Christian: Gays should be marked

[Mid]

(sigh)

Yesterday I told my wife that the children are running around "like animals".

Did this mean:

1). I meant that they were making noise, or

2). I REALLY think that they inhuman beasts, but don't have the balls to actually SAY it?

The problem here is that the quote by the Christian Coalition (CC) bloke was somewhat ambiguous (as well as being bigoted.) So it could be read, if you weren’t feeling charitable towards him, “that all gays should be marked”.

So let’s look at your children example, now if you as a parent said the children had been behaving like animals I would assume that they’d been behaving noisily. If however a member of an organisation that disproved of the “child lifestyle” said that your children were behaving like a bunch of animals he could really have meant that they were inhuman beasts in his perception.

Personally I think the CC guy was just a moron trying to make a bad analogy, but I can see why others would see it differently

 

[Skeptic]

The problem here is that the quote by the Christian Coalition (CC) bloke was somewhat ambiguous (as well as being bigoted.) So it could be read, if you weren’t feeling charitable towards him, “that all gays should be marked”.

Again we have the problem with circular logic: the vague analogy in this case was meant in a hateful way, because it was said by a member of the CC, a hateful organization. But how do we know it is a hateful organization? Well, it keeps using vague analogies in a hateful way.

I am exagerrating to make a point, of course, but the fact remains that this man DID NOT say gays should be marked, and all the "proof" to the contrary is, in effect, "well, but that's what people like him REALLY think"--which you don't, not really.

So it isn't really a reaction to anything he said, it's a reaction to HIM.

 

[bzimmer4]

[snip]

Well, male homosexuality is a risk factor for many STDs due to it's, um, mechanics. But female homosexuality actually has lower rates of STD transmission. Maybe that's what that Leviticus stuff was about, trying to stop STDs. Like eating pork spread trichinosis, so they banned it. No need to mention female homosexuality then.

Actually, homosexuality has nothing to do with the risk for STD's. In areas of the world where HIV is truly epidemic (e.g., sub-Saharan Africa and southeast Asia), the primary spread is heterosexual. Men get it from hookers and then bring it home to share with the wife and kids.

In the early days of AIDS, when we had no idea what caused it (although we suspected it was infectuous), the epidemiologic studies quickly identified the number of sexual contacts as the main risk factor. This is completely consistent with other STD's. Studies of the San Francisco bath-house culture, the epicenter of the American AIDS "explosion," showed that subjects with AIDS had an average of 1000 DIFFERENT SEXUAL CONTACTS PER YEAR, far more than matched subjects without AIDS.

Unfortunately, since AIDS first appeared in America in the gay community, it has been linked with gays ever since. This is truly tragic, since this association probably did result in delays in generating interest and funding in research. There was little interest in dealing with it, since it only affected "those people."

It's way past time that we accepted the simple fact that being gay doesn't increase your risk of any STD, including AIDS. Having unprotected sex with multiple partners does, regardless if they are men, women, or kangaroos.

By the by, as Random mentions in passing, there is absolutely nothing anywhere in the bible about female homosexuality; both references are to men with men. Women get a free pass.

BZ MD

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

Art Vandelay:

It is stated in a prejudicial manner, but it is true that homosexuality is a large risk factor for many STD.

Tell that to the Lesbians. For their sake shouldn’t the straight women have the warning labels?

Besides that, it’s still not accurate to say male “homosexuality is a large risk factor for many STD”. I’m gay, have only ever had one partner my entire life, and it’s been a monogamous relationship for near 14 years. Furthermore, I’ve never had any sort of sex that would require a condom for safety even if I weren’t monogamous; I’m just not interested. For me, being gay is no more of a risk factor for std’s than my eye color, and the average straight person is much more likely to have an STD.

Simply, having promiscuous and unprotected sex is the risk factor here, just as it’s inhaling carcinogens, not smoking, that gives need for a cigarette warning label. While there are no safe, carcinogen-free cigarettes that I know of, there are safe fags (there, I did it).

Still, there is a correlation between being gay and this sort of risky sex that often leads to disease, but IMO it’s because most gay kids are raised very differently from their straight counterparts. The sad irony is it’s people such as this man--people who disown and demean their children, encourage them to hide their relationships, and work to keep them from the safety and security of marriage--who have a large influence in their kid’s looking for short, secretive, and risky sexual relationships. These people emotionally and developmentally hobble their gay kids in their mid-teens, fight to keep them from marriage, and then act shocked that the kids go on to make such stupid choices.

 

[thaiboxerken]

So it isn't really a reaction to anything he said, it's a reaction to HIM.

Not really, I doubt any of us really know this guy, or ever met him, or even remember his name. It's what he said.

We ban trolls, but Skeptic is still posting....

 

[Leif Roar]

Not really, I doubt any of us really know this guy, or ever met him, or even remember his name. It's what he said.

"Clearly, in this case, it's obvious that this guy hates homosexuals and would like to see them marked, but doesn't have the gonads to actually say it."

Clearly, in this case, it's obvious that it's not what he actually said you're reacting to.

 

[Skeptic]

Not really, I doubt any of us really know this guy, or ever met him, or even remember his name.

That's right. But you know he's a conservative christian, which is all you need to know to figure out what he "really thinks" and "really means" but is too "cowardly" to actually say.

It's what he said.

If it's what he said, why did you criticize me for talking about what he said? Earlier in this thread, you said:

My analogy is accurate, the "analogy" you've provided is more or less a summary of what that christer actually said. (My emphasis.)

--and then you claimed how wrong I am to concentrate on what he actually said instead of on what he "really thinks" and "really means" according to you.

We ban trolls, but Skeptic is still posting...

First, you claimed wrongly this man said gays should be marked, thus making him like you-know-who, because you disagreed with his real point--namely, that the gay lifestyle is unhealthy, like smoking (which may or may not be true.)

Now, you suggest I am a troll for disagreeing with you, as well.

You don't take disagreement very well, do you?

 

[curi0us]

The problem here is that the quote by the Christian Coalition (CC) bloke was somewhat ambiguous (as well as being bigoted.) So it could be read, if you weren’t feeling charitable towards him, “that all gays should be marked”.

Again we have the problem with circular logic: the vague analogy in this case was meant in a hateful way, because it was said by a member of the CC, a hateful organization. But how do we know it is a hateful organization? Well, it keeps using vague analogies in a hateful way.

You are ignoring the rationale for the analogy in the first place. even without the analogy his comment is hateful and ignorant.

The Journal he calls “revered scientific” is a CC front, it doesn’t seem to have an online presence but here’s the group doing the research cited by him:
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/

Skimming I didn’t see the actual 20 year study (I suspect it may actually be a really old one that has already been thoroughly debunked) so I’ll just give an example of a typical thing for them to write:

Opening paragraph of The High Cost of Sodomy: Part I

Late in 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court added sodomy to its list of newly protected activities. Unlike heterosexual sex, which is necessary to produce children, sodomy entertains its participants, but contributes nothing in return. Instead, sodomy costs society a great deal, both monetarily and otherwise. In fact, sodomy may be the most costly of the Court's recently created ‘rights.'
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRR_04_03.html

While skimming I didn’t find any references to actually marking homosexuals as you see above they clearly are supporting the notion that homosexuality activities should be illegal. something to consider is that If seriously enforced sodomy laws would actually be worse then marking.

Here’s the first few paragraphs on an article of theirs on choice:

At a high level of abstraction, homosexuality and heterosexuality might seem similar. So similar, in fact, that psychiatry and the media would have us believe that the only difference is in one’s choice of sex partners. Otherwise, homosexuals are ‘just like you and me.’ They work, dine, go to movies; they bleed, have ambitions, feelings, etc. But despite this message, in the ‘real world,’ there are enormous differences between what homosexuals and heterosexuals do.

There is no way to sugarcoat this reality. In fact, it is extremely distasteful. But if reality is skipped ‘out of decency,’ high flying abstractions tend to prevail. For men, what homosexuality really comes down to is getting the penises of other men -- often strangers or near-strangers -- into their rectums or mouths, or putting their penis into the mouths or rectums of other men. This reality is avoided at our intellectual peril.

Furthermore, the differences between what ‘homosexuals’ and heterosexuals do show that homosexuality is about more than just sex -- it is about rebelling against and trying to corrupt society, even as heterosexuality is about, for the most part, having and raising children. Homosexuality is also about coloring the world with SEX, regardless of the consequences. Its most prominent attitude is selfishness -- getting what’s mine, what I deserve; getting back at all those who have hurt me, etc.

Of course, those with homosexual proclivities generally do everything in their power not to admit these truths. In fact, they often become enraged if accused of being either promiscuous or fundamentally self-centered. And their rage is usually effective. Most people just ‘back off,’ not wanting a confrontation. Others decide that their anger must be justified -- that homosexuals must not really be so selfish or obsessed with sex. For why else would they get so upset?
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRR_02_07.html
^Note, they go onto to attack fellow religious righter James Dobson for having to mild a stance on homosexuality since he only calls it a “disorder”.

 

[Jekyll]

...putting their penis into the mouths...

For the life of me, I can't work out if this is blowjob envy or homophobia.

Edit:
I kept reading...
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRR_04_03.html about a third of the way down.

All About Pleasure

In reality, sexual abuse of a boy often leads the boy to discover that sexual activity with another boy or a man can be pleasurable. That is why molestation of boys by men is so dangerous. Except in a few isolated instances, molestation does NOT lead to “gender identity disorder” in boys. Rather, it sets up the makings of a very bad habit -- a habit that can turn the boy away from responsibly contributing to society through his sexuality to engaging in sex only to satisfy his desires.

The reason gays get the penises of other men in their rectums or mouths, or vice-versa, is because they have learned to enjoy this kind of activity. Often homosexual sex occurs with strangers or near-strangers, acts almost bereft of, or very light on, human interaction. No special effort is needed to relate to the opposite (and very different) sex. No female is longing for relational and emotional intimacy before or after sex. No demand is made, even, for fidelity or faithfulness to a single partner. At best, homosexuals ‘hook up with’ a partner for a few months or years. And even then, the gay definition of ‘monogamy’ almost always means the freedom to have ‘outside’ partners too.

With rare exception, gays don’t do these things because they are “confused as to whether they are a man or a woman.” They know that they are men, they have just learned to enjoy sex with other men. They are not “sick,” nor typically in great psychological distress. Rather they have acquired an evil habit, a bad habit, a socially injurious habit.

....this is just crazy. I feel like I've walked in on someones private fantasy. No wonder the author is so opposed to the idea that people might be inately gay.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Actually, homosexuality has nothing to do with the risk for STD's.

Wrong.

In areas of the world where HIV is truly epidemic (e.g., sub-Saharan Africa and southeast Asia), the primary spread is heterosexual.

"Risk factor" and "primary spread" are two different things. Furthermore, it should be ovbious that his comments were focused on Americans.

Unfortunately, since AIDS first appeared in America in the gay community, it has been linked with gays ever since.

And because they have higher rates of infection.

This is truly tragic, since this association probably did result in delays in generating interest and funding in research. There was little interest in dealing with it, since it only affected "those people."

It may have delayed action, but in the long run it meant that AIDS research has a dedicated lobby. I read that the US government spends more per death on AIDS than every other disease combined.

It's way past time that we accepted the simple fact that being gay doesn't increase your risk of any STD, including AIDS.

No, it's way past time people stopped pretending that it doesn't.

Having unprotected sex with multiple partners does, regardless if they are men, women, or kangaroos.

It's rather difficult to get AIDS from kangaroos.

Scot C. Trypal

Besides that, it’s still not accurate to say male “homosexuality is a large risk factor for many STD”.

Yes, it is.

For me, being gay is no more of a risk factor for std’s than my eye color, and the average straight person is much more likely to have an STD.

That statement is nonsensical, and simply shows a lack of understand of what the term "risk factor means".

Skpetic

Now, you suggest I am a troll for disagreeing with you, as well.

He might have been being sarcastic. Another example of not explicitly saying something, but implying it, that he thinks is somehow equivalent to the quote in the OP.

 

[thaiboxerken]

That's right. But you know he's a conservative christian, which is all you need to know to figure out what he "really thinks" and "really means" but is too "cowardly" to actually say.

Oh ok, I guess I'm guilty. I make the same mistakes about KKK members being racist as well.

--and then you claimed how wrong I am to concentrate on what he actually said instead of on what he "really thinks" and "really means" according to you.

You really like to argue based on semantics, don't you? I'd rather discuss syntax.

First, you claimed wrongly this man said gays should be marked, thus making him like you-know-who, because you disagreed with his real point--namely, that the gay lifestyle is unhealthy, like smoking (which may or may not be true.)

Now, you suggest I am a troll for disagreeing with you, as well.

I did not suggest that you are a troll at all, did I? Well, at least, not according to your logical breakdown of analogies.

 

[thaiboxerken]

So ART, where is the scientific evidence to support your claims about homosexuality and HIV/AIDS?

 

[Art Vandelay]

Furthermore, I’ve never had any sort of sex that would require a condom for safety even if I weren’t monogamous; I’m just not interested.

I'm kinda curious what that means.

thaiboxerken

I make the same mistakes about KKK members being racist as well.

So the KKK is to being racist as conservative Christians are to wanting homosexuals marked?

You really like to argue based on semantics, don't you? I'd rather discuss syntax.

No, you'd rather make declarations without providing any support, semantic or syntactical.

I did not suggest that you are a troll at all, did I? Well, at least, not according to your logical breakdown of analogies.

You really don't understand analogies. You said "We ban trolls, but Skeptic is still posting....". You were clearly presenting the fact that Skeptic is posting as contrasting with the fact that trolls get banned, thereby implying that Skeptic is a troll. Similarly, the subject of the OP contrasted the fact that we discourage smoking with the fact that we "celebrate" homsexuality, implying that we should discourage homosexuality. The marking idea was your
invention; he did not contrast the fact that we mark cigarette cases with the fact that we don't mark homosexuals.

So ART, where is the scientific evidence to support your claims about homosexuality and HIV/AIDS?

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/PUBS/Facts/At-A-Glance.htm

Total new diagnoses: 31,886. Total in the male-to-male contact category: 15,744. That's about half of the total cases (that is, including those lesbians that everyone is so obsessed with). Looking at just men, it's 68%.

 

[shecky]

So the KKK is to being racist as conservative Christians are to wanting homosexuals marked?

Yeah, probably. After all, if they were hard asses about homosexuality, they probably wouldn't be conservative christians.

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

Mr. Vandelay,

I'm kinda curious what that means.

One of the things that’s most annoying about being gay is having a public battle ofver private issues. If I were to keep my private life 100% private, most people will just make assumptions and then make moral judgments on their assumption. You can’t really correct them or satisfy their curiosity without making your intimate private life public. Still, I’d rather leave it as it is and risk whatever others may imagine. Simply I, and I’m sure many gays, have never had a sort of sex which could result in spread of an STD, using a condom or no.

That statement is nonsensical, and simply shows a lack of understand of what the term "risk factor means".

Maybe you could explain where I differ then.

Say I made a cigarette that fought cancer. Even if 90% of smokers smoked carcinogen-laden cigarettes and 10% smoked the cancer-fighting cigarettes, would you still say “smoking cigarettes“ was a “risk factor” for cancer? Or would you say “smoking this particular sort of cigarette” was a “risk factor” for cancer? It seems to me the warning label couldn’t rightly be placed on both cigarette packs, and the true risk factor is inhaling carcinogens, just as it is risky sex in this case.

 

[Nucular]

The Journal he calls “revered scientific” is a CC front, it doesn’t seem to have an online presence

Wait, Psychological Reports is a Christian Coalition front? Why do you think that?

As far as I can tell, it's a mainstream psychology journal. It's not available online, but does have a web presence, and abstracts are available using standard scientific databases such as PsychINFO, which decribes it as a peer-reviewed journal. It publishes a wide variety of types of article, the vast majority of which I can see no potential for sinister ulterior motives behind, and many of the author names I recognise as 'real' psychologists - in fact, I've recently been emailing a guy who has published in this very journal, and I don't think he's a member of the CC.

But I don't know what they'd be doing publishing work funded by the FRI (the article in question seems to be a survey of reported abuse by foster carers in Illinois, which indicates that more reported abuse is same-sex). Maybe they just see that as the same as publishing research sponsored by a drug company: as long as interests are declared, it's okay?

 

[Mid]

I'm curious as to how highly rated by the psychological research community Psychological Reports is; it would appear from the quoted article that it is not that highly regarded, to put it lightly:

"The journal regularly publishes articles described by many mainstream psychologists as misleading and faulty".

If that's the case then I would put very little to no weight on any of their published research.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The marking idea was your
invention; he did not contrast the fact that we mark cigarette cases with the fact that we don't mark homosexuals.

So he's saying we should be discouraging the homosexual lifestyle....... how? Perhaps the same ways we discourage cigarette smoking.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/PUBS/Facts/At-A-Glance.htm

Total new diagnoses: 31,886. Total in the male-to-male contact category: 15,744. That's about half of the total cases (that is, including those lesbians that everyone is so obsessed with). Looking at just men, it's 68%.

So, do you think a man that has sex with another man who has HIV is at more risk of getting the HIV virus than a man who has sex with an HIV infected woman? Homosexual sex in itself is not a risk factor. You are confusing correlation with causation, unless you really think that simply being a man is a risk-factor for HIV. 73% of those infected were men, after all. Or maybe you think being black is a risk factor as well, since 50% of those infected are black.

It's interesting to note that 73% of all women who contracted HIV got it from heterosexual contact. Heck, lesbian behavior doesn't even appear on the pie because it contributes so little to the HIV spread.

Maybe we should be discouraging heterosexual behavior in women.

 

[Leif Roar]

So, do you think a man that has sex with another man who has HIV is at more risk of getting the HIV virus than a man who has sex with an HIV infected woman?

It depends on what they do, but unprotected anal sex (whether homosexual or hetrosexual) is considered to be a greater risk for the spreading of HIV than unprotected vaginal sex.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I love the efforts of homophobes to cast their homophobia in terms of concern. Sometimes they worry about those poor doomed souls. Sometimes they worry about their risk of disease.

At least people like Fred Phelps have the balls to admit they just hate homosexuality, and don't grope for excuses to make themselves look good.

Maybe gays are at a higher risk of getting HIV. That doesn't make homosexuality wrong. Being black puts you at a higher risk of getting sickle-cell anemia. Being old puts you at a higher risk of getting swindled by con artists. Being a woman puts you at a higher risk of getting raped. Does that mean we should counsel against blackness, age, and femaleness because they are riskier?

I find the tragic irony in this is that so many heterosexual people still regard AIDS as a "gay disease", and are very surprised when they get it. A disease is a disease, and will strike wherever it can. Emphasizing the "gayness" of HIV only encourages this sort of blindness.

I'd also like to point out that the only reason AIDS got along so far among gays is that people have sex with the people they are inclined toward. Some of the early victims of HIV happened to be gay men. Who are they going to have sex with? Straight men? Straight women? Or other gay men? And who are they going to spread it to? The proportions of HIV infection to sexuality are a matter of historical accident.