unique visitors since July 27, 2005

« Your Daily Brokeback | Main | No Good Deed Goes Unpunished »

February 16, 2006

Comments

Rev. Manny Gregorius

Hey, you're the fucking Republican. You should be thrilled with this. It's what today's Republican Party is all about. First: erasing gays figuratively. Second: erasing gays literally. Gas chambers anyone? You think I'm paranoid, Herr Weimar Republic?

Robbie

Gas chambers?

No, I think you left paranoid several clicks ago.

Downtown Lad

Really Robbie? You do realize that this country has executed people for being gay, don't you? Maybe you should check your history.

Malcontent

There's an oxymoron for you: The modern liberal, feet planted squarely in the past.

Jack Malebranche

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=11478735

Interesting. True. And sad.

My best work tends to be in comments, but this reminds me of the bizarro world that we now inhabit...

Jack Malebranche

Oh, weird. Ignore that first link. It was on my clipboard. I'm blogging drunk, like Robbie, this evening.

Jamie

Like Robbie every evening. ;)

John

We...along with a lot of other groups, have been working on this. The official HHS line is that the site is "temporarily" down for redesign. The Family Research Council is still a bit weary of the change for that reason - and they'll send you an email about it just about every other day.

Malcontent

Yeah, after checking other left-leaning sites, I found out that I was just basically out to lunch on this issue. EgOiStE was the first to bring this to my attention.

It has nothing to do with the kind of criticism I frequently face -- i.e., that this site is an apologist for the Administration or some GOP suck-ass.

As important as it is for me for Republicans to get credit when it is deserved, they should also be comdemned when it is warranted. And yes, I tend to go harder on Democrats because I just disagree with them more often; I make no secret of that.

But we should also praise Demcrats and left-leaning groups when they do the right thing. For instance, I haven't yet had an opportunity yet to blog about the Democrats and left-leaning interest groups (such as Stonewall Dems) who are holding the DNC's feet to the fire over its outreach to gays.

Granted, the RNC's outreach in that realm has been next to nonexistent, but it would be a shame to see the DNC retrench over political expediency.

Man, how many tangents were in that comment?

John

We represent all LGBT Democrats, not just the left-leaning ones. ;-)

Robbie

*hunts down Jamie with birdshot*

Bruce (GayPatriot)

**As originally posted at GayPatriot....**


Mr. Mal-

It certainly wasn’t meant as a slap at you. I was crediting you with the story, for heaven’s sake.

I was commenting on how in this Age of Bush Terror In America… perhaps our community should realize how lucky we are.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar….

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

John

He's just mad because he can't make a point as well as you.

ThatGayConservative

(Among its advice is to point families to "counselors and other health professionals," as if being gay is intrinsically disordered.)

Whoa!

Help me out here. Where do you get the idea that seeing a counselor or "other health professional" means that "being gay is intrinsically disordered"?

will

Honey, because "it deals with 'sexual orientation' on its 'abstinence' page. Does that make sense to you?

hank

What is The Family Research Council?
I just found this post on one of my (fomerly) favorite blogs. Third one down I think.

hank

http://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/
here's the link

DSH

Two surprises.

1. Even Gay Patriot calls this the Age of Bush Terror, and

2. Robbie concedes the point.

Someone, awhile back, observed that Democrats may not be our friends, but Republicans are actively hostile to GLBT. Not that this is a surprise, but it's welcome news that "gay conservatives" are finally getting it.

I don't know what happened to that onetime conservative mantra of "live and let live," but it clearly is not sounded by this administration.

What really irks me about GWB is that 38% of the AIDS/HIV budget is channelled through religious organizations, none of which are allowed to cite "condoms" as a means of prevention.

Why are religious organizations functioning as health service ones? And who thinks "abstinence" is effective? Of course, the religious wingnuts, but are THEY now running health policy for our government?

Sadly, the answer is, Yes.

Scary? Damn well. When will this nightmare ever end (hopefully later this year, but still three more years with the head).

hank

I've never seen GayPatriot (or the minions) make a remark the least bit critical of Bush

TGC

Honey, because "it deals with 'sexual orientation' on its 'abstinence' page. Does that make sense to you?

Uhmmmm....Yeah if you still believe that everybody who goes to counselling are crazy, sick weirdos. However, if you happen to join the rest of us in the 21st century, you find that this isn't the case. God forbid someone seek any help.
Better close your windows. I see the Black Death staring in after you.

Ooops. Better not say "God". That might cause DSH to go into apoplectic fits. One comment for DSH though:

And who thinks "abstinence" is effective?

You're absolutely right. We should all have a defeatist attitude like you. All kids are going to have sex anyway, so why bother. All kids are going to do drugs anyway, so why prevent that? All kids are going to drink and drive anyway, so why bother trying to prevent that? All kids are going to attempt suicide anyway, so we'd better give them the rope or a handful of Valium. Why stop with just sex, eh?

TGC

And who thinks "abstinence" is effective?

While we're at it, who thinks "condoms" are effective? To hell with those, eh? Just let the kids go bareback. We wouldn't want to piss on their "sensitivities" with lectures on AIDS, now would we?

They're just going to do it anyway.

Jamie

Abstinence certainly can be effective--and I can think of cases where I wish someone's parents had considered it. While we should encourage abstinence, we should also acknowledge the growing trends in sexual behavior that scientific studies show are occurring, and deal with it on that end as well. If over 50% of teens are engaging in oral sex then they need to know the safe way to do it. Ignorance is no protection either.

--Birdshot, Robbie? Congratulations on your recent election. I had no idea. ;)

North Dallas Thirty

Really Robbie? You do realize that this country has executed people for being gay, don't you? Maybe you should check your history.

Don't worry, DTL; prominent gay liberals and Democrats are claiming that it is already happening.

(Mike, of Blogactive.com) Rogers implied that the consequences of a Bush win could be dire. He referred to “internment camps” that he said are being refurbished in Washington, Oregon and Idaho. “I know what happened to gay Jews who didn’t get out fast enough last time,” Rogers said.

And just in case any Democrats object, here's your list of sponsors for Rogers's rant:

Four queer political clubs — the Gay and Lesbian Independent Democrats, the Stonewall Democratic Club, the Lambda Independent Democrats of Brooklyn and the Lesbian and Gay Democratic Club of Queens — sponsored the event that was moderated by Paul Schindler, the editor in chief of Gay City News.

North Dallas Thirty

While we should encourage abstinence, we should also acknowledge the growing trends in sexual behavior that scientific studies show are occurring, and deal with it on that end as well. If over 50% of teens are engaging in oral sex then they need to know the safe way to do it. Ignorance is no protection either.

Oddly enough, though, I never see this same sort of logic used for educating teens on alcohol, tobacco, or drug use -- "they're going to do it anyway, so we might as well teach them to do it safely".

Why? Because teens are not mature enough to consider the long-term consequences of their decisions; moreover, it is considered irresponsible to give teens the idea that they are mature enough these sort of decisions precisely for that reason.

However, that gets thrown out the window when it comes to things that make money for abortionists, and teenage sex certainly produces ample opportunity for that. You couldn't ask for a better opportunity to create an unwanted pregnancy than to give teenagers the idea that they can handle sex; moreover, since teenage sex is usually considered wrong, girls have a choice -- tell their parents or have an abortion. It's a captive audience, and that's why abortionists encourage teenage sex and try to get rid of abstinence.

And Jamie, really -- oral sex with a condom?

Jack Malebranche

Oddly enough, though, I never see this same sort of logic used for educating teens on alcohol, tobacco, or drug use -- "they're going to do it anyway, so we might as well teach them to do it safely".

Smoking isn't a natural human instinct, NDT. The vast majority of young people ARE going to have sex (eventually), and are going to be very interested in sex, especially as teens. More universally than drinking, tobacco, or virtually any other potentially hazardous behavior. While encouraging children not to smoke increases chances that they will never smoke, encouraging abstinence does not increase the chances that they will never have sex. Smoking and sex are apples and oranges, conceptually.

You couldn't ask for a better opportunity to create an unwanted pregnancy than to give teenagers the idea that they can handle sex; moreover, since teenage sex is usually considered wrong, girls have a choice -- tell their parents or have an abortion. It's a captive audience, and that's why abortionists encourage teenage sex and try to get rid of abstinence.

Now that's just a right-wing conspiracy theory.

Are the majority of schools really teaching kids that they should be having sex? I think the goal is to make sure they have correct information about sex; when you don't make sure they have the correct information, they definitely are not going to be able to consider the long-term consequences of their decisions. 50 years ago, because of the mentality you're promoting, people grew into adulthood not even knowing basic information about sex and how to protect themselves. And that's healthy for a society as a whole.

If you want to talk about the insidious abortionists, I think it would be fair to admit that the 'abstinence only' side has an agenda as well that is not motivated by public health concerns, but by religious moral idealism. You can dress that up in a whole bunch of other arguments, but the motivation on that one is painfully obvious.

The comments to this entry are closed.