-- (just@helping.out), December 12, 2000.
Gay Boy Scout leader arrested for molesting boys - Do Ya Think BSA Mighta Been Right Afterall? DUH!!greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread |
Boy Scout leader charged in sexual abuseSaturday, 9 December 2000 1:24 (ET)
Boy Scout leader charged in sexual abuse
DANNEMORA, N.Y., Dec. 9 (UPI) -- A New York Boy Scout leader faces several charges of sexually abusing several young boys over the course of the last three years when he appears in court Tuesday
A state police investigator said that the charges against David A. Doherty, 35, have shocked the community of Dannemora, N.Y., located near Plattsburgh, N.Y.
He's charged with sexual conduct with a child younger than age 11, first-degree sodomy, second-degree sodomy -- all felonies. He's also charged with sexual abuse and endangering the welfare of a child, all misdemeanors. All the alleged sexual abuse victims are aged 10 to 15.
If convicted Doherty could face a state prison sentence of up to 25 years. Doherty remained in jail in lieu of $10,000 in bail and will appear in court next Tuesday.
He also served as president of a Dannemora, N.Y. elementary school's Family School Organization.
-- Copyright 2000 by United Press International. All rights reserved.
Gay Boy Scout leader arrested for molesting boys - Do Ya Think BSA Mighta Been Right Afterall? DUH!!
-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), December 11, 2000
get fags outta the BSoA!No Sodomites should work with little boys!!!
-- (damn@ll.fags), December 11, 2000.
I say hang the asshole, on live tv maybe that would send out a message that were not gonna take this shit anymore!
-- Bosco (denden@home.com), December 11, 2000.
Now Now don't come down to hard on the gays. They have their own life to live and they don't need criticism or out side interference in their daily endevours. They want that fuzzy warm feeling that heterosexuals sometimes experience so please leave them alone. It's not politically correct to give negative statements about their sexual preference because Hillary said so. SO THERE!
-- Boswell (fundown@thefarm.net), December 11, 2000.
Sexual abuse of a minor is wrong no matter what the gender or sexual orientation of the adult is.This is the 21st century, Ain't. It's well known that being gay is not a reliable indicator that one engages in sexual abuse of minors.
-- Welcome to (the@21st.century), December 11, 2000.
Hey Bos If two mature gay adults want to dress up in leather boy scout uniforms and hit each other on the head with a ball pien hammer while they take turns blowing there cat that fine it's a victimless hobby and think how good the cat must feel. But when start fucking with kids then it's time to start taking action.Hang'em High
-- Bosco (denden@home.com), December 11, 2000.
Uh, where in this article does it state the guy is gay? Near as I can tell, Ain't stated he was gay, but the article does not.
-- patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), December 11, 2000.
He's charged with sexual conduct with a child younger than age 11, first-degree sodomy, second-degree sodomy -- all felonies.Gee..don't know of to many heterosexual males that pack meat up little boys butts.
UH DUH!
-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), December 11, 2000.
If he was screwing around with a child of the same sex I consider that to be gay, If the had been the opposite sex he wouldn't be gay he would just be a sick bastard. Why do some people try to protect people who are gay.
-- Bosco (denden@home.com), December 11, 2000.
An adult that preys on children for sex is a pedophile. You don't have to be gay...just sick.
-- Peg (pegmcleod@mediaone.net), December 11, 2000.
Why do some people try to protect people who are gay.-- Bosco (denden@home.com), December 11, 2000.
Many with a liberal POV proclaim a need for "tolerance" (choke, gag) at any cost. Thats why!
-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), December 11, 2000.
I'm not "protecting" anyone. The article DOES NOT STATE that the guy is gay; Ain't DID STATE THAT. The guy was a BOY SCOUT LEADER; therefore, these were the children to whom he had access.
It doesn't automagically make him "gay".
Take a freaking pill or something. Jeez, homophobia must be rough on the nerves, eh?
But while we're at it: Please do us a favor and post the statistics on how many child molestors are heterosexual.
Then compare the percentage of those heterosexual child molestors in proportion to the heterosexual community with the the percentage of homosexual child molestors in proportion to the homosexual community and let us know what you come up with. And while you're at it, post the statistics on the percentage of members of the religious community -- e.g., priests, pastors, etc. -- in proportion to the religious community. Should make for rather interesting reading I'll bet.
"Welcome" is absolutely correct; sexual orientation is not an indicator of such things. It's wrong no matter who does it. (And if you go and find those percentages I mentioned earlier, you're probably going to be in for one helluva nasty surprise.)
And if you narrow-minded "compassionate conservatives" could look past your damn homophobia for five freaking minutes, you'd see this. But, *sigh*, I suppose "you know what you know", right?
-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), December 11, 2000.
Pat If a male lays the pipe to another male he is gay! I'm not a homophob I just have no use for people that take advantage of children. and honestly I don't see how anyone can defend them.
-- Bosco (denden@home.com), December 11, 2000.
Bosco, sexual abuse of a minor is wrong no matter what the gender or sexual orientation of the adult is.
-- Welcome to (the@21st.century), December 11, 2000.
Actually, most child molesters are married men. Since you can't be married to someone of the same sex it stands to reason that these people are heterosexual to some degree.Seeing as how this guy served as the president of the Family School Organization, it stands to reason he has children. Although the article doesn't mention it, it's certainly within the realm of possibility that he is currently married or was married at some point.
I think that if this man identified as gay that point would have been brought up in the article, particularly since the BSA has had a recent court battle over this very issue.
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), December 11, 2000.
Jeez, I am NOT "defending" the guy. Just read what I wrote.....and tell me where exactly I'm "defending" him.
And frankly, it's just not worth my time to point out the obvious about these "compassionate conservatives". Their words speak volumes.
-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), December 11, 2000.
Words of a pedophile.McQuay calls himself a 'monster'
Last August, McQuay described himself to the weekly Houston Press as "a child molester. A monster."
"Sometimes I wish I was born a hundred years ago when you could marry a 12-year-old girl and nobody would think twice about it. Or back in the Greek culture when they had sex with boys," he said. "But in today's society that's not acceptable and I'm not a time traveler, so I can't go back into another society or another culture."
-- Peg (pegmcleod@mediaone.net), December 11, 2000.
Welcome to if you read all posts you will see that I said that anyone abuses children is sick
-- Bosco (denden@home.com), December 11, 2000.
The bodies of young boys are very beautiful and I merely help them to realize that. They also like the money that I pay them. "Easy money" they say.I am sympathetic to my heterosexual pervert brothers. Male pervs should be allowed to be Scoutmasters for the Girl Scouts. Patricia, would you support that effort? Thank you.
-- (ScoutmasterBob@NAMBLA.orgy), December 11, 2000.
Troll alert.
-- (issuing@troll.alert), December 11, 2000.
What is this troll alert thing?
-- Bosco (denden@home.com), December 11, 2000.
'sumer!ulp...'SUMER!
blup..."SUMER! I've filled up the ...
urp...the trash bag you gave me and...
glaggkloohey...
-- helen (b@r.f), December 11, 2000.
Bosco, a troll is a poster who is an imposter who posts without a sinker. The bait on the hook is actually for suckers but snags bigger fish. When out of the water they show their true species. You will usually find the dorsal fin has been snipped for easier identification but on the other hand it might be easier just to go fishing. To make a long story short some smallminded people might consider you and I trolls! But we know better!
-- Boswell (fundown@thefarm.net), December 11, 2000.
Not to put words in their mouths, but I'd bet Patricia and Tarzan et. al. WOULD support having male Girl Scoutmasters. Why would you discriminate against them, after all?You shouldn't field the idea if your opposed to it Scoutmaster Bob, it's a seed that will probably land in a fertile field (he he).
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 11, 2000.
Frank-Opposite gender rolemodels can be very important for children. I would not have a problem if my daughter were in an organization that had a male leader, so long as that leader were very carefully screened. I myself had a "den mother" when I was a cub scout.
Any normal man who's ever been around a group of screaming, squirrely, adolescent girls would have NO PROBLEM restraining himself sexually. A thirteen year-old, angst-ridden spastic female is the very antithesis of sexy. I can't imagine a bigger turn-off.
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), December 11, 2000.
I should add that I would expect ANY leader in ANY group my child is part of to have been very carefully screened, regardless of gender.
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), December 11, 2000.
Frank:When I was in junior high, no parent stepped up to the plate to take a leadership position for our girl scout troop. We had two fairly young gals & two young guys who kept our troop going after that point. They were not romantically involved with any of the scouts or each other. I think they were military 'kids' performing a community service. I am grateful that they took the time from their lives to assist us in continuing on with our own development.
Put that in your pipe & smoke it.
-- flora (***@__._), December 11, 2000.
Tarz--Maybe you don't find 13 year old girls exciting. Neither do I, but plenty of men do. Otherwise there wouldn't be such a thing as heterosexual child abuse, obviously. I bet that Feminist groups would oppose male Scoutmasters in the girlscouts just to be ornery. And how do you do "careful screening" without violating someone's civil rights?
Scoutmaster Bob, a more appropriate question would be: "do you think that out-of-the-closet Lesbians should be GirlScout Scoutmasters"?
-- Lars (lars@indy.net), December 11, 2000.
What’s wrong with us? The answer to this complex problem is very simple:Gay men as Scoutmasters for the girls and Lesbians as Scoutmasters for the boys. Sounds safe and PC to me.
-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), December 11, 2000.
Oh sure...you bad evil compassionate conservatives, why are you being so mean to this poor pedophile. you should be ashamed
excuse me while i throw up now
-- jeez (give me@a.break), December 11, 2000.
Wow. Lots of clever posturing here.Nobody is defending the pedophile in the story. He should go to jail if it's proven he had sex with a minor.
The original question was whether it's OK to automatically exclude gay men from the Scouts under the false assumption that most gay men sexually abuse minors.
-- Welcome to (the@21st.century), December 11, 2000.
the hell with Jail I'm talking about execution. But I'm sure get off because people like pat seem to defend these monsters. In this country there are to many hung juries and not enough hung defendants.
-- Bosco (denden@home.com), December 11, 2000.
Bosco, I asked you before to point out where I defended this monster.
I'm still waiting......
-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), December 11, 2000.
'SUMER! Where do we keep the MOP?
-- helen (b@r.f), December 11, 2000.
I'm also waiting for those statistics.....
And for anyone to point me to the source (other than "Ain't"'s screaming-NY Post-like headline) that states this man is gay (which was MY "original question").....
......................
......................
That's what I thought. Yep, lots of rhetoric; no supporting facts.
I'm stunned.
Really.
-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), December 11, 2000.
C'mon, 'sumer! A towel or something?
-- helen (b@r.f), December 11, 2000.
Pat, If a male has sex with a male he is gay I don't care if he is married to a suppermodel with three kids the fact is that he had sex with another male.
-- Bosco (denden@home.com), December 12, 2000.
My only problem with gays in the Boy Scouts is that situations could arise (e.g., showering, dressing) that would be directly analogous to a similar co-ed situation where they're all heterosexuals. In both cases, the gay male and the hetero male (in the co-ed situation) would potentially be in a state obvious sexual excitement. And might be tempted to act on it.But whether it was acted on or not, these are situations in which I certainly wouldn't want my son (or my daughter, in the co-ed analogy).
-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), December 12, 2000.
Terrific. First we have to try to reconcile rates of pedophilia against rates of sexual orientation, now we have to try to figure out what a "suppermodel" is.But I'd like to see those statistics, too. Drag 'em out, if you've got 'em. I'd make a bet that heterosexual pedophilia is just as prevalent as homosexual pedophilia -- and probably more so. (Remember that female teacher who seduced one of her students, had a child by him, was sent to prison, was released, and immediately proceeded to get pregnant again with the same boy?) Pedophilia is an equal-opportunity sickness.
Perhaps the argument could be better-phrased as against pedophilia in general, rather than against people of any specific sexual orientation. After all, not all hetrosexual men are on the prowl for an 11-year-old girl, any more than all homosexual men are on the prowl for an 11-year-old boy.
-- I'm Here, I'm There, (I'm Everywhere,@So.Beware), December 12, 2000.
here ya go helen:
-- (just@helping.out), December 12, 2000.
"Pedophilia is an equal-opportunity sickness."
That's what I've been trying to tell these people, but all they see is that a BOY SCOUT LEADER was accused of sexually abusing some of his charges. No where in the article does it state the man is gay, but Ain't, in his infinite wisdom, SCREAMS that in his headline, as if this is NORMAL.
I don't recall seeing their outrage over that woman you mentioned, or the most recent (or ANY) priest, or the guy down the block who appeared to be happily married with kids of his own ("But he was such a nice, quiet, polite man...").
No, all they can focus on is their homophobia; they cannot handle anyone who is DIFFERENT (and I DON'T mean pedophiles).
Yes, this is compassionate conservatism people. Get used to it. And I think I will join that one in the can; this makes me sick.
(I'm guessing a "suppermodel" is a token beauty one takes to dinner to show off. Just a guess.)
-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), December 12, 2000.
Just helping -- thanks. I needed that. :)
-- helen (b@r.f), December 12, 2000.
You've got to love how these people think sexuality is a black or white issue. For example, we had a man in my community who was a leader in his church, married for thirty years with five children, who plead guilty to sexually molesting three boys in his Sunday school class. By Bosco's logic, this man is clearly gay, despite at least thirty years of heterosexual activity.A few months ago, I read an article which theorized that pedophilia, along with other sexual crimes, is a seperate condition from sexual orientation, in that the perpetrator is looking for a victim rather than a sexual partner. It pointed to a study which showed that only about 30% of sexual offenders climaxed during the offense, which the authors said indicated the offenders received their satisfaction from other aspects of the assualt.
The study makes sense to me. I'll see if I can dig it up.
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), December 12, 2000.
I had a good friend once who bought heifers from me to build his herd up to a purebred level. He married and had two little girls and a wonderful future. I discovered that he had been calling my hired man on the phone every other night for two years. Come to find out my friend had been poking his pickle in my hired man all that time. I did know however that my employee was gay which shows you I'm not all that prejudice! His wife found it out and filed, his parents disowned him and he lost his ranch. And then he had had the nerve to ask me if I'd ever tried it both ways! And then a year later he had a ceremonial wedding with another guy. And he was black! And then gets religion so as to approve and sanctify this whole mess. I ask him once why in hell did he ever get married and have kids and he said it once to prove his manhood and see what it was like. I going to say it one more time. These people are fucked up bad and they are taking alot of good people down with them!
-- Boswell (Fundown@thefarm.net), December 12, 2000.
I had a good friend once who bought heifers from me to build his herd up to a purebred level.In light of your good friend's revelation concerning his sexuality, it makes sense that you would have so many issues around homosexuality.
Come to find out my friend had been poking his pickle in my hired man all that time. I did know however that my employee was gay which shows you I'm not all that prejudice!
So you decided not to fire a good employee because of his private life. How magnanimous of you.
His wife found it out and filed, his parents disowned him and he lost his ranch.
Ouch! I feel bad for his wife and for you friend.
And then he had had the nerve to ask me if I'd ever tried it both ways!
I'd be curious to know the context of this question. Was he perhaps looking for empathy?
And then a year later he had a ceremonial wedding with another guy. And he was black!
Which offends you more, the wedding, or the interracial relationship? My fiance is black, I am not. Although we are different genders, you would be surprised at the obstacles we've found in trying to arrange this wedding.
And then gets religion so as to approve and sanctify this whole mess.
Are you saying he went through a religious conversion or a religious ceremony?
I ask him once why in hell did he ever get married and have kids and he said it once to prove his manhood and see what it was like.
I've heard this before. Homophobia does strange things to people. Our culture has such a high disapproval of gays and lesbians that they are motivated to go to extreme measures in an effort to fit in with society.
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), December 12, 2000.
You appear to be extremely ‘thick’ Patricia, on the subject of this thread. I will avoid debating with you on the issues surrounding the gay lifestyle. However, I will join others that have attempted to educate you on the facts of life: ‘If a man puts his penis up a young boys rectum then he is gay’. Can you comprehend this?You obviously have never been a mother or your attitude would be more realistic. I’m not going out of my way to ‘pick on you’, for I generally align with your viewpoints. But in this thread, you have repeatedly stated “Where does the article state that this Scoutmaster is gay”? Think it through and it will all be clear….or not.
-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), December 12, 2000.
Helen, so sorry I was unable to pass the barf bag!!!!It 'does' appear that Bos is homophobic AND racist....Wow. 2 strikes.
I'd like to know why it is that this title is Gay Boy Scout Leader.?
Um, Aint? Care to respond, I do believe it would help to calm it down a little.
Nowhere in the article do I read the dude is gay. He is a pedophile and should have his nutz removed, but other than that (which is bad enough) I'd like to know why this thread was titled as it is.
Again, Aint, CARE TO RESPOND?
-- sumer (shh@aol.con), December 12, 2000.
Tell you what Tarzan, Klanhater and others. I LIKE STRAIGHT PEOPLE BETTER THAN HAPPY PEOPLE (Gays). I WOULD RATHER BE AROUND WHITE PEOPLE THAN BLACK PEOPLE. I ENJOY BEING AROUND CHINESE AND I CAN'T STAND INDIANS. I LIKE SLENDER WOMEN INSTEAD OF FAT WOMEN. I THINK LONG HAIR LOOKS LIKE SHIT ON MEN AND SHORT HAIR ON BOTH MEN AND WOMEN LOOKS GREAT. I LIKE CATTLE BETTER THAN PIGS OR SHEEP. I LOVE HONEY AND HATE PEANUTBUTTER. LACE UP SHOES SUCK WHILE PULLUPS FEEL GREAT. I LIKE PORNAGRAPHY AS LONG AS IT AIN'T WEIRD CRAP. I LIKE THE LUTHERAN RELIGION BUT CAN'T STAND JEHOVAH'S. Now digest that and quit being a bunch of liberal weenies!
-- Boswell (fundown@thefarm.net), December 12, 2000.
Well, you certainly seem to have a nice set of pigeon holes for people. I think it's sad that you need to divide all of humanity up into neat little categories, but hey, to each his own.
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), December 12, 2000.
He may not be gay, but he obviously has a preference:"A New York Boy Scout leader faces several charges of sexually abusing several young boys over the course of the last three years when he appears in court Tuesday"
-- (read@it.again), December 12, 2000.
He may not be gay,^^^^yep what I thought. But, is your name AINT?
tapping foot waiting.
-- sumer (shh@aol.con), December 12, 2000.
You appear to be extremely ‘thick’ Patricia, on the subject of this thread.
No, I'd like a clarification from Ain't on his SCREAMING title. He made an assumption, and I'd like to know where he got his "facts".
I will avoid debating with you on the issues surrounding the gay lifestyle. However, I will join others that have attempted to educate you on the facts of life: ‘If a man puts his penis up a young boys rectum then he is gay’. Can you comprehend this?
Please don't patronize me. I asked a question. I am still waiting for an answer. You obviously have no clue as to what "gay" means.
You obviously have never been a mother or your attitude would be more realistic. I’m not going out of my way to ‘pick on you’, for I generally align with your viewpoints. But in this thread, you have repeatedly stated “Where does the article state that this Scoutmaster is gay”? Think it through and it will all be clear….or not.
Whether or not I "have [ever] been a mother" has absolutely no bearing on the question that I started with -- WHERE DID "AIN'T" GET THE IDEA THE GUY IS GAY?!?!
I know I'm "speaking" English; I see it on the cyber-page. So what is the problem here?
Again, YOU obviously know nothing about what "gay" is else YOU'D be asking "Ain't" the exact same question.
-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), December 12, 2000.
‘If a man puts his penis up a young boys rectum then he is gay’. Can you comprehend this?-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), December 12, 2000.
Not much more to say. This pretty much sums it up.
-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), December 12, 2000.
Well, hmmmm, go figure, AINT aint got no answer of his/her own.
-- sumer (shh@aol.con), December 12, 2000.
Whether you like hearing it or not, many people, believe a homosexual lifestyle is wrong! Maybe you have been indoctrinated into " tolerance " gag, of this contemptable behavior, but America by and large has and is not, period!Deal with it!
Save your politically correct lecture for your next liberal caucus meeting.
-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), December 12, 2000.
Again, YOU obviously know nothing about what "gay" is else YOU'D be asking "Ain't" the exact same question.Patricia--
I don't want to pick on you either but Barry clearly does know what "gay" is. So do I, altho I am straight. At the risk of sounding babbity, "some of my best friends are gay". True. I'm curious as to how you define "gay"? I assume you are making the distinction between homosexual and child-abuser.
BTW, I have also never been a parent. Bummer, for me. But I sympathize with parents who don't want their kids exposed to life-styles that contravene their own values. If you had a kid, would you want him to have a Scoutmaster that was, say, a racist bigot. Same idea.
Note that I am not talking about gay or hetero child abuse. It goes without saying that that is intolerable. I am talking about indoctrination and/or role-models (even tacit role-models).
I didn't like "aint's" subject line either.
Complicating this issue is the notion of whether "gayness" is a chosen or inculcated lifestlye or is it an uncontrolable, inborne behavior. My gut says it is both. And for both reasons, I would not want homosexuals to have easy access to children, especially my children. When my children (I do have a stepdaughter) are adults, then I would love them if they turned out to be homosexuals. If they turned out to be pedaphiles or rapists or murderers etc, I honestly don't know.
-- Lars (lars@indy.net), December 12, 2000.
Here is some common sense -- Heterosexual men are attracted, sexually, to women. Lesbians are attracted, sexually, to women. Gays are attracted, sexually, to men. Men should not be trusted, for common sense sake, with camping out with young girls. Gay men should not be trusted with camping out with young boys for the same common sense.What makes gay men suddenly immune to being sexually attracted to young boys when they are factually sexually attracted to 18-years old men and above????? I don't call it homophobia or discrimination, just reducing risks based on sexual preferences.
-- matt (goreisacommie@netzero.net), December 12, 2000.
Whether you like hearing it or not, many people, believe a homosexual lifestyle is wrong!Where's the evidence that this scoutmaster lived a "homosexual lifestyle"? Consider Bosco's friend. He had a wife and three children. Does that sound like a "homosexual lifestyle" to you?
Matt-
You may have missed an earlier post that I made about how sexually UNATTRACTIVE young girls are to normal adult men. I imagine young boys are equally unattractive. Boys that are eleven, twelve, thirteen years of age (pretty much where the majority of boys end scout involvement) are NOTHING like adult men. They don't have the body definition, deep voice, or even testicles of an adult. They are often angst-ridden spastic creatures bent more on destruction than long talks over dinner. As a straight man, I can't even conceive of being attracted to young girls. The gay men I know feel the same way about young boys. Simply put, young boys don't have the same attributes that attract gays to other men.
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), December 12, 2000.
I'm curious as to how you define "gay"? I assume you are making the distinction between homosexual and child-abuser.
And when I lived in NYC, some of *my* best friends were gay, including my business "mentor" of close to three years. He defined "gay" as (and as he used to be a director at GMHC, and "came out" in the late 1960s, and etc. and so on, I kind of took him at his word) "this is who/what I am, just as your being heterosexual is who/what you are; it is NOT a "lifestyle" or a "choice"". I take that as signifying it is ALL-ENCOMPASSING (e.g., not the "experiments" some kids/adults partake in; CERTAINLY having NOTHING to do with pedophelia). Yes, the distinction I made was between homosexual and child-abuser.
BTW, I have also never been a parent.
Neither have I, but this has nothing to do with the issue at hand, nor does it have anything to do with the question I asked.
I am talking about indoctrination and/or role-models (even tacit role-models).
But that's just it, Lars, I wasn't talking about "role- models" of ANY sort. All I wanted to know was "where did Ain't get the idea that this guy is gay". Period. I don't know how many times, in how many different ways I can say this.
Nothing else is relevant to what I originally asked.
And I'd say I was still waiting for an answer, but in Ain't's reposting of Bosco's comments, I have it; an ASSUMPTION was made by Ain't and Bosco based on nothing more than ignorance (though in Ain't's case, I think it may be safe to add, "bigotry"). They, and Boswell, and others, are not making any distinctions whatsoever between homosexuality and pedophelia. They are making ASSUMPTIONS.
Why are there so few of us here on this thread that recognize this?
-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), December 12, 2000.
Matt, you said,I don't call it homophobia or discrimination, just reducing risks
I'd agree, but some of these folks wouldn't. You see, they seem to think that a "normal" homosexual could be sexually attracted to an 18 y/o boy, but completely neuter to a 17 y/o one, and therefore would make a great scoutmaster on campouts. This is their belief, and as this forum has demonstrated, one can't argue with someone else's belief system.
BTW, the people with this belief system ALSO believe that there's a similar "magic line" at birth, so that it is perfectly acceptable to kill a child moments before it's born, but unacceptable to do so moments AFTER birth. Again, it's a pattern of thinking they have that spans many issues.
To me, both positions are pretty nutty, but then to each his own.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 12, 2000.
Ah, to live in Frank's pure black-and-white world.
No thanks.
-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), December 12, 2000.
Patricia,You should think about it first:
Honest families working for a living, safety on the streets, much less pollution as people take responsibility for their actions, even at corporate levels...
I'd take it over San Fransisco any day :-)
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 12, 2000.
And I'll take a diverse culture over Stepford People any day.
Guess it's all in how you look at it.
-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), December 12, 2000.
Frank-There's not much difference between a seventeen year-old and an eighteen year-old. Certainly not as much difference as between thirteen and eighteen. Moreover, most scouts don't stay in the organization much past junior high.
Honest families working for a living, safety on the streets, much less pollution as people take responsibility for their actions, even at corporate levels...
Actually, this sounds just like San Francisco.
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), December 12, 2000.
I would agree with those that it is disingenous to use the article to bash gays, as pedophilia dones not equate to homosexuality. But I would not go so far as some, like Patricia, who would castigate the Boy Scouts for simply stating that they wish to preclude avowed, "out" homosexuals from serving as troop leaders. I'm sure the NAACP would prefer to preclude middle-aged white men (a popular 90's target) from serving in a visible leaderhship role. But was not the white guy "born" that way??? Live and let live, and I'm sure that if a homosexual wants to be vociferous about their state of being they should be more than inclined to find an organization that espouses the glory in proclaiming the same. It's called freedom of association and I cannot think of many organizations that do not practice it in some manner or other.
-- matt (goreisacommie@netzero.net), December 12, 2000.
...people take responsibility for their actions,...Actually, this sounds just like San Francisco.
-- Tarzan the Ape Man
If they were taking responsibility for their actions in San Francisco, they wouldn't be whining about more and more money for AIDS research. Research for a vaccine that is not needed. Simply changing one's behavior that transmits this virus makes the virus extinct. People in general, homosexuals in particular, need to take real responsibility for not changing their behavior and continuing to spread this virus.
-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), December 12, 2000.
I'd like to thank each one of you for sharing your opinions on this thread. It is good to know where people stand on important issues.[Boring story of dubious value:] I moved to rural North Carolina back in late 1993 from urban New Jersey. It took a few years living in NC before I really caught a glimpse of the depth of covert racism & bigotry held by a significant percentage of the people there. Segregation, obviously long-ingrained, permeated social groups and local governmental bodies. Once I understood the magnitude I ran like hell!
I'm not one to keep my mouth shut when important issues are on the table. This thread is not about pedophelia. Certainly no one here (anons aside) with an ounce of decency finds pedophelia an acceptable activity.
This thread instead is all about ignorance. I for one appreciate the willingness of folks to bare their ignorance for all to see. Lord knows I've done so many a time. The key for each of us, if we hope to extinguish ignorance in our selves, is to forever allow for the possibility that, as Ken Decker stated on another thread - "I might be wrong."
-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), December 12, 2000.
Simply changing one's behavior that transmits this virus makes the virus extinct. People in general, homosexuals in particular, need to take real responsibility for not changing their behavior and continuing to spread this virus.You could, of course, extend this line of "reasoning" to literally any condition or illness. We don't need to do research into lung cancer. If people stopped smoking or working in mines, then there would be no lung cancer. Or how 'bout heart disease? Hey fatty, take some responsibility for yourself and put down that pastrami on rye! We're wasting tons of money on a disease we can virtually wipe out if people like you would just stop eating yourselves into an early grave! Or how 'bout drug abuse? Let's stop wasting valuable funds on treating druggies. We'll just let them die in the streets and point them out to our kids, saying "See what happens when you shoot heroin?" Once they're all dead, and our kids are scared stiff, we won't have any more problem. We don't need a cure, we need responsibility!
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), December 12, 2000.
Patricia, I’ll take that diverse culture too. It is the continuing movement towards a ‘perverse’ culture that I find alarming. In the spirit of liberal acceptance and political correctness, we are allowing our values and standards to disappear from this landscape. It is doubtful that you and I will live long enough to see the insidious results of this mindset but my children and grandchildren most likely will. A society without discipline is doomed to extinction and known and recorded history is rich with examples.Now, for reasons unknown to me, I will share some personal information about myself and those that are an important part of my life.
(1). Many of my business associates, and friends, are Asians.
(2). I have a business partner who is a 53-year-old gay man.
(3). Many years ago I had a live-in African-American girlfriend.
(4). I grew up in the bowels of Detroit, where white folks were in the minority.
(5). I spent many years in the military and 2 years in law enforcement.
(6). I have a Masters Degree in Mechanical Engineering and a Doctorate in ‘Street Smarts’.
I tell you this in the hopes that I am not looked at as some racist cross burner with no empathy for those who may be of a different race or sexual persuasion. I have just seen TOO much, for TOO long to stay neutral.
-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), December 12, 2000.
You could, of course, extend this line of "reasoning" to literally any condition or illness. We don't need to do research into lung cancer. If people stopped smoking or working in mines, then there would be no lung cancer. Or how 'bout heart disease?Ummm...didn't know you had single handedly figured out the ONLY causes of lung cancer to be "smoking or working in mines"
-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), December 12, 2000.
I was going to stay out of this thread, but this last comment by Aint deserves a Klunk on the head:"Simply changing one's behavior that transmits this virus makes the virus extinct"
So, are you saying that all cases of Aids are caused by what you feel is deviant behavior? What about blood transfusions? What about the enormous rise in the heterosexual world of Aids cases? Is it your presumption if we were to outlaw homosexuality and execute all those deviant bastards that Aids would disappear? Sure am glad you do not work at the Center for Disease Control. Maybe you should study epidemiology and maybe learn something about the disease of which you speak.
You get the "Spin of the Day" award for so misconstruing the spread of a major disease that it is laughable.
By the way, everybody else who sees this as gay-not gay. Ever hear of a Bi-sexual?
And another question: What would we call a hermaphrodite who abused a male child?
-- SydBarrett (dark@side.moon), December 12, 2000.
Tarzan,This line is true:
We don't need a cure, we need responsibility!
As I'm sure you're aware, many people contract diseases (such as cancer) without being "at fault", whereas with the exception of a few transfusion cases, EVERY case of HIV occurring today could have been prevented by the persons involved not engaging in their behavior. Actually, if you convinced the AIDS crowd to change their behavior, the pool of HIV+ blood would shrink so much that there effectively wouldn't be any transfusion related cases either. This is vastly different from someone who for example contracts Glioblastoma in their mid-60s.
Please don't tell me that you're so enamored with homosexuality that you're actually AGAINST teaching people to be more responsible (and requesting that they do so), so as to decrease AIDS related deaths!
Boy this thread is changing direction post to post,
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 12, 2000.
Frank:Are you trying to oust Ain't for the Spin of the day? Your ridiculous quote:
"EVERY case of HIV occurring today could have been prevented by the persons involved not engaging in their behavior"
A group with whom I involved puts together gifts for Children with Aids, who are in a hospital setting. What is it about their behavior that they deserve to get the disease from which they will probably die? Is it convenient just to blame it on their mother? What about the unsuspecting wife or husband who is the victim of a philandering spouse? They too deserve the disease because they could not control their spouse?
Do you have the hard statistics to back you, Frank? Or are you just blowing smoke, as usual? Please do the research before making such ignorant proclamations. I think you should get the award, because I think you have more intelligence than AInt. Or so I thought. Geeze.
-- SydBarrett (dark@side.moon), December 12, 2000.
You KNOW WHAT?I'm REALLY PISSSED. AINT you are an ASSHOLE to the FULLEST degree and your IGNORANCE simply amazes me.
So, you DO believe all HIV/AIDS is because of Homosexuals?
You deserve the STUPID FUCK AWARD.
Passes the dumbass a FINGER....guess which one?
Sumer who is SUPER PISSED. For reasons MANY know:-0
-- sumer (shh@aol.con), December 12, 2000.
Syd I was going to say that!Tarzan seems to think that if one lives a hetersexual lifestyle, then this person is not gay. (For example, we had a man in my community who was a leader in his church, married for thirty years with five children, who plead guilty to sexually molesting three boys in his Sunday school class. By Bosco's logic, this man is clearly gay, despite at least thirty years of heterosexual activity.) Well, fact is, the probability that this man is gay is pretty high. Just because he was in the closet doesn't make him a heterosexual.
Point is, we don't know if the abuser is gay or bi. But for sure, the abuser is NOT heterosexual. A man who performs a gay sexual act, no matter how hard he may try, is not a heterosexual. By definition, a heterosexual only does the opposite sex. My two cents, you may now return to your regularly scheduled crap tossing.
-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), December 12, 2000.
Frank, watch out for that slick spot on the floor there -- I haven't finished cleaning up my mess. AIDS viruses have been passed on through dental instruments (autoclaving is the best and possibly only disinfecting strategy that works in that case), and in some pediatric cases no explanation for the presence of HIV can be found.A world inhabited by humans who behaved responsibly 100% of the time might not be the paradise it sounds like it could be.
-- helen (b@r.f), December 12, 2000.
Sorry Syd,"EVERY case of HIV occurring today could have been prevented by the persons involved not engaging in their behavior"
The child contracted the disease from the parent's BEHAVIOR. The spouse contracted the disease from their spouse's BEHAVIOR. The BEHAVIOR of an irresponsible person caused ALL of these cases, regardless of whether or not innocents die also, just as innocent people can be killed by a drunk driver, it's still the intoxication of the driver that's responsible, not bad luck on the part of the innocent victims! That is a FAR different thing than a child born with a congenital disease, for instance.
New AIDS cases could be STOPPED if the irresponsible people in our society stopped acting irresponsible.
You are the one who's making "ignorant proclamations" here, not me.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 12, 2000.
Helen,Thanks for the warning, but remember, this is just a discussion board, don't let Tarzan et. al. get you so worked up ;-) . Any medical/dental professional who doesn't sterilize their instruments between patients ought to lose their licence. The first rule is to "do no harm".
I agree with the last part, but there's a difference between "irresponsible" and "IRRESPONSIBLE", for example, eating that pastrami on rye vs. drunk driving.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 12, 2000.
But I would not go so far as some, like Patricia, who would castigate the Boy Scouts for simply stating that they wish to preclude avowed, "out" homosexuals from serving as troop leaders.
Show me where I said that (and if anyone can find the original thread where we first discussed this -- right after the BSA made their announcement -- I'd be ever appreciative). You see, matt, if the BSA wants to exclude someone, more power to them. BUT if they take public money to help run their organization, they cannot -- BY LAW -- exclude ANYONE.
You were saying..........?
Barry, you make some good points, but I think you're placing the blame in the wrong place. I've said this many a time -- parents need to take responsibility for raising their children. Instead, and we see this all-too-often, they blame Hollywood, and the music industry, and the Internet, and the small screen, and sports stars, blah blah blah ad nauseum. Rather than blaming themselves for not instilling those alleged "morals" and "values" that they're screaming about, it's so much easier for them to blame someone else.
In addition, I have a real problem with anyone trying to tell me what my morals and values SHOULD BE; be it you, my friends, my SO or some ridiculous "compassionate conservative movement". People like Frank and Ain't and Boswell think it should be THEIR WAY or the HIGHWAY.
Again, no thanks.
And I'm not saying you're at all like anything I have described here; I don't even know you (and you do not, from your writings, appear to be). "Racist cross-burner" never even crossed my mind where you're concerned.
What Ain't and Frank and those of like minds don't seem to realize is that pretty much the ONLY reason AIDS became an "issue" in the first place was because **WHITE MIDDLE-AGED HETEROSEXUAL MEN** found they were getting it, too. That and toss in a well-placed celebrity here and there.
Kind of like breast cancer.
-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), December 12, 2000.
... what public money???? And don't throw access to meeting rooms in libraries and gymnasiums in there.
-- matt (goreisacommie@netzero.net), December 12, 2000.
Just for the record. Nonconsensual (sp?) sex of any kind is bad. Pedophilia is a crime and a disease and pedophiles should be stopped (I leave it up to you to determine what "stopped" means for you). I think we all agree on the two above points.However I am bemused by the "is he gay vs. is he het" debate. Hasn't everyone heard of bisexuals by now?
Bisexual behavior occurs in every culture in recorded history. Not to mention people who enjoy non-human species as well.
There is no question that many many people tend towards the extreme heterosexual or the extreme homosexual ends of the spectrum. Nonetheless, there are and will continue to be people whose preference lies somewhere in the middle, who are just happy having sex with anyone they find attractive.
Magazines made specifically for heterosexual men often have photos of women performing sexual acts with men and women at the same time. They are performing bisexual acts. There is no monopoly on bisexuality among the female porn stars and nude models of sex media. All kinds of people do it, including men. In fact, bi-sexual men are much less likely to ever be outed because they have perfectly "normal" heterosexual relationships which act as a cover.
Most importantly it is important not to get distracted by the luridness of the case. Banning gays from anywhere will not stop pedophilia. Education, awareness and talking to our kids will.
We need to focus on why child molestation happens at all. And it does. Every day. In your town, on your block, maybe in your house. It is time to get passed the prudery and bigotry and deal with this epidemic now. Talk to your kids. Talk to the parents of your kid's friends. Explain to them why molestation is wrong. Why its not ok for a bigger kid to pull down a younger kids pants. Tell them that if anyone - no matter who - tries that with them they are to tell someone they trust. Right away.
The more we imagine that such crimes are only perpetrated by gays or men who wear raincoats or whatever, the more blind we will be to such events happening under our own noses.
-- riversoma (riversoma@aol.com), December 12, 2000.
matt, please note the very important qualifier in this statement. I have highlighted it to make it easier for you:
BUT if they take public money to help run their organization, they cannot -- BY LAW -- exclude ANYONE.
See?
Now, you were going to tell me where I "...castigate[d] the Boy Scouts for simply stating that they wish to preclude avowed, "out" homosexuals from serving as troop leaders...".
Still waiting.....
(anyone beginning to see a pattern here?)
-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), December 12, 2000.
Please don't tell me that you're so enamored with homosexuality that you're actually AGAINST teaching people to be more responsible (and requesting that they do so), so as to decrease AIDS related deaths!I'm not "enamored" of homosexuality, and I'm not against teaching people to be more responsible. Are YOU so enamored of responsibility you would withold research and treatment funds and thus CONDEMN people to die because you don't like how they fuck?
Tarzan seems to think that if one lives a hetersexual lifestyle, then this person is not gay.
Yes. I think that sexuality is a lot more complex than who you sleep with. I think there is more to sexuality than straight or gay, as though there were some sort of "on" and "off" switch in the brain.
New AIDS cases could be STOPPED if the irresponsible people in our society stopped acting irresponsible.
Except for the lesbians, right? They have the lowest numbers of AIDS cases of any group. Therefore, they're the chosen ones, aren't they, Frank?
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), December 12, 2000.
Oh and, BTW, "...access to meeting rooms in libraries and gymnasiums..." DOES in fact qualify as **PUBLIC MONEY**.
Why do you seem to feel it's OK for the BSA to exclude a particular segment of the population (and again, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with their inherent right to do so), but it's NOT OK for, e.g., the City of Los Angeles to deny them access to publicly-funded space? If the libraries and gymnasiums are in publicly-funded institutions, they most certainly do have that right. And it would seem that they have the law on their side.
-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), December 12, 2000.
Well, fact is, the probability that this man is gay is pretty high. Just because he was in the closet doesn't make him a heterosexual.http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial/pedophiles/6.htm
Pedophiles and Child Molesters: The Slaughter of Innocence
Paedophile Characteristics
A pedophile will usually exhibit a series of personality characteristics that are common in this type of offender. It is important to understand that these characteristics alone do not conclusively determine that a person is a pedophile. But if these indicators, combined with a pattern of behavior that arouses suspicion, are present then there may be enough probable cause to believe that the person is a pedophile.
He carries on what can be termed “a special relationship” with a wife. Often pedophiles have failed marriages due to their sexual interests but remain in the marriage to mask their true intentions. Sadly, the wife sometimes knows about her husband’s preference, but prefers to keep quiet to avoid social stigma and disgrace.
He displays a fascination or unusual interest in children. If an adult has an inordinate amount of interest in pre-pubescent children, it doesn’t confirm he is a pedophile, but it should at least arouse suspicion.
He makes frequent references to children in exalted or exaggerated terms such as “pure”, “innocent”, ”God sent”, “blissful” and other descriptive labels that seem inappropriate and excessive. Remember that a pedophile cannot help the way he behaves and therefore will inadvertently reveal aspects about himself during speech.
He has hobbies or interests that commonly belong in the realm of a child’s world such as toy collecting, building models of cars or planes. His home or room is decorated in a child’s theme. And often, that theme will reflect the age bracket of his preferred victim.
He is over 30 years of age, single and has few or no friends his own age. He may also have frequent and unexplained changes of residence. He may be unable or unwilling to discuss why he lost his last job. He may have a military discharge that he cannot explain and a past that he cannot easily talk about.
He has systematic and prolonged access to children. Pedophiles, because of the wide age disparity between themselves and their victims, cannot simply just hang around children. It would immediately arouse suspicion. The pedophile has to find a way to legitimize his contact with kids. He usually accomplishes this by obtaining employment in a field where he is forced to deal with children on a daily basis. Jobs like schoolteachers, bus drivers, camp counselors, photographers and sports coaching[1] serve their needs perfectly. They will always volunteer for activities in which they are left alone with children with no parental supervision (Lanning, p. 19).
Pedophiles are also very adept at locating troubled or withdrawn children. This is a skill they have acquired through years of trial and error. They have come to identify what usually works and what usually doesn’t. The most common technique employed by pedophiles to obtain sex from children is the seduction method. This process is very similar to the classic boy/girl courtship. Though the child will typically be under ten years old, the pedophile will lavish gifts upon the target, take him or her to amusement parks, museums, restaurants and other places of interest. This author recalls a case in which a pedophile attempted to seduce a child who had an interest in music. The suspect escorted the boy to expensive Broadway plays like Phantom of the Opera and Miss Saigon. Afterwards, they ate in fashionable Manhattan cafes and went sightseeing. The child was just 8 years old. In another recent case, reported by the N.Y. Times (February 2, 2000), a Bronx man lured neighborhood children to his apartment with Pokemon cards and Chinese food. He then abused a number of children after giving them marijuana and screening pornographic videos. The abused children later got together and attempted to set fire to the suspect’s apartment.
If the target is a troubled child, the pedophile will comfort and sympathize with him or her. Often, over a period of time, the child will develop feelings for the offender even though he is being actively abused. The dynamics at work in this type of situation are well known to psychologists. This process of sympathizing with the offender has been called "The Stockholm Syndrome." It was first recognized in 1973 after a notorious bank robbery in Sweden in which the hostages taken by the suspects began to develop feelings of attachment toward their captors[2]. Children who are sexually victimized can feel the same way. This is often the case when the offender happens to be a member of the clergy or another traditional figure of trust. The event will not be reported because of the emotional attachment between offender and victim. Remember that pedophiles are masters in the manipulation of children. However, as the victim matures into adulthood, these benevolent feelings toward the abuser often dissipate and the painful truth of the abuse sets in.
[1] Sports Illustrated produced a cover story on this subject in their issue of September 13, 1999 entitled “Who’s Coaching Your Kid? [2] America’s most famous victim of the Stockholm Syndrome may be Patty Hearst, the millionairess who was kidnapped by extremists in 1973 and later participated in a bank robbery with her kidnappers.
-- Peg (pegmcleod@mediaone.net), December 12, 2000.
religious groups are allowed to use library meeting rooms, and they do not have to accept everyone... still waiting weenie
-- matt (goreisacommie@netzero.net), December 12, 2000.
Matt-Exactly which "private religious groups" are you referring?
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), December 12, 2000.
Frank:You still have not answered my question. You made a statement using the word "all"-
Please tell me again, what is it about the behavior of children who have aids that led them to get the disease? Was it chosing the wrong mother? I did not think you beleived in those kind of things.
And again, what is wrong with the behavior of an unsuspecting spouse? Should they not have kissed or had sex with their spouse?
You are entitled to your theories, no matter how misguided they are, but when you make statements using words like "all" you have to be much more careful.
For instance, relationships go much smoother when you avoid statements of criticism like "you always...", "you never", and "every time...". No human being is that consistent.
-- SydBarrett (dark@side.moon), December 12, 2000.
"weenie"?!?! This is the best (most?) you could come up with? How truly sad.
Did ya answer any of my questions, Oh Wise and All-Knowing One? Nope, didn't think so.
What a surprise.
-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), December 12, 2000.
Syd,Hard though it may be to believe, I do have work to do, so while I will answer things, please don't expect an instantaneous answer.
You said, You still have not answered my question. You made a statement using the word "all"-
Please tell me again, what is it about the behavior of children who have aids that led them to get the disease? Was it chosing the wrong mother? I did not think you beleived in those kind of things.
Did you READ my post? I said: The child contracted the disease from the parent's BEHAVIOR. The spouse contracted the disease from their spouse's BEHAVIOR.
These people DID contract the disease from someone's irresponsible behavior, just not their own. If you are crossing a street in a crosswalk and are killed by a drunk driver, your death is attributed to his irresponsibility, not bad luck. Why are you attempting to apply a double standard when it comes to AIDS, when the cause of their disease and death is so readily apparent?
Patricia, you said,
What Ain't and Frank and those of like minds don't seem to realize is that pretty much the ONLY reason AIDS became an "issue" in the first place was because **WHITE MIDDLE-AGED HETEROSEXUAL MEN** found they were getting it, too
What crap. AIDS was taken very seriously by people like me in the late 80s when it was still thought of as "gay cancer". And no, it is most definitely NOT an issue now because of white-men etc. (by which I assume you mean my personal interest) because I and people who share my point of view ARE NOT at risk for AIDS any more now than we were 10 years ago -- we don't engage in the behaviors that transmit HIV.
Tarzan,
Don't be foolish, I don't want to eliminate research, but the NEED for it wouldn't exist (as there would BE no significant amount of AIDS) if people would change their behaviors.
You also said,
Except for the lesbians, right? They have the lowest numbers of AIDS cases of any group. Therefore, they're the chosen ones, aren't they, Frank?
Exactly! They tend to not engage in behaviors that spread AIDS, and should be commended for their behavior in this regard. Just as I'm sure you'll agree that due to their lifestyles, MALE homosexuals must be CONDEMNED for their lifestyles, which tend to transmit the AIDS virus. You agree right?
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 12, 2000.
AIDS was taken very seriously by people like me in the late 80s when it was still thought of as "gay cancer".AIDS hasn't been called (or thought of) as gay cancer since about 1980.
Exactly! They tend to not engage in behaviors that spread AIDS, and should be commended for their behavior in this regard.
You don't actually know any lesbians, do you, Frank?
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), December 12, 2000.
Tarzan,I agreed that lesbian behavior is associated with a decreased risk of AIDS, and Predictably, you failed to respond to my question as to whether or not male homosexual behavior should be actively condemned as risky for spreading the disease. You really can't bring yourself to admit that ANYTHING done by homosexuals is less than perfect, can you?
I used to think that we just had different opinions, but now I'm really starting to feel sorry for you.
With regards to "gay cancer", I was going to say "early eighties" initially, but my memory isn't perfect & figured someone like you would go berserk if I pre-dated anything, so I temporized and went with "late 80s". I'm sorry if this offended you.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 12, 2000.
I agreed that lesbian behavior is associated with a decreased risk of AIDS, and Predictably, you failed to respond to my question as to whether or not male homosexual behavior should be actively condemned as risky for spreading the disease.Actually, I decided to stop allowing myself to be baited by someone who's so obviously ignorant of the very "lifestyle" he so shrilly rails against.
Just so you know, there's quite a bit of lesbian sexual behavior that is quite high risk. In fact, at a time when AIDS is declining among gay men, it's actually rising among some groups of lesbians, mainly women of color. I'll dig out the cite for you, keep your shorts unwadded. I certainly don't expect you to know EVERYTHING about a topic you discuss, but you really ought to try to keep up!
You really can't bring yourself to admit that ANYTHING done by homosexuals is less than perfect, can you?
I'm curious with what you're trying to accomplish with this. Are you trying to paint me with the pink brush, or are you trying to attack my credibility? Either way, this is the fourth time on this thread you've attempted to ascribe words and opinions to me that are not my own. It's tiresome, Frank. If I'm not making my arguments simple enough for you to refute then perhaps you should consider changing the topic.
I used to think that we just had different opinions, but now I'm really starting to feel sorry for you.
Whatever.
With regards to "gay cancer", I was going to say "early eighties" initially, but my memory isn't perfect & figured someone like you would go berserk if I pre-dated anything, so I temporized and went with "late 80s". I'm sorry if this offended you.
It didn't offend me, but it did surprise me. After all, someone who has been so concerned for so long about AIDS wouldn't forget something as memorable as, say, ACT-UP chaining themselves to the fense of the White House during the Reagan era. Even so, I thought it was just a simple mistake and I thought I was jogging your memory. Of course, I myself forgot that I don't actually have my own opinions and thoughts, only those you ascribe to me, so now that I think of it, I was offended!
On a serious note, I am much more concerned by your clarification of the statement. Come on, Frank, that's a huge chunk of time. It would be much easier to believe that you have been concerned about this for some time and simply misspoke than it is to believe that you have been concerned about this for some time and forgot about an entire decade.
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), December 12, 2000.
I love queers!
-- Tarzan (the@dick.sucker), December 12, 2000.
'sumer-In all the arguing, I forgot that this issue would hit very close to home for some of us. You're in my thoughts.
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), December 12, 2000.
Tarzan, you said,You really can't bring yourself to admit that ANYTHING done by homosexuals is less than perfect, can you?
I'm curious with what you're trying to accomplish with this.
Tarzan, I've seen you post on many topics, and on all of them EXCEPT homosexuality you seem to be able to debate things with give and take in a rational manner. On homosexuality though, I've NEVER seen you accept anything less than 100% agreement with your pro-homosexual agenda. I find it odd.
You then said,
If I'm not making my arguments simple enough for you to refute then perhaps you should consider changing the topic.
In addition to the insult, you haven't really been MAKING any arguments, for example:
Exactly! They tend to not engage in behaviors that spread AIDS, and should be commended for their behavior in this regard.
You don't actually know any lesbians, do you, Frank?
is hardly what I'd call an "argument".
And with regards to time, it's hardly mysterious. If you'll search the old TB2K archives, you'll note that I have commented that I did have association with AIDS work (I'm trying to be obscure here, ((to save you from posting on it))) but it's really not my field. I've considered it a problem for some time from a societal perspective, especially as the epidemic continues to worsen as people like yourself continue to deny we already HAVE a solution to continuing spreading the disease, that of vigorously persuing PREVENTION. but I DON'T have a personal stake in the issue, and so am not really as emotional about it as some people are.
And BTW, you STILL haven't said whether or not the behavior of promiscous homosexuals should be condemned, or not...
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 12, 2000.
I offer this link as a valuable source of AIDS history. Sorry, but I’ve never taken the time to dabble in HTML.http://www.skeptic.com/03.2.harris-aids.html#part1
I have always believed that the virus has been around for decades in certain areas of Africa. It appears to be a ‘primate’ originated virus and transferred to humans in ways that we can only imagine. This was never a selective ‘gay community’ disease but it would appear that the gay community is responsible for it’s spread in this country, starting around 1980 or before. The gay lifestyle did not invent AIDS and we now know that there are many ways of transferring the virus that are not associated with sexual activity.
I suggest to you that there may be many other ‘AIDS’ type viruses out there in the far reaches of uncivilized areas, just waiting to ‘catch a ride’.
-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), December 12, 2000.
Tarzan, I've seen you post on many topics, and on all of them EXCEPT homosexuality you seem to be able to debate things with give and take in a rational manner.That's not what you said during our many arguments about abortion or religion. In fact, I believe you've made this very same argument on both those topics before. It's my belief that in doing this, you are attempting to make some sort of an oblique attack on my credibility.
On homosexuality though, I've NEVER seen you accept anything less than 100% agreement with your pro-homosexual agenda. I find it odd.
My "agenda", as you put it, isn't "pro-homosexual". If I have an agenda it is for the equality and freedom of all people. People should be able to determine what they do with their own bodies and how. In fact, you and I argued this point on an anti-pornography thread last spring when I was accused of being homophobic for criticizing feminism and the lesbian community's involvement in the anti-porn movement. No, I don't have the link and I'm too irritated to find it.
In addition to the insult, you haven't really been MAKING any arguments, for example:
Frank, if you were as concerned and informed about this issue as you claim to have been, you would have recognized the sarcasm when you saw it.
And with regards to time, it's hardly mysterious.
Hmmm... you literally forget about an entire decade and the timing of a period where you became "seriously concerned" about a no-name disease long before most other Americans, and it's hardly mysterious?
I've considered it a problem for some time from a societal perspective, especially as the epidemic continues to worsen as people like yourself continue to deny we already HAVE a solution to continuing spreading the disease, that of vigorously persuing PREVENTION.
First off, the epidemic continues to grow because the communities in which it's growing do not want to address the issue. People of color, particularly Hispanics, and lesbians have treated this topic as though it were completely untouchable. As long as AIDS is stigmatized as a moral failing rather than an illness, this will continue.
Secondly, this is the fifth time you've tried to put words into my mouth. I do not appreciate it. It makes you look more interested in having a personal ax to grind rather than an exchange of ideas.
but I DON'T have a personal stake in the issue, and so am not really as emotional about it as some people are.
Ah, is this another attempt to paint me pink?
Frankly, some of us have a wide circle of diverse acquaintances who face different life issues. If you consider it a flaw to have a personal stake in the lives of your friends and family than so be it. And BTW, you STILL haven't said whether or not the behavior of promiscous homosexuals should be condemned, or not...
I'm not into condemnation, Frank. It doesn't help anyone, it doesn't change anyone's mind. Condemnation is nothing but an ego trip for the morally smug. Do I think unsafe sex is a bad thing and should be discouraged? Absolutely.
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), December 12, 2000.
Back again & fairly well OT -Frank,
I haven't seen you around much, but did think of you the other day when I saw a book reviewed on CNN. It's about a topic which my friends in Italy have discussed quite openly for years:
http://www.cnn.com/2000/books/news/12/08/italy.homosexual.priests.ap/i ndex.html
ROME, Italy (AP) -- Papal biographer Marco Politi has broken a taboo, exploring homosexuality within the ranks of the Roman Catholic clergy in Italy.
His newly published book "La Confessione," ("The Confession") presents the testimony of a priest struggling to balance his homosexuality with his commitment to a church that considers homosexual acts a sin.
The priest, who is never identified, discloses that a network of homosexual priests is active in the Italian church, described as a "self-help group" living in the "catacombs" but avoiding any formal link.
"There are always those who fear being discovered by superiors and listed as partners in a homosexual corporation. It's incredible how the fear is so widespread," the priest says in the account, written in the first person..."
Peg,
I sincerely wonder how many molestations are commited by hard core pedophiles, such as those in your article vs. how many are done by opportunistic family members, family friends & baby sitters.
As an aside, this bit you quoted reminded me so much of an old rumor in the LA film community:
"He makes frequent references to children in exalted or exaggerated terms such as “pure”, “innocent”, ”God sent”, “blissful” and other descriptive labels that seem inappropriate and excessive...
He has hobbies or interests that commonly belong in the realm of a child’s world such as toy collecting, building models of cars or planes. His home or room is decorated in a child’s theme."
In the LA film community, Walt Disney has long been rumored to have had an extensive collection of antique child torture devices. Seriously.
-- flora (***@__._), December 12, 2000.
Barry,HTLV-1 & 2 are both similar to HIV and are present in society right now. (FYI)
Tarzan, you said,
That's not what you said during our many arguments about abortion or religion.
Now who's putting words in whose mouth? This is getting tiresome, yada yada, yada. What's your point here, that not only am I correct with regards to your pro-homosexual agenda, but you feel you have the only correct opinion on religion and abortion as well?
In addition to the insult, you haven't really been MAKING any arguments, for example:
Frank, if you were as concerned and informed about this issue as you claim to have been, you would have recognized the sarcasm when you saw it.
Tarzan, your response here makes no sense whatsoever! Get a grip.
Hmmm... you literally forget about an entire decade and the timing of a period where you became "seriously concerned" about a no-name disease long before most other Americans, and it's hardly mysterious?
Nope, although I was aware and concerned about AIDS before most people in the country were, again, it's not really my field.
First off, the epidemic continues to grow because the communities in which it's growing do not want to address the issue. LIKE THE HOMOSEXUAL COMMUNITY. People of color, particularly Hispanics, and lesbians have treated this topic as though it were completely untouchable. As long as AIDS is stigmatized as a moral failing rather than an illness, this will continue.
Wrong. The point is it HASN'T been treated as a moral failing! Communities afflicted say "oh it's not MY fault, I'm a victim here", not "my behavior caused my plight" and so they don't change their behavior.
Seriously Tarzan, I've had homosexual males tell me that they were going to continue their sexual practices EVEN THOUGH THEY KNEW they were HIV+ because "their sex life was too important to who they were to change". That to me is not only the height of irresponsibility, but basically someone rationalizing murder on an ongoing basis.
but I DON'T have a personal stake in the issue, and so am not really as emotional about it as some people are.
Ah, is this another attempt to paint me pink?
Actually, it wasn't, but "the guilty flee when no man pursuith".
I'm not into condemnation, Frank. It doesn't help anyone, it doesn't change anyone's mind. Condemnation is nothing but an ego trip for the morally smug.
I disagree, it can be a good tool for societal change. But this thread has too many topics already.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 12, 2000.
Off. Sorry.Flora, no, I haven't been around much, but THX for the link, I'll let you know what I think.
I don't doubt that there ARE some priests with homosexual inclinations, but the Practice of those beliefs is a sin, just as it would be for a heterosexually-oriented priest to have sexual relations.
Another way to look at the issue is to say that the Church says sex outside of marriage is a sin, so it doesn't matter what the orientation of the priest, Not married, no sex.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 12, 2000.
What's your point here, that not only am I correct with regards to your pro-homosexual agenda, but you feel you have the only correct opinion on religion and abortion as well?My point is that you have a habit of saying I am capable of debating any topic in the world but whatever one we are debating at that particular moment. I thought that point was obvious, but either I over estimated you or you are still trying to attempt to put words in my mouth.
Tarzan, your response here makes no sense whatsoever! Get a grip.
Sure Frank. Whatever.
Nope, although I was aware and concerned about AIDS before most people in the country were, again, it's not really my field.
I was in junior high school when I first heard the terms "gay cancer" and AIDS. My biggest concerns were whether or not I could like girls and not be labled a wuss and hoping the zit on the end of my nose would disappear. I wasn't concerned about AIDS at all, yet somehow, I managed to remember that it was 1981 and not 1989. You were older at the time and aware and concerned about AIDS, yet you somehow managed to misplace ten years. Once again, I find it easier to believe you made a simple misstatement then you simply couldn't remember.
The point is it HASN'T been treated as a moral failing!
Not true. In the black community especially, anyone who has AIDS or is even related to someone who has AIDS is shunned as as a pervert, regardless of how they got the disease.
Communities afflicted say "oh it's not MY fault, I'm a victim here", not "my behavior caused my plight" and so they don't change their behavior.
Please. These communities aren't even talking about it in the first place let alone buying into the cult of victimization.
Seriously Tarzan, I've had homosexual males tell me that they were going to continue their sexual practices EVEN THOUGH THEY KNEW they were HIV+ because "their sex life was too important to who they were to change".
Sorry Frank but I don't believe this is true at all. I find it impossible to believe that someone who believes that AIDS is a moral failing, who is so out of touch with the situation that he doesn't even know which communities are on the forefront of new infections, gained the trust of an HIV+ person enough to be told something like this. It is true that many gay men resent being told that they are the cause of AIDS. It's also true that many people who suspect that they are HIV+ live in deep denial, at least for a while.
That to me is not only the height of irresponsibility, but basically someone rationalizing murder on an ongoing basis.
Which is why I find it so impossible that you actually heard someone say this to you.
Ah, is this another attempt to paint me pink?
Actually, it wasn't, but "the guilty flee when no man pursuith".
Running out of arguments there, Frankie boy?
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithtouta.net), December 12, 2000.
All pedophilia is disgusting. Having said this...Consider yourself the parent of a young boy. Would you actually consider a woman sexually molesting your child as EQUALLY disturbing as a man sodomizing your child?
Yes either would be horrifying, but I think the latter would provoke murder in my heart.
-- me (yes@you know.me), December 12, 2000.
I'd be livid if someone abused my child, sexually or otherwise. I don't have a problem with homosexuality, so I can't conceive of being extra pissed because of the gender of the perpetrator. Honestly, either idea is sickening beyond words.
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), December 12, 2000.
AIDS education cannot effectively take place in this country until sex education is allowed to be taught outside the confines of a dominant religion BEFORE kids become sexually active.
-- helen (b@c.k), December 12, 2000.
But fear and condemnation are the only way to save people from AIDS!Frunk
-- Someone (Chiming.In@nosense.cam), December 12, 2000.
Tarzan I am not a homophobe, but it seems the issue would be forced upon that child. The child would wonder if he were now gay because of what some f*****g bastard did to him. Unimaginably sick and sad.
-- me (yes@you know.me), December 12, 2000.
Aids wasn't start by gay's!!!!! Some guy just had to go and fuck a monkey and the rest is history. But aids does seem to be found in the gay community more than the straight community.
-- Bosco (denden@home.com), December 12, 2000.
All retched out and no place to go...Bosco, have you ever seen the African practice of eating monkey heads on a stick? Chimpanzees and monkeys are food. HIV is passed through blood-to-blood contact. Have you ever cut yourself while preparing food? A raw steak perhaps? Maybe you haven't, but I'll bet you've eaten in a restaurant where one of the cooks HAS. I digress...
-- helen (b@r.f), December 12, 2000.
let's agree to disagree ok I think somebody fucked a monkey you think they were eating monkey heads eithier way it's pretty fucking sick.
-- Bosco (denden@home.com), December 12, 2000.
Bosco, Bosco...eating monkey heads isn't sick if you grow up with it. Down heah we eat crawdads and okra.
-- helen (b@r.f), December 12, 2000.
Helen take an english class, It's not "down heah" it's "down here" I have eaten crawdads too but monkey brains are plain fucking sick
-- Bosco (denden@home.com), December 12, 2000.
Here are some random hits when searching "NAMBLA" on GOOGLE. NAMBLA itself does not have a homepage, at least on my server. There seems to be major disagreement between homosexuals about NAMBLA. ------------------------------------------------------------------The following article appeared in the B.A.R. (Bay Area Reporter) on January 23, 1992.
Guest Opinion
"Shame on Us"
Shame on us if our lesbian/gay voices remain silent while our NAMBLA brothers are persecuted once again, and shame on those lesbians and gay men who will raise their voices to condemn NAMBLA insisting that boy lovers (and presumably the boys they love and who love them) are not part of this thing called the lesbian/gay community. Shame on GLAAD especially for selling NAMBLA down the river. For GLAAD to say that the persecution of NAMBLA is not a gay issue is an act of cowardice that at the very least denies the existence of gays under the legal age of 18.
NAMBLA deserves the support of at least those San Francisco queers who call themselves radicals or progressives, for the people in NAMBLA represent perhaps the most radical among us. A boy lover who acts upon his desires lives with the day-to-day threat of very real persecution by the state (and the media): surveillance, arrest, imprisonment. Boys in relationships with men risk losing their freedom as well, being dragged through an ugly legal process that supposedly exists to protect them. The rest of us it seems have forgotten, or never known, what it means for our sex to be illegal, but it was and, of course, in many places still is.
I wouldn't expect any mainstream assimilationist gay voices to be heard in defense of NAMBLA - too much respectability at stake - and I don't expect the gay press to come out swinging for NAMBLA either. After all, the group held its national conference here in November and precious little mention of it appeared in the gay press. The B.A.R. ran a paragraph about the Women's Building statement that they regretted having leased space to NAMBLA. No dialogue appeared in the B.A.R. about the issues around man-boy love; no insights into what NAMBLA's purpose and goals might be. The Sentinel ran nothing at all (big surprise).
I attended that conference as a field research project for a City College Gay Studies course in anthropology. What I found there surprised me. The group has perhaps the most comprehensive and well-developed philosophical and political stands, outlined within their constitution, of any lesbian/gay group I've seen. My preconceptions about NAMBLA representing the predatory desires of older men at the expense of young people were proved unfounded. The discussions I heard at the conference centered around the empowerment of youth, not exploitation. Unlike what KRON's Pete Wilson (homophobe of the century) would have us believe, NAMBLA is not a support group for molesters. The people of NAMBLA that I met are more concerned with the intellectual and emotional health and freedom of children than any heterosexual parents I've ever known. What NAMBLA does do is pursue a political end to age of consent laws, and a moral ideal that elevates children and youth beyond the status of property.
Discussions about the real issue, consent - including whether it is even possible between an adult and a child - are discussions I have heard only within NAMBLA. Discussions about the liberation of youth from an oppressive society and oppressive families are discussions I have heard only within NAMBLA. A sad byproduct of the assimilationist fear of being labeled "child molesters" is that the lesbian/gay community has largely turned its back on lesbian and gay youth.
We are so quick to buy into the morality of the straight world when it comes to children, yet no one who considers himself or herself a progressive or radical should accept *any* mainstream position on *anything* without challenging it. The most I can hope for is that you will find out for yourselves who NAMBLA is and what they stand for. The lesbian/gay community should know better than to buy the garbage the straight media feeds us - especially about ourselves.
- -Steve Hanson
---------------------------------------------------------
-- (ScoutmasterBob@BoyzR.Us), December 12, 2000.
Bosco, do try to punctuate your sentences properly. Eating brains is no big deal as long no prion-based diseases are present.
-- helen (b@c.k), December 12, 2000.
NAMBLA? Never heard of it. If they bother my boys they'll have a bit more to worry about than "persecution by the state and media". When we're not sucking crawdad brains around here, we're volunteer LEO's.
-- helen (s@y.whut), December 12, 2000.
My goodness you people have been busy!I am one who thinks that consenting adults should be left to their own devices. If homosexuals want to get married I say let em. But those NAMBLA people are sick MFers, and should have their nuts surgically removed. Same with ANYONE who molests children, straight or gay, chop em right off, no exceptions. And if they still insist on hurting children, take them out back and shoot them like the rabid dogs they are, problem solved.
-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), December 12, 2000.
Tarzan, you said,Sorry Frank but I don't believe this is true at all. I find it impossible to believe that someone who believes that AIDS is a moral failing, who is so out of touch with the situation that he doesn't even know which communities are on the forefront of new infections, gained the trust of an HIV+ person enough to be told something like this.
Tarzan, we disagree on many things, but I never thought I'd hear you call me a liar. You should be ashamed of yourself. Perhaps if you were a bit more introspective, you'd realize that my current opinions are based on my experience in dealing with gays with AIDS, and not the other way around. But really, believe what you want, the people you influence will have to suffer for it, not me.
And thinking about it, you apparently know some gays with AIDS, rather than insult me, why not just ASK them if they've changed their sexual practices? (Not just the one you know has in advance of asking, mind you). I think you'll be suprised at the answers you get.
Oh, one other thing: I've been starting to get lax in my self-imposed rule of not revealing personal information on the net, thanks for the reminder of why it's best not to.
That to me is not only the height of irresponsibility, but basically someone rationalizing murder on an ongoing basis.
Which is why I find it so impossible that you actually heard someone say this to you.
What would you call it Tarzan? But then you don't have a problem with abortion either, so maybe it doesn't bother you that someone with a lethal, contagious disease continues to spread it.
is this another attempt to paint me pink?
Actually, it wasn't, but "the guilty flee when no man pursuith".
Running out of arguments there, Frankie boy?
Tarzan, let's look at your last couple posts:
Ah, is this another attempt to paint me pink?
Are you trying to paint me with the pink brush, or are you trying to attack my credibility?
Even I think there is more to sexuality than straight or gay, as though there were some sort of "on" and "off" switch in the brain.
Tarzan, I seem to remember that on an earlier thread you said that (either Boswell or Bosco) should re-evaluate their own sexuality due to their always bringing up homosexual referrences. In this thread, you have questioned YOUR OWN sexuality several times, while no one else on the board has been running around screeching, "are you calling me a heterosexual?, are you calling me a heterosexual?" Applying the standards to You that you apply to others, you should really reconsider your own sexual orientation. It's not fair to your mate to stay with them if you aren't really attracted to them. (Note: I'm assuming you're in a heterosexual relationship right now, as you have stated this in the past.)
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 13, 2000.
Tarzan:You are CORRECT. Thank you for keeping 'us' in your thoughts.
-- sumer (shh@aol.con), December 13, 2000.
Tarzan, we disagree on many things, but I never thought I'd hear you call me a liar.Sorry, Frank, but I have too much respect for you to lie to you.
I know that you are uncomfortable with revealing details of your own life, and I would never expect you to betray this person's confidence. So why don't you provide a citation of SOMEONE ELSE making a similar statement?
Of course, even if you could produce an AIDS sufferer who proudly proclaims his desire to infect the world, this still wouldn't say any more about the community of AIDS sufferers than Jim and Tammy Faye Baker says about Christian ministers. All it would prove is you would have found one individual who behaves in a reprehensible manner.
Perhaps if you were a bit more introspective, you'd realize that my current opinions are based on my experience in dealing with gays with AIDS, and not the other way around.
Actually, I think you have bought into the anti-gay agenda to such a degree that you have become confused about stories you may have read and events that may have happened to you. After all, you managed to misplace ten years.
And since when did your experience go from being socially concerned to "dealing with gays who have AIDS"?
But really, believe what you want, the people you influence will have to suffer for it, not me.
So now you're implying I'm going to cause people to die of AIDS. Nice Frank.
And thinking about it, you apparently know some gays with AIDS, rather than insult me, why not just ASK them if they've changed their sexual practices? (Not just the one you know has in advance of asking, mind you). I think you'll be suprised at the answers you get.
Actually, this has come up on a few occasions among gay and straight friends who are HIV+ and HIV-. I have asked about it. Most folks have changed their sex lives. No one proudly proclaimed a desire to spread AIDS.
What would you call it Tarzan?
I call it "Frank telling a story that's difficult to believe,"
But then you don't have a problem with abortion either, so maybe it doesn't bother you that someone with a lethal, contagious disease continues to spread it.
This is the seventh time on this thread you've attempted to put words in my mouth and mischaracterize my position when you knew my actual position to be otherwise. If you can't limit yourself to what I've actually said, you are invited to not comment on my posts at all.
In this thread, you have questioned YOUR OWN sexuality several times, while no one else on the board has been running around screeching, "are you calling me a heterosexual?, are you calling me a heterosexual?"
When, exactly, have I questioned my own sexuality on this thread, Frank? Unless you can provide a citation, this is nothing more than another lie.
I am a heterosexual man, but I have a lot of respect for gays and lesbians. It bothers me a lot to see small-minded bigots toss around an individual's sexuality as though it were an insult to be gay. You seem to think that being gay is a bad thing, and that it is an insult of the highest order to call someone's sexuality into question. I don't consider it a bad thing at all, just different, but I know when someone is making an attempt at veiled insults.
BTW Frank, on another thread several posters implied I was black. I denied it and asked whether they considered the condition of being black to be an insult. Why didn't you ask me to question my race, Frank?
Applying the standards to You that you apply to others, you should really reconsider your own sexual orientation. It's not fair to your mate to stay with them if you aren't really attracted to them. (Note: I'm assuming you're in a heterosexual relationship right now, as you have stated this in the past.)
I've really gotten under your skin with this, haven't I, Frank? You have lied about my position several times, pretty well proven that you haven't been involved in or are as aware of the AIDS epidemic for as long as you claim, and what's more, repeated a story so specious it would be almost funny if it weren't so ugly. When you are called on it, you shift your claims about your involvement with the disease from "socially aware" to "dealing with gays who have AIDS" and, in a post so hysterical I can almost see the spittle fly from your mouth, you accuse me of all but causing people to suffer from AIDS and being a closet gay man.
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), December 13, 2000.
Oh, one more thing Frank, since I'm sure you'll make much of it...If you honestly can't see a difference between Boswell's obsession with "twinkle toes" "dirt chutes" and "flaming faggot fairy god- fathers" and my posts on how you can't simply assume someone is gay based on one set of behavior, then tell me now so I know exactly what kind of nut I'm dealing with.
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), December 13, 2000.
Tarzan,You're putting words in MY mouth, even when you say you dislike in when I do it to you.
I said,
"Seriously Tarzan, I've had homosexual males tell me that they were going to continue their sexual practices EVEN THOUGH THEY KNEW they were HIV+ because "their sex life was too important to who they were to change". "
You have then said, I have asked about it. Most folks have changed their sex lives. No one proudly proclaimed a desire to spread AIDS.
I never said they "proudly proclaimed" this, I said they didn't change their behavior. To use my analogy, it's like a drunk driver who continues to drink and drive. It doesn't matter whether they are proud or ashamed of their behavior, their effects on society are still felt in an objective fashion by the damage they cause regardless of how they feel about it. From a societal perspective, I don't really CARE why a person who's HIV+ is still having unprotected intercourse, all I care about is that they are.
And since when did your experience go from being socially concerned to "dealing with gays who have AIDS"?
Thank you again. I'm getting too involved in these threads to know when to shut up.
But then you don't have a problem with abortion either, so maybe it doesn't bother you that someone with a lethal, contagious disease continues to spread it.
This is the seventh time on this thread you've attempted to put words in my mouth and mischaracterize my position when you knew my actual position to be otherwise.
I don't know. You do believe that abortion is preferable to "forcing" a woman to continue a pregnancy, and you seem more concerned with people's rights than their responsibilities (to me). I don't see this as much of a stretch to wonder whether you might in fact think that some new cases of AIDS are WORTH not having society embark on a "witch hunt" against people who are continuing to spread the disease. Do you feel that this is mis-stating your position?
In this thread, you have questioned YOUR OWN sexuality several times, while no one else on the board has been running around screeching, "are you calling me a heterosexual?, are you calling me a heterosexual?"
When, exactly, have I questioned my own sexuality on this thread, Frank? Unless you can provide a citation, this is nothing more than another lie.
Did you read the quotes & the originals in context? What would you say? You are the only one on the thread making these kinds of statements, again separating your behavior from that of others, as you have accused others of doing. BTW Frank, on another thread several posters implied I was black. I denied it and asked whether they considered the condition of being black to be an insult. Why didn't you ask me to question my race, Frank?
Can you give me a citation to the thread? Did I post there (in other words, did I even READ what you're talking about?) and how is that relevant to the current discussion in any event?
I've really gotten under your skin with this, haven't I, Frank?
Yes, I find it very offensive to be called a liar.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 13, 2000.
I don't really CARE why a person who's HIV+ is still having unprotected intercourse, all I care about is that they are.^^Frank you stated the above, I am confused. Do you REALLY know of folks who are having unprotected sex that are HIVpos? Are THEY informing their partner/s? It is against the law to do so in Ohio.
This subject is painful for me as my son is HIV pos. He does NOT have unprotected sex...PERIOD....he states he would NEVER do that, even though it WAS done to him.
Let me ask....IF your child was homosexual or lesbian, Frank would YOU disown them? If so, why, If not, why.
I would 'really' like to have the answer, IF you care to take the time. thanks.
-- sumer (shh@aol.con), December 13, 2000.
And a great gnashing of teeth,"Stealt h Homophobia"--thevillagevoice.com
-- (Paracelsus@Pb.Au), December 13, 2000.
Consumer,It is very difficult for me to discuss this with you, as I don't want to offend you personally, knowing your involvement with this issue. But to answer you,
Do you REALLY know of folks who are having unprotected sex that are HIVpos? Are THEY informing their partner/s? It is against the law to do so in Ohio.
It's been a long time since I've had to see anyone professionally with AIDS, but yes. Currently, I keep my distance from the field, but don't think the situation has changed, one still hears stories. It's against the law in CA too, but it still occurs.
I really hope the best for your son.
Let me ask....IF your child was homosexual or lesbian, Frank would YOU disown them? If so, why, If not, why.
I love my children more than I can say. If one of them was homosexual, I wouldn't love them any less, (I'd rather have a "well adjusted" homosexual child than a Jeffrey Dahmer, push come to shove) I sure wouldn't disown them. I would also want them to tell me about their situation ASAP, even though they'd have to take some grief about from me. To me it would be as if they crashed a car. I might be mad at them, but would want to make sure they lived their life in a responsible and STABLE manner, and not be part of the truly irresponsible culture that does exist.
That's a quick answer, got to get back to it,
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 13, 2000.
I never said they "proudly proclaimed" this, I said they didn't change their behavior.I never said you did. Your original statement was "Seriously Tarzan, I've had homosexual males tell me that they were going to continue their sexual practices EVEN THOUGH THEY KNEW they were HIV+ because "their sex life was too important to who they were to change"." Clearly this is not a proud proclamation but rather an admission of being so wrapped up in sex that this individual would rather spread AIDS than go without.
I've never had someone tell me they were so horny they would rather infect other people than be celebate either, Frank.
From a societal perspective, I don't really CARE why a person who's HIV+ is still having unprotected intercourse, all I care about is that they are.
I agree. This is why I favor education and information rather than condemnation, Frank. When you condemn someone, you don't do anything but bolster your own ego. When you educate someone, you change their life.
Thank you again. I'm getting too involved in these threads to know when to shut up.
Look, if you can't keep your own life straight, that's no failing of mine.
Do you feel that this is mis-stating your position?
Yes I do.
Did you read the quotes & the originals in context?
Yes I did. I would hardly call two calmly asked questions "screeching" but that's beside the point.
What would you say?
I think you are trying to characterize me as gay either as an effort to embarass me into silence or to bolster your claim that I can't be rational about this issue and thus win the argument by default.
You are the only one on the thread making these kinds of statements, again separating your behavior from that of others, as you have accused others of doing.
I'm the only person on this thread who has been mischaracterized as gay.
Can you give me a citation to the thread? Did I post there (in other words, did I even READ what you're talking about?) and how is that relevant to the current discussion in any event?
I don't have it now, it's back in the TB2K archives. Yes, you posted there as did several others. This is relevant because when it's the same situation. I was mischaracterized as being part of a minority group under discussion and I corrected the mischaracterization and asked why the people who made that mischaracterization chose to do so in the first place.
Yes, I find it very offensive to be called a liar.
Odd, I find it offensive to have lies said about me.
Why don't you post an article with an HIV+ person making similar statements to the ones you supposedly heard? If it's such a common sentiment that someone who's only "socially concerned" about AIDS would have heard it said on multiple occasions(or is it someone who has "to deal with gay people who have AIDS"?) surely it's found its way onto the web somewhere.
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), December 13, 2000.
I never said they "proudly proclaimed" this, I said they didn't change their behavior.I never said you did. Your original statement was "Seriously Tarzan, I've had homosexual males tell me that they were going to continue their sexual practices EVEN THOUGH THEY KNEW they were HIV+ because "their sex life was too important to who they were to change"." Clearly this is not a proud proclamation but rather an admission of being so wrapped up in sex that this individual would rather spread AIDS than go without.
I've never had someone tell me they were so horny they would rather infect other people than be celebate either, Frank.
From a societal perspective, I don't really CARE why a person who's HIV+ is still having unprotected intercourse, all I care about is that they are.
I agree. This is why I favor education and information rather than condemnation, Frank. When you condemn someone, you don't do anything but bolster your own ego. When you educate someone, you change their life.
Thank you again. I'm getting too involved in these threads to know when to shut up.
Look, if you can't keep your own life straight, that's no failing of mine.
Do you feel that this is mis-stating your position?
Yes I do.
Did you read the quotes & the originals in context?
Yes I did. I would hardly call two calmly asked questions "screeching" but that's beside the point.
What would you say?
I think you are trying to characterize me as gay either as an effort to embarass me into silence or to bolster your claim that I can't be rational about this issue and thus win the argument by default.
You are the only one on the thread making these kinds of statements, again separating your behavior from that of others, as you have accused others of doing.
I'm the only person on this thread who has been mischaracterized as gay.
Can you give me a citation to the thread? Did I post there (in other words, did I even READ what you're talking about?) and how is that relevant to the current discussion in any event?
I don't have it now, it's back in the TB2K archives. Yes, you posted there as did several others. This is relevant because when it's the same situation. I was mischaracterized as being part of a minority group under discussion and I corrected the mischaracterization and asked why the people who made that mischaracterization chose to do so in the first place.
Yes, I find it very offensive to be called a liar.
Odd, I find it offensive to have lies said about me.
Why don't you post an article with an HIV+ person making similar statements to the ones you supposedly heard? If it's such a common sentiment that someone who's only "socially concerned" about AIDS would have heard it said on multiple occasions(or is it someone who has "to deal with gay people who have AIDS"?) surely its found its way onto the web somewhere.
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), December 13, 2000.
Tarzan, you said,Why don't you post an article with an HIV+ person making similar statements to the ones you supposedly heard? If it's such a common sentiment that someone who's only "socially concerned" about AIDS would have heard it said on multiple occasions(or is it someone who has "to deal with gay people who have AIDS"?) surely its found its way onto the web somewhere.
Riiigght, like you'd say "o.k., so there's a problem". Not. I think what you'd do is say "this is (because of X reason) not representative of the community", OR, "this is a troll post by some homophobe for whatever reason". Since I don't believe you'll accept anything posted by one person, I'll give you one better:
There is no doubt that the numbers of new cases of AIDS – the disease syndrome that develops many years after infection with HIV and eventually leads to death -- and of AIDS deaths are both falling significantly in countries that provide antiretroviral therapy for a majority of those diagnosed with HIV. However, there is no sign that new infections are following the same downward course.
On the contrary, there is extremely worrying evidence that the advent of life-prolonging therapies may have led to complacency about the dangers of HIV, and that that complacency may be leading to rises in risky behaviour. A study in the US city of San Francisco, for example, showed that in 1993-1994 just over one-third of gay men reported having had unprotected anal intercourse, while the proportion of men reporting anal sex without a condom rose to one-half three years later, when effective death-postponing therapy had become available. Many of these men did not know their partners’ HIV status.
What makes this all the more worrying, in a population with historically high risk behaviour, is that the absolute number of HIV-positive people is probably growing because they are surviving longer thanks to antiretroviral drugs. Antiretroviral therapy could conceivably reduce a person’s infectiousness -- the likelihood that he or she will pass on the virus to a sex partner -- but this effect has not been clearly demonstrated. For now, it must be assumed on the contrary that a higher level of HIV in the pool of potential sex partners means a higher risk of transmission whenever there is unprotected sex with a partner of unknown HIV status.
Another challenge to complacency is that the dramatic fall in AIDS deaths seen over the last three years is beginning to taper off in some countries, suggesting that there is a limit to the effectiveness of existing therapies. In the United States, for example, AIDS deaths decreased by 42% between 1996 and 1997, but by only half that proportion between 1997 and 1998. Western Europe, too, witnessed a slowing in the decline in AIDS deaths. They fell by 20% in 1999, significantly less than the previous year.
I think given your previous postings that it would be very easy for you to deny the validity of a "testamonial" from one person, but it's much harder to argue with numbers. Who (of the high risk groups) is better educated about HIV than the S.F. homosexual population? If they are increasing their risky behaviors as a group do you REALLY not believe that some people with HIV are continuing their sexual practices? Who do you think you're helping by maintaining your state of denial?
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 13, 2000.
Frank-You're still trying to put words in my mouth. I have never denied that AIDS is a problem and in fact I told you that unprotected sex is reprehensible and should be discouraged.
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), December 13, 2000.
Tarzan has a real problem with facing reality.
-- yep (some things @ painfully. obvious), December 13, 2000.
Repost 'cause I hit the damn submit button too soon.Frank-
You're still trying to put words in my mouth. I have never denied that AIDS is a problem and in fact I told you that unprotected sex is reprehensible and should be discouraged.
Your study is apples and oranges Frank. You said you knew men who continued to have sex even though they knew they were HIV+ because their sex lives were the defining factor in their lives. While your link is provocotive, it still doesn't provide any evidence that HIV+ and AIDS infected men are deciding en masse to continue having unprotected sex because sex is basic to their identity. This is simply a reason you are extrapolating from the article.
In fact, your site links to an article by the CDC (a group I'm sure you'll accept as an expert in disease) which states that AIDS infections are declining among gay men and increasing among women and minorities.
Another study on your site, which can be found here (http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/social/un/2098.3cee.html#1) states A total of 60,634 cases were reported in 1997, with 35 percent of adult cases in MSM, 24 percent in IDU, and 13 percent attributed to heterosexual contact. Important recent trends have been an increasing proportion of cases in women; a decreasing proportion among MSM; an increasing proportion attributable to heterosexual contact; and an increasing proportion in racial/ethnic minorities. In 1997, 45 percent of new AIDS cases were in non- Hispanic blacks, 33 percent in non-Hispanic whites, and 21 percent in Hispanics. The population-based incidence rates of AIDS in African American men and women in 1997 were seven times and 20 times greater, respectively, than in whites. Among males with AIDS, twice as many whites as blacks were MSM, while the proportion of AIDS cases in blacks that were in IDU or resulted from heterosexual exposure were three times greater than in whites.
I'm trimming a few paragraphs on pediatric HIV infections. Here's the upshot.
Trends in HIV/AIDS in Canada and the US show common themes of reducing impact in MSM but an increasing burden among women and youth, and especially in communities of colour. Increasing proportions of new HIV infections and AIDS cases in Canada are IDU- associated, especially in Aboriginals. IDU-associated HIV/AIDS continues to play a central role in the epidemic affecting minorities of colour in the United States.
Is HIV a problem? Absolutely. The gay community has begun to address it. Unforutnately, other communities have not. Are there HIV+ people who continue to engage in risky behaviors? Certainly. Do they base their risky behavior on their self-esteem and identity? Well, no. You still haven't answered my question. Can you produce an individual who has said such a thing?
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), December 13, 2000.
You know, after waiting for five minutes for this thread to load and reading through it all, I have to say that you guys seem to be having two different arguments. Frank seems to be arguing that gays are totally to blame for AIDS and should keep it zipped, Tarzan seems to be saying that Frank doesn't know what he's talking about and is only interested in insulting people. In a way, you're both right. People should behave more responsibly but Frank apparently thinks the only way to convince people is to insult them. Neither one of you has cornered the market on logic IMNSHO. Tarzan was dead on about condemnation though. It doesn't help anyone except the person doing the condemning. If Frank really thinks condemnation would help stop the spread of AIDS he should take a big swig from the cup of human kindness. Oh yeah, and sometimes I wonder if Tarzan is gay. Of course, I've wondered if he was a woman who had an abortion given how interested he is in that topic. I guess you never know.
-- Alice in Wonder Bra (alice@wonder.bra), December 13, 2000.
Hey Tarzan I see you been busy with your favorite topic. If you're going to quote me you had better get it right! FLAMING FAGGOT AND DIRT CHUTE were not used in my postings. I'll leave you alone now and let you continue to make a total fool out of yourself. Frank seems to be holding his own pretty well!
-- Boswell (fundown@thefarm.net), December 13, 2000.
Bosco you referred to the dirt chute and the faggot fairy god father on the old board. It was the thread about gay cattle that Brian started.
-- I remember that thread (watching@sawit.all), December 13, 2000.
'sumer, I'm sorry about your son.
-- helen (b@c.k), December 13, 2000.
If YOU REMEMBER SO WELL THAN find that post and let me see it. I'm Boswell not Bosco as you just referred to.
-- Boswell (fundown@thefarm.net), December 13, 2000.
Thanks Helen.It truly amazes me the ignorance associated with HIV.
Since it has hit close to home, I've researched till my eyes have hurt. Bottom line is....the jury is still OUT on what causes this terrible disease.
I've had people ask me if you get it from toilet seats, bug bites, etc.
My son is now doing HIV education to young people all over the Cleveland area. It is a shame what has not been touched on here (forgive me if I overlooked it) is the increasing number of young teens/twenties and CHILDREN.
HIV infection is at an all time high, continues to grow, will continue to do so, UNTIL someone like my son, or others close to someone in power begin to realize we MUST educate.
Soon enought we will ALL no someone with this dreaded disease. They are primarily outcasts, the society as a whole believes it is a 'fag' disease, therefore, hetro's are not getting 'it', so the comfort zone is there, they continue to have unprotected sex at an alarming rate.
The church has been too busy passing judgement to 'accept' and help but believe me....the day is COMING people when the babies, children and young people will be crying out for help, it WILL NOT be avoided, there is NO cure.....educate...educate....educate...
Um, (opps looks around and smiles) we now return to our regular forum.
My advice, not that it was asked for, but it is this....Let us NOT debate on WHY but let us reflect on WHAT we as a people can DO to help.
Visit an Aids Hospice, volunteer to go into the homes of those sick and suffering, see the reality of this deadly disease, I can promise you then we will not feel the need to debate gay vs????? Bottom line who gives a shit if they are gay? If its wrong in your opinion, so be it....but remember......IT JUST MAY HIT CLOSE TO HOME, the disease factor, the gay factor, you just really never know....Do you.
Thanks for letting me speak from the heart.
xoxo, sumer
-- sumer (shh@aol.con), December 14, 2000.
Alice-Nope, I'm not gay or female. I just think that people ought to be able to do what they wish with their own bodies provided they are only involved with consenting adults.
Boswell/I remember that thread-
That's exactly the thread I'm referrig to, the one in which Boswell (rather than Bosco) claimed to have had probles with gay Angus "twinkle toed" bulls going for "the dirt chute" on other bulls because they didn't get enough calcium in their diet. A few of us called Boswell on his lack of knowledge regarding bovine anatomy, animal husbandry, and basic logic and he admitted he was just trolling. It was a bad case of thread drift sometime around or after Thanksgiving. It will take me awhile, but I'll find it.
Sumer-
This is why I get so hot under the collar when I hear folks talking about condemnation rather than education. For the record, my fiance's cousin is HIV+. They grew up next door to each other and were raised as sisters. She got infected from a boyfriend who had experimented with heroin and didn't have the nerve to get tested. I think there's a lot of people out there who are afraid or in too deep denial to get tested. Condemnation won't make it any easier for those folks.
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), December 14, 2000.
Small minds say that because someone defends unjust attacks on gays they must be gay themself. That is the way macho teenagers talk in the schoolyard.Grow up.
-- SydBarrett (dark@side.moon), December 14, 2000.
I know I didn't use the term Faggot Fairy God Father. I wish I would have thought of it though. I might have said dirt chute but what I meant to say was HERSHEY HIWAY. I apologize for the mistake.
-- John Thomas (cjseed@webtv.net), December 14, 2000.
Hmmm... do we now know Boswell's actual e-mail address?
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), December 14, 2000.
Tarzan, you said,which states that AIDS infections are declining among gay men and increasing among women and minorities.
And then quoted:
Another study on your site, which can be found here (http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/social/un/2098.3cee.html#1) states A total of 60,634 cases were reported in 1997, with 35 percent of adult cases in MSM, 24 percent in IDU, and 13 percent attributed to heterosexual contact. Important recent trends have been an increasing proportion of cases in women; a decreasing proportion among MSM; an increasing proportion attributable to heterosexual contact; and an increasing proportion in racial/ethnic minorities.
You're making a mistake here, you are saying that the NUMBER of cases is declining, whereas your source says that the PROPORTION of cases is declining. As I'm sure you're aware, the Proportion of cases can decline even if the absolute Number of cases is INCREASING, just so as the other groups are increasing at a faster rate. If you wish, I'm sure the numbers are available on the net somewhere ;-)
As regards to finding you one person on the net who states that they are continuing their risky behaviors even though HIV+, what will it get me if I do? You are very argumentative when it comes to sources, and if I'm to take the time to find someone who says this, will you admit that the behavior occurs, and is reprehensible? I really don't want to spend a half-hour searching for something to have you say "so what".
Alice and Tarzan on condemning the PRACTICE of risky behavior,
Alice said, people should behave more responsibly but Frank apparently thinks the only way to convince people is to insult them. ... Tarzan was dead on about condemnation though. It doesn't help anyone except the person doing the condemning. If Frank really thinks condemnation would help stop the spread of AIDS he should take a big swig from the cup of human kindness.
Alice, using the S.F. HIV community as an example, they have had extensive education programs going on, and now people are beginning to INcrease their risky behaviors in spite of it. If education isn't working, what do you believe WILL decrease the behaviors of affected groups?
Frank seems to be arguing that gays are totally to blame for AIDS and should keep it zipped,
No, I'm most definitely NOT saying gays are "totally to blame for AIDS"!!! I'm saying that IRRESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOR is totally to blame for AIDS.
SydBarret,
I took the trouble to answer your question, (that you repeatedly asked about), do you have any comment?
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 18, 2000.
Frank-You said, You are very argumentative when it comes to sources, and if I'm to take the time to find someone who says this, will you admit that the behavior occurs, and is reprehensible?
Sure I'll say it. In fact, I've said it twice on this thread already (three times if you count the repost). (tongue in cheek)Perhaps if you weren't so blinded by your own anti-sex agenda you would have actually read what I wrote.(tongue out of cheek)
Okay, I don't believe you have an anti-sex agenda anymore than I have a pro-gay agenda. However, I do think that you have a basic problem with gay men which has fueled your hysteria on this thread.
Onward.
Of course, assuming you find someone willing to say that their identity is so wrapped up in their sex lives that they continue to have unsafe sex despite being HIV+, you still wouldn't bolster your argument. If you remember the first time you brought this up, I asked, "Of course, even if you could produce an AIDS sufferer who proudly proclaims his desire to infect the world, this still wouldn't say any more about the community of AIDS sufferers than Jim and Tammy Faye Baker says about Christian ministers. All it would prove is you would have found one individual who behaves in a reprehensible manner.
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), December 18, 2000.