:

The Talmud changes sacrifices to prayer; changes from priests to rabbis; etc. However, in the covenant God set down in the early books of the OT, God says nothing about allowing substitutions - merely that he wants the sacrifices. He says nothing about, for example, studying about the sacrifices being almost as good as the sacrifices themselves - the initial concept put forth by the Sanhedrin. Study and prayer become a replacement, but there is nothing to suggest that the covenent was allowed to suddenly change in the OT - quite to the contrary, God is very precise about what counts and what doesn't. If this is an eternal covenant, how was it to change, and why on earth didn't God warn them when he set it out? How on earth, using OT scriptures, can you justify things like "as long as the temple stood, the altar atoned for israel, but now a man's table atones for him"?

Kymry:

From what I remember (and I haven't been following this news as dilligently as I should have), it's not completely prohibitted, but most places won't allow it if they know that the adoption would place the child in a family with one or more gay parents.

Normal is as normal does. We, as human beings, define "normal" as what the majority does. I don't profess to be a pyschologist and understand this more deeply than what is just simply apparent and obvious.

Now if my daughter sees a boy kiss a girl, she accepts that as "normal" and doesn't ask questions about it. When she sees her gay uncle kiss his boyfriend it leads to questions and topics I'd prefer she not worry about at her age.

Sex with barbies, rubbing them together and such, is part of growing up. It's innocent at that point and not like she's already thinking about going down on her "boyfriend" in school. I don't want her thinking about blowjobs or intecourse yet, either girl-guy or guy-guy.