Uechi-Ryu.com

Discussion Area
It is currently Tue Sep 16, 2014 1:30 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 101 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Dec 03, 2003 11:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Posts: 2813
Location: Massachusetts
Quote:
--denying funding to any sex ed / health group that mentions nonheterosexuality even if its only to save lives

--barring LGB school groups


The truth of the matter is that these groups have hurt themselves.

I support the Pink Pistols.

I have friends who I know are LGB, but we don't talk about our sex lives, so it's not an issue for me. It's not my lifestyle, I don't want it to be, and I don't want to know about it. My lifestyle isn't LGB, they don't want that, and they don't need to know about my sex life. End of subject.

However, pressure to teach homosexuality as a "lifestyle" with all of the gory details (as opposed to simply teaching that it is same-sex relations and leaving it at that) has hurt the LGB community because it simply is not the norm. Teaching that different people have different feelings in different ways is one thing, forcing that as an ideal is not... and that's what has caused a backlash in many ways. many LGB people understand that, but too many still feel the need to be "in your face" about their lifestyle. I don't care until they get "in my face".

And then there's "The Gift"... and "Gift Givers"... The whole concept is disgusting, perverted and whacked out. Don't like me pointing that out? Tough. The fact is that is this very element of the homosexual lifestyle that many people find utterly disgusting and offensive. Yet, it's out there. It's prevalent. And it's even put forth as a valid lifestyle concept.

So... Unfortunately, the LGB community has, in many respects, been its own worst enemy.

Sad, ashame and unfortunate, but true in many respects.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 05, 2003 12:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Posts: 2758
Location: Boston
"The truth of the matter is that these groups have hurt themselves."

Perhaps you're unaware of the groups I'm mentioning. I'm referring to:

1) self-run high school groups by students who generally organize nonconfrontational support meetings which are private and wholly voluntary, and to whom your statements don't apply in the slightest. They are just like the Korean or Latin american groups found just about everywhere and NOT banned by schools.

2) Health department / Helath organizational efforts to prevent deadly and costly STDs, primarily AIDS. You see, it only makes sense to pitch prevention efforts to those at risk. Why sell nonsmoking to nonsmokers, for example? Or gun safety to hoplophobes? And since the groups MOST at risk of HIV are SOME gay men and IV drug abusers and the promiscuous / sex workers, logical efforts should focus on them (and the women / minorities in whom diagnoses are increasing fastest). However, conservative governments small and large (local to presidential) have tried to prevent these groups from reaching gay men (especially) in any effective way because in recognizing their existance and risk, the conservatives think these groups are legitimizing their existance. So, better to target AIDS prevention to low risk college kids from the burbs, and if some people die preventable deaths, oh well, their fault, and if it costs the taxpayers more in the end, at least the hated group still feels ostracized.

I'm sorry these healthcare efforts have (apparently?) disappointed you, but your comments are off target. These groups haven't hurt themselves. As for the rest of it...

1) Yes, being LGB is not normal in the statistical sense. Neither is being left handed, asian, premature, foreign born, or Islamic or an NRA member. Your point is what?

2) I'd be interested in a specific reference to these "gory details," that are being forced down our youngsters throats. What I can tell you is that in my 4 years of high school, I heard taunts and insults (not knowingly directed at me, because everyone assumed I was straight and the few I dared tell otherwise were shocked) daily, I heard my teachers voice their disgust for people like me, and in sex ed, the one place I figured there would be an unbiased sentance designed to reduce the risk of the students most at risk of HIV, they said NOTHING about me. Gory details, in deed, but only about the heterosexuals. It may be hard for you to believe, but at that point I was quite certain my school did not care whether I lived or died. I didn't need the information myself (as my first relationship didn't begin until I was nearly 19 and lasted a full 6 years, in sharp contrast to my classmate's heterosexual dating lives--and I was better versed in HIV prevention than many doctors I met around then) but I knew there were other students who did need it. I've since seen some of them in clinic either for HIV or for unrelated reasons, and gosh, teens do dumb things, and they need help to stay healthy---unless doing anything to save them would be politically inexpedient.

3) It's oft repeated that a lot of the LGBs are "in people's faces." Well, I've heard millions of details about people's marital status and their relationships and woman troubles on this site. I've seen dozens of pictures of their favorite beauties. And that's how people behave. We talk about our personal lives, and we often talk about our sex lives. Watch the news... watch a sitcom... watch a marriage based reality show. It's only viewed as in your face when the "other" people do it. Wear a necklace or button for example. GOD, why can't they keep that private, people think, wearing their wedding band, talking about their home lives, and putting photos of loved ones on their desk in exactly the same way. Yes, there are some VERY confrontational groups out there, like ACT UP, that sprang into existance when virtually everyone these people knew was dying of AIDS in the mid 80s-early 90s. If you don't like their tactics, that's totally fine with me, but they aren't all gay people, or even a significant fraction, nor are they elected. It's like people ragging on ATH as if he's responsible for the latest car bombing in Iraq or Turkey. It makes no sense.

4) "And then there's "The Gift"... and "Gift Givers"... Don't like me pointing that out? Tough."

What's that called again? Straw man? Give me a break Panther... I am a doctor who arranged extra work on top of the usual busy resident schedule for the precise purpose of learning more about AIDS treatment and prevention, and helping those affected and those at risk. And like most LGB people, and 100% of the LGB healthcare people I know, I'm all for sexual sanity and safety, personal responsiobility, HIV prevention, and the like. In fact I just gave a lecture to the housestaff at my program stressing these issues and I made a special point of including stories of the dumb things some of these people do, and HOW TERRIBLY FRUSTRATING IT IS TO DEAL WITH THEM. They're risking the health we're trying to support, they're ignoring the facts, they're abusing themselves, and they're being irresponsbile and spreading a deadly disease to themselves and others at great societal cost. It's VERY difficult not to get mad at them. When in the history of TIME did I ever give the impression I thought otherwise or would be offended if you voiced your disapproval? I don't care if anyone publicizes the faults of a well-publicized minority LGBT group because I know it's no more reflective on the rest of them than the arrest of a white killer reflects poorly on white society at large.

Saying otherwise just doesn't make sense. More later. But disappointing and off target post, P.

_________________
--Ian


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 05, 2003 9:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Posts: 2758
Location: Boston
Further:

"The fact is that is this very element of the homosexual lifestyle that many people find utterly disgusting and offensive. Yet, it's out there. It's prevalent. And it's even put forth as a valid lifestyle concept."

1) Please define and back up your statement, "It's prevalent." If you are referring to the recent Rolling Stone article, it's been thoroughly discredited. The stats are off by orders of magnitude, the "lifestyle" is defined by a few random conversations with a highly selected group, and not by an accurate cross section, and the two medical people that were quoted both complained about what they said indicating it was either totally fabricated or it was warped and taken out of context.

2) What do you mean by "THE homosexual lifestyle?" Is there only one? Perhaps there's a handbook we read? What exactly is included and excluded?

The fact is that gay people come from all backgrounds and live all manner of lives. There are conservatives, liberals and independents. There are gun enthusiasts and pacifists. Big business and eco-nuts. Rich, poor. Famous or homeless. Some idolized, some ostracized, some closeted, some out; some married, many parents, lots of our children.

And yes, a few are crazy and take risks on purpose. But they don't vote for the group, they don't represent it, and no one knows just how many of either there are. How do you define the group anyway? Self identification? Behavior? Outness? Thoughts? How do you know you're studying everyone that fits your definition? What about the continuum of sexual orientation?

There is no gay lifestyle, just as there is no heterosexual lifestyle. That's good, because otherwise I'd have to point out that much of America is growing totally disgusted with many of the things heterosexuals are doing these days. This includes:

--50% divorce rate
--High prevalence of teenage sex and teen pregnancy, including an oral sex ring in middle school
--Shows mocking marriage including "Joe millionaire," and "married by america."
--Shocking abortion rate
--nonprocreative sex in the Oval Office
--having invented sadomasochism and sex with animals
--including in their ranks the majority of sex offenders
--shocking prevalence of sexual violence and intimidation of women
--enormous pornography, including child porn, industry

Never mind the Enron scandal. Most involved were heterosexual. What does THAT tell us??? WEll, exactly as much as the fact that the Columbine shooters were gun enthusiasts tells us about the character of NRA members. Gather some conclusions like that together with 95 cents, and you've got yourself a cheap cup of coffee.

It tells us that individuals don't define the group, and that groups are very hard to define. The most basic thing to be said about this is that the idea that any repugnant behavior of a very few people actually defines THE lifestyle of everyone even vaguely lumped with them is the foundation of prejudice. If we can tidily sum up a diverse group of people and their behaviors under the term "THE gay lifestyle," then we can convince ourselves we know something, anything about the character of a gay person we meet, just by association. That is, we can pre-judge them. This is nothing more than stereotyping.

So when you say, "Unfortunately, the LGB community has, in many respects, been its own worst enemy," my first though is, "No, what he ought to say is that a fraction of the LGB community is making a bad name for the rest of them and impeding their causeeven though they have nothing more in common than heterosexual Jews and Palestinians in the West bank." That's true. I said in my talk that promiscuous gay men have done more violence to themselves than all the gay bashers put together could hope to achieve, and I mean it. However, I'm not willing to be tossed in with the irresponsible few.

One last thought on being in people's faces.... Sometimes it has to be done. UVA has had a yearly Public Display of Affection, where assembled people will hug, or kiss, depending on their relationship, other people at the event. When it was first held, people threw rocks. Medical students came with gloves and masks to protest. Now, years later, no one cares. It barely draws the school paper anymore. And over that same timeframe, the crowds at the football stadium have gone from yelling "NOT GAY!" in unison so loud it was heard on national television to--not doing it. Someone was in someone else's face because that first someone was forced to confront a status quo set up by the second someone. And while it may discomfit the second person, they hardly get to lay all the blame on the first person. And they also (usually) have no idea what it really means to be truly uncomfortable, anyway.

_________________
--Ian


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 06, 2003 5:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Posts: 2813
Location: Massachusetts
IJ wrote:
3) It's oft repeated that a lot of the LGBs are "in people's faces." Well, I've heard millions of details about people's marital status and their relationships and woman troubles on this site. I've seen dozens of pictures of their favorite beauties. And that's how people behave. We talk about our personal lives, and we often talk about our sex lives. Watch the news... watch a sitcom... watch a marriage based reality show. It's only viewed as in your face when the "other" people do it. Wear a necklace or button for example. GOD, why can't they keep that private, people think, wearing their wedding band, talking about their home lives, and putting photos of loved ones on their desk in exactly the same way.


The comments directed at me are one thing, but the highlighted passage refers to things which happened on another forum, not this one. If you wish to take that forum administrator to task because of what is posted there, that is between you and that administrator. However, do not come to this forum and make backhanded references to other forums and their adminstrators. Remove that reference and take it up with the other forum admin directly.

"The Gift" is a documentary. It specifically deals with a prevalent (unspoken of in the mainstream) homosexual lifestyle/attitude that documented in the movie and has finally come out because others who were caught up in, lied to about, or lived in that lifestyle are now speaking up.

Sure there are different "lifestyles" within every group of people, but this is one that has been swept under the rug. Why? Because many LGB people don't want to others to know out of fear of a backlash. And some of the LGB people that I know are upset because it has come out. Because it does reflect badly on LGB people in general. AND because, as one homosexual man I know put it, "it's a massive subculture that has gone so far as to have billboards and magazine ads which give the message that 'being positive is positive'!"

As far as the "gory details", a group of sex-ed teachers who were homosexual traveled around MASS over the last couple of years and taught classes (on school time, on school property, and completely closed to parents) that included graphic details (and in at least a few instances, allegedly demonstrations) on certain sex acts which were the purview of "alternate lifestyles". In fact, there was quite the uproar (which ultimately was swept under the rung) and it was dubbed "Fistgate". Perhaps you've heard or read about it. It included homosexual acts, and a wide variety of "fetish" acts as parts of the curriculum, but somehow negected to discuss the usual heterosexual relationships... considered to be to "vanilla" and boring. Oh, and their salaries... Tax-payer funded in the interests of "diversity".

On putting pictures on one's desk, I've never had a problem with that. I've long had a picture of my Daddy on my desk without a problem. As far as people discussing their relationship troubles, after some people got involved twisting, telling and spewing information (much of which was private and confidential) without consequence, I think many people learned their lesson in that area. If a LGB person wanted to discuss things, there's really nothing stopping them, but the responses might be limited simply because of statistics. As far as TV and the media, what is wrong with having heterosexual shows?!?! The number of LGB characters or full-fledged shows on the air is a high percentage considering the percentage of people who are LGB. I'm not anti-LGB and I'm not against affording LGB partners legal rights. You brought up certain things in the other thread. The response didn't fit in that thread. So, I responded in this new thread. I told you honestly what I see as the LGB community being it's own worst enemy. And rather than realizing that I'm trying to pass on what I see as being a public relations problem which has, can and probably will cause a backlash against LGB people, you get all POed at me and go off. I pointed out what I have seen and discussed with others (homo and hetero), you get all bent out of shape.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 06, 2003 4:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Posts: 2758
Location: Boston
"The comments directed at me are one thing, but the highlighted passage refers to things which happened on another forum, not this one. If you wish to take that forum administrator to task because of what is posted there, that is between you and that administrator. However , do not come to this forum and make backhanded references to other forums and their adminstrators. Remove that reference and take it up with the other forum admin directly."

Actually, the point was that this is the norm, and NOT a big deal. There is nothing to take up with anyone.

"It specifically deals with a prevalent (unspoken of in the mainstream) homosexual lifestyle/attitude."

Please define "prevalent." Again, whatever it supposedly is, I'm dead set against, just as much as you are. I really don't see what that proves.

"A group of sex-ed teachers who were homosexual traveled around MASS over the last couple of years and taught classes (on school time, on school property, and completely closed to parents) that included graphic details (and in at least a few instances, allegedly demonstrations) on certain sex acts which were the purview of "alternate lifestyles"

A reference would be enlightening. That said, isolated mistakes / excesses of individuals don't necessarily reflect on the group. This applies, for example, to the military. I believe it was in Japan that a group of soldiers beat one of their gay peers to death and left his body in a bathroom. Could be used to paint the picture of the military as a homophobic, murderous organization, but what I believe, and believe is well documented, is that most of the troops don't give a hoot one way or another and they mostly get along fine. And certainly only a small minority would kill one of their own. Would you say because of such an event the "m,ilitary is it's own worst enemy?" Probably not--nor should you.

Is there anything wrong with having heterosexual shows? No. Now, you are starting to see my point.

"I told you honestly what I see as the LGB community being it's own worst enemy. And rather than realizing that I'm trying to pass on what I see as being a public relations problem which has, can and probably will cause a backlash against LGB people."

There is a tone that is used when supportive people discuss these important issues amongst friends. I have heard it a thousand times--but I didn't hear it here. I got no more bent out of shape than you would have been if I posted some isolated instances of gun owners going totally crazy and posted some unqualified concerns that they were their own worst enemies.

LGB's, like gun owners, have some losers in their midst as do all groups. When I pointed out there are SOME gun owning losers in the thread which spawned this one, you'll notice I qualified my statements by saying, over and over, that I thought that the gun owners writing here were quality people, that gun owners records were exemplary, and so on. There's no qualification in your original piece. For an example of a savage, yet qualified critique of these problems, Dan Savage (who writes the very off color column Savage Love, so user beware) wrote some very strong condemnations of a gay HIV sex educator who actually spread HIV himself. He also takes on the media that would excuse or cover up these behaviors. All in a context that makes it clear he doesn't lump all gay men together or hold them all accountable for the actions of a few. There is currently a campaign in San Fran that is spearheaded by gay men trying to publicize the idea that spreading HIV by intent, ignorance, or simply lack of concern is an act of violence against the spreader's own community.

_________________
--Ian


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 06, 2003 10:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Posts: 2813
Location: Massachusetts
Simply this...

I have friends of different races, sex, religions, ages, and sexual orientation. I have friends who I have no idea about their religion, sexual orientation or even specifically race. No big deal. There are bad people in every group (and now I'm repeating prior statements). My point is that the crazed gun owner is used by those with an agenda to condemn ALL gun owners. So, there is a HUGE push to show that gun owners are lawful and responsible people (which the vast majority... 99+% are.) The same thing happens with the LGB community, so it seems to me that those who ARE responsible people would do their damnedest to boldly address those who would put forth such ideas as infecting others is OK (or worse). Gun owners have done significant things in the way of education and safety in an effort to prevent even that fraction of a percentage.

You will believe that I'm your enemy regardless of what I say or do (that falls within the bounds of something I'd say or do). I haven't "made up" things to make the LGB community look bad, I just pointed things out that are already there that makes them look bad... and and state that might be part of their problem.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 07, 2003 2:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Posts: 2758
Location: Boston
Panther, I never said you made anything up, although a lot of the details ("prevalent," for one) are as yet unsubstantiated.

But here's what's wrong. You wrote:

"So... Unfortunately, the LGB community has, in many respects, been its own worst enemy."

"The truth of the matter is that these groups have hurt themselves."

First, it has already been clearly pointed out that the groups in question didn't hurt themselves. The fact that some crazy people put themselves at risk of HIV does not justify preventing HIV prevention efforts from efficiently reaching any and all people at risk. In fact it's kind of a statement of need that efforts need to be targeted. Whenever a conservative policy stops HIV prevention from acknowledging sexual orientation, they stop those efforts from being as successful and they lead directly to more infections and higher costs for political gain. There's no justification for that, period. Neither did a LGB tolerance group at some highschool do anything to merit their banning. Maybe the actions of SOME LGB people DID create an atmosphere of prejudice that affected them, but that's not what was written. Your opening statement is just not true.

Second, we agree there are some parallels to maligned gun owners. I think it is fairly safe to say you would NOT support these statements:

"The gun owning community has been it's own worst enemy" or "The gun owners have hurt themselves."

You would rightly point out that the gun owners who get bad press (say, the Montana Militia, or the people who accidentally or deliberately gun down somone that shouldn't have ended up dead) simply aren't part of the community you belong to. The fact that you both own guns isn't enough for anyone to justify lumping you together. What you would likely agree with is something like, "a few irresponsible or illegal gun owners have made things harder for the rest of us."

"A few crazy people among the respectable majority" is a theme that's been replayed for the LGBs, the gun owners, muslims, and a bunch of other minorities. That reality is important to recognize but wouldn't justify something as sweeping as, for example, "The blacks are their own worst enemies."

"The same thing happens with the LGB community, so it seems to me that those who ARE responsible people would do their damnedest to boldly address those who would put forth such ideas as infecting others is OK (or worse)."

And we're in agreement. You may have missed references to such efforts by national advice columnists, safe sex organizations, and myself. Here in Mass there've been columns to that point in Bay Windows, although I read that so very infrequently (it's stacked at the entrance of my second clinic) I wouldn't be qualified to comment on their overall editorial slant. There are a few who publicly oppose such efforts... the large majority of them do so because they believe that the group that's acting irresponsibly would find any critical message offensive and that it would push them away (away from even less direct efforts at risk reduction) and do more harm in the long run. However, I think that's a bunch of hooey.

_________________
--Ian


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 08, 2003 12:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Posts: 2813
Location: Massachusetts
IJ wrote:
The fact that some crazy people put themselves at risk of HIV does not justify preventing HIV prevention efforts from efficiently reaching any and all people at risk. In fact it's kind of a statement of need that efforts need to be targeted. Whenever a conservative policy stops HIV prevention from acknowledging sexual orientation, they stop those efforts from being as successful and they lead directly to more infections and higher costs for political gain. There's no justification for that, period.


HIV education is important if there is any hope of reducing the spread. We agree. And the best way to prevent it is abstinence, so teach that as well as the other (less effective) ways of stopping the spread of HIV or other STDs.

Quote:
Neither did a LGB tolerance group at some highschool do anything to merit their banning. Maybe the actions of SOME LGB people DID create an atmosphere of prejudice that affected them, but that's not what was written. Your opening statement is just not true.

Second, we agree there are some parallels to maligned gun owners. I think it is fairly safe to say you would NOT support these statements:

"The gun owning community has been it's own worst enemy" or "The gun owners have hurt themselves."


So, I guess you'll be surprised that I actually do believe those statements! Many groups hurt themselves in many ways for many reasons, but there are the large number of good folks in different groups (fortunately gun owners is one) that work extra hard and are extra vigilant to correct those things that get used to paint the group in a bad light.

Quote:
You would rightly point out that the gun owners who get bad press (say, the Montana Militia, or the people who accidentally or deliberately gun down somone that shouldn't have ended up dead) simply aren't part of the community you belong to. The fact that you both own guns isn't enough for anyone to justify lumping you together. What you would likely agree with is something like, "a few irresponsible or illegal gun owners have made things harder for the rest of us."


Yes, you're correct on that, but I'd change it somewhat... So, to turn it back around, "irresponsible or inconsiderate LGB people have made things much much harder for the rest of the LGB population."

Quote:
"A few crazy people among the respectable majority" is a theme that's been replayed for the LGBs, the gun owners, muslims, and a bunch of other minorities. That reality is important to recognize but wouldn't justify something as sweeping as, for example, "The blacks are their own worst enemies."


In this PC world, I'll get branded a racist for saying it, but... "irresponsible or inconsiderate blacks have made things much harder for the rest of the black population." (To save time, substitute any group in there...)

Quote:
"The same thing happens with the LGB community, so it seems to me that those who ARE responsible people would do their damnedest to boldly address those who would put forth such ideas as infecting others is OK (or worse)."

And we're in agreement. You may have missed references to such efforts by national advice columnists, safe sex organizations, and myself. Here in Mass there've been columns to that point in Bay Windows, although I read that so very infrequently (it's stacked at the entrance of my second clinic) I wouldn't be qualified to comment on their overall editorial slant.


Safer sex, not safe sex. I don't read Bay Windows. I have no idea what it is or who it represents, so I can't comment. The only thing I know about Bay Windows is that there was a great one in my grandma's house where we used to sit and play for hours as kids...

Quote:
There are a few who publicly oppose such efforts... the large majority of them do so because they believe that the group that's acting irresponsibly would find any critical message offensive and that it would push them away (away from even less direct efforts at risk reduction) and do more harm in the long run. However, I think that's a bunch of hooey.


And we agree on this as well. I have seen and heard about the "positive is positive" campaign and the fact that there are LGB folks who oppose speaking out against those sub-cultures. That attitude (which you and I both agree is hooey) is what I refer to when referring to being one's own worst enemy. That is the same as saying that gun owners shouldn't chastise those who are inconsiderate, ignorant or unsafe with their firearms and that all gun owners must stick together (which would be nice) so we don't want to push that sub-group of yahoos away. Well, you don't want to push them away, but you certainly want to stop that kind of egregious behaviour!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 08, 2003 8:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Posts: 2758
Location: Boston
"I'll get branded a racist for saying it, but... "irresponsible or inconsiderate blacks have made things much harder for the rest of the black population."

That statement I believe is objectively verifiable. It's the "their own worst enemies one," that I believe could only apply to very carefully defined groups of deliquents and not plastered on any large group such as a racial minority. If the PC people want to call someone a racist for acknowledging that they just need to read more from the minority activists who are saying the same thing.

"And the best way to prevent it is abstinence, so teach that as well as the other (less effective) ways of stopping the spread of HIV or other STDs."

Abstinence, barring the extremely rare splash or blood transfusion related case, is 100% effective for HIV prevention. But there's a term that's worth reviewing here--impact. Consider it as the product of effectiveness times reach. If a 100% effective method is only attractive to 1% of the population, then the impact is negligible. If something is highly effective but not perfect for HIV prevention (safe or safer sex, whichever one prefers; I never thought safe implied 100% perfect myself) and has a large reach, then it's your best bet. I'm not opposed to abstinence education (how long can that really take however?) but consider the following:

--campaigns to change sexual behavior to curb gonorrhea and chlamydia and syphilis failed spectacularly

--abstinence as usually taught to most children has generally included the qualifier "until marriage," one that makes the message potentially palatable to some children who COULD get married but totally irrelevant to the population we're discussing here. Abstinence is usually a conservative message and mark my words there will be no "until marriage / CU / LTR" language thrown in there for the non-hetero teens to contemplate. These groups are trying to amend our Constitution to remove that possibility, in fact.

--In the absence of the "abstinence = delay" concept, there has to be something else... just behavior modification is extraordinarily difficult (smoking, diet, exercise, you name it) and I submit that outright behavior cessation, for the high risk group we are discussing, is not a realistic option. Therefore, safe/r sex education has to meld with abstinence teaching into a "sex alternative" discussion. That something can be along the lines of "outercourse," which is the idea that touching can replace the more risky behaviors most teens engage in. [NB: this concept was invented for HETERO students and one of its biggest advantages was touted to be preganancy reduction.] But what happens if someone speaks honestly about such matters? Ask ex-surgeon general Joceyln Elders. If abstinence is pitched as an option, for it to be effective in HIV reduction, it has to be paired with honest, frank discussion in the language of the target groups, and reflecting their lives and experiences. Otherwise it will just be laughed at and won't work. Who's ready to support THAT?

For example: I saw a young man in STD clinic who had been followed by a resident as his PCP for over a year. I saw him for 20 minutes, asked him if he had any questions or concerns, and he responded with a deluge of questions he had been waiting to ask a dcotor. When I reported this interaction back to the resident and our attending, she said, ""You must be making that up. He never says anything like that. Besides, it's disgusting."

He knew she disapproved. And her ideas on safer sex were going in one ear and out the other. Efficacy? 100%. Impact? 0%. People only respond to those they trust and those who don't judge them when it comes to most things--never mind the most private matters of all. Other attempts no matter how well intentioned will fail. --if the patients come at all.

_________________
--Ian


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 12, 2003 7:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Posts: 2758
Location: Boston
News from the other coast regarding some lowlifes ostensibly in the public health field:

On Tuesday a San Francisco judge tossed out a grand jury indictment against a former San Francisco health commissioner for intentionally infecting sexual partners with HIV.

This was the first time a judge has ruled on the 1998 California law against deliberately infecting partners.

On Sept. 12 police arrested Ronald Gene Hill after at least two men testified he deceived them about his HIV status. One of those men, Thomas Lister, said he learned about his ex-lover's status by reading a newspaper. While Lister said Hill wasn't forthcoming with him about his infection, Hill did reveal his HIV status to fellow commissioners and the media.

A judge awarded Lister $5 million in a civil case against Hill. Lister claimed he tested positive for the virus just two months after the couple broke off their monogamous relationship.

During the criminal case against Hill, prosecutors said he used his position as a health commissioner to evade questions about his infection with sexual partners.

But Hill's attorney, Peter Fitzpatrick, argued that even if Hill lied, that did not meet the threshold of proof required by the law.

Superior Court Judge Kay Tsenin agreed, ruling that prosecutors did not meet the legal burden in the face of a "very marginal amount" of evidence against him.

Matthew Coles, director of the ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project described Hill's behavior as "reprehensible."

"The question is whether he violated the specific HIV law," Coles told the Gay.com/PlanetOut.com network "This law has a high standard of proof on it. But it has a high standard, so you don't wind up prosecuting people who don't disclose. Because in any act like this you have two people and those people have a responsibility to ask. But our understanding is this guy could have been prosecuted on assault."

Thomas Lister, however, thinks the law should be changed. He told the San Francisco Chronicle that this case will not end in the courtroom, but in the California Legislature. "It's a law that is not working -- and we need to change that," he said.

_________________
--Ian


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 27, 2004 11:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Posts: 2758
Location: Boston
Great Moments in Amendment History:

Ten great initial protections for the people:

Article [I.]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article [II.]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Article [III.]
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Article [IV.]
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article [V.]
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article [VI.]
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Article [VII.]
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Article [VIII.]
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Article [IX.]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article [X.]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Article XIII. --1865
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation

Article XIV. --1868
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
(etc)

Article XV. --1870
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude

Article [XVIII]. --1919. First time rights are taken away....
Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited

Article [XIX]. --1920 ... and we get back to expanding rights
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Article [XXI.] --1933 ...and errors of the past are corrected...
Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Amendment XXIV
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Amendment XXVI
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age

Amendment XXVII
No law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives shall take effect until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Amendment XXVIII (dated 200_?)
Marriage, the limitation of which to couples not of usual races was found to be unconstitutional, will be limited to couples of the usual genders, marking the second time, and the first time since the prohibition misadventure of 1919 was undertaken, that the Constitution of the United States and the oldest constitution in the known universe, is amended to deny a group of its citizens a right--on the basis of protecting others who already have that right, and are under the impression their freedoms will be at stake if others share them. They will be "protected," as will children, somehow, given that those children will henceforth be systematically denied the benefits awarded to married couples in the interests of the dependent children.

If marriage is a religious institution, what business does the government have saying whom can and cannot be married by religious bodies?

If marriage is a civil institution, what legitimate state interest (independent of posturing for conservative voting blocks in election years) is forwarded by discrimination on the basis of sex? What clear, objective data supports amending the oldest known constitution to deny a group of Americans an important right?

Why shouldn't the government impartially award civil unions to consenting competent adult couples who seek them, and let the churches decide whom they shall marry?

_________________
--Ian


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2004 12:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:01 am
Posts: 2714
Because that would mean separation of church and state...oh...sorry...wait a sec...that's what we're supposed to do.

:roll:

_________________
Did you show compassion today?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 3754
Location: Richmond, VA
Dana said: "Because that would mean separation of church and state...oh...sorry...wait a sec...that's what we're supposed to do."

I beg to differ on that point. Read the First Amendment again...

Article [I.]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...

The First Amendment makes no mention of the separation of church and state, only that the Federal government cannot establish an official religion (like the Anglican church in England) or prevent the establishment of a religion.

Personally, I believe that the First amendment is under assualt by the liberal left and the PC crowd as much as the second amendment is. This country was founded on Judeo/Christian ideals that have served us well for many years. Take a look at the money in your pocket - "In God We Trust" -which I do!

And, the Supreme Court opens its sessions with a prayer.

Fortunately, the Second Amendment is in place should the Feds ever get too PC and completely forget about the First Amendment.

Rich

_________________
Member of the world's premier gun club, the USMC!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2004 3:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Posts: 2813
Location: Massachusetts
IJ wrote:
Amendment XXVIII (dated 200_?)
Marriage, the limitation of which to couples not of usual races was found to be unconstitutional, will be limited to couples of the usual genders, marking the second time, and the first time since the prohibition misadventure of 1919 was undertaken, that the Constitution of the United States and the oldest constitution in the known universe, is amended to deny a group of its citizens a right--on the basis of protecting others who already have that right, and are under the impression their freedoms will be at stake if others share them. They will be "protected," as will children, somehow, given that those children will henceforth be systematically denied the benefits awarded to married couples in the interests of the dependent children.


How about putting the proposed amendment into language that the amendment might use and then editorialize outside of the amendment. This way it isn't even close to being a mock amendment, but is simply an editorial statement.

However, I don't know of any legitimate Federal amendment being proposed along these lines and don't think that 2/3 of the country would ratify that amendment.

Quote:
If marriage is a religious institution, what business does the government have saying whom can and cannot be married by religious bodies?


Rhetorical question... Rhetorical answer... They don't!

Quote:
If marriage is a civil institution, what legitimate state interest (independent of posturing for conservative voting blocks in election years) is forwarded by discrimination on the basis of sex? What clear, objective data supports amending the oldest known constitution to deny a group of Americans an important right?

Why shouldn't the government impartially award civil unions to consenting competent adult couples who seek them, and let the churches decide whom they shall marry?


I assume you're talking about the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. You see, the proposed "marriage amendment" to the Massachusetts Constitution was an issue that was dying. Most proponents had been quieted by a push effectively allowing homosexual unions with the same legal benefits as "marriage" defined as "civil unions". The LGB groups in Massachusetts weren't satisfied with that victory and chose to push for the definition of "marriage". That forced the issue further and gave a great new life to the proponents of the "marriage amendment". Now, with the SJC ruling and the vow of many LGB groups to fight anything but full marriage recognition by the legislature, going the "marriage amendment" route effectively gets the legislature off the hook and lets the majority decide! (Funny how previously supporting that "mob rule democracy" over the constitutional protections of individual rights because going that way benefitted a position at the time has come back to bite some in the @$$. Those who supported "mob rule democracy" to get their un-American, anti-gun agenda through are going to get stuck with that same "mob rule democracy" mentality, but this time the "majority" might not see it the same way... Hmmmm...)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Freedom From Religion
PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2004 8:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 12:20 pm
Posts: 2117
Location: Virginia
Quote:
The First Amendment makes no mention of the separation of church and state, only that the Federal government cannot establish an official religion (like the Anglican church in England) or prevent the establishment of a religion.

Personally, I believe that the First amendment is under assualt by the liberal left and the PC crowd as much as the second amendment is. This country was founded on Judeo/Christian ideals that have served us well for many years. Take a look at the money in your pocket - "In God We Trust" -which I do! -----Rich



I totally respect you right to practice religion as you see fit. I also have no problem with congress starting with a prayer, or having "In God We Trust" on my money. To all that I say "Big Deal". I personally am agnostic, but feel no threat from the above.

I'm not so sure "The liberal Left" really wants to prevent you from practicing your religion. I think that they may want to protect their right to not have religion forced upon them. Their want for real seperation of church and state is cristal clear to me. I am sorry, but I do not want my future children to learn the pseudo science called creationism in a public school. It is total B.S.. I also do not want them to be forced to pray in the morning, or read the ten comandments. Those are my deeply felt beliefs, and I think the Radical right wing wacko's need to respect them.

I believe in my right to bear arms. To be honest I can't think of one presidential candidate who wants to deprive me of it. Therefore I do not feel threatend. If I am wrong please enlighten me.

As for GLB's wanting to get married, I say fine. They can also get divorced as well.. maybee it will bring some stability to the GLB crowds relationships.. maybee there will not be as much promiscuity for fear of divorce and legal consiquences.

I also beleive that churches should not be forced to marry gay people. That should be their own church. Sorry ACLU but each church should be able to operate as they see fit.. and may exclude anyone they want. tHose are their deeply held views and should be respected. Just like the want of "the left" to not have religion forced upon them.

_________________
Hydrogen Peroxide removes blood stains!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 101 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group