RECENT  POSTS:  » 'Mask is coming off' LGBTs, says man who vowed to export and/or criminalize LGBTs » Exxon, infamous holdout on fair and decent employment protections, could be running out of options » Oregon baker who refused same-sex wedding cake bakes for 'ex-gay' org » PFOX rebrands; into group play, seemingly » Audio: Listen to this ADF spinmeister and his anti-gay spin » Report: US District judge won't deny justice to gay Coloradans; might delay it, though » AFA to POTUS: End your 'love affair with homosexuality,' give anti-gay Christians entitlement instead » Congressional right wing's right-side-of-history whip count: 8–271 » NOM, Manhattan Declaration turn Unitarian's anti-slavery, anti-war into pro-discrimination anthem » Matt Barber and Peter LaBarbera tease America's coming anti-gay street revolts  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

12/01/2008

Harvey milking her extremely disturbing views

by Jeremy Hooper

Mean-spirited. Medically Unsound. Dangerous. Linda Harvey's flawed AIDS rhetoric:

Linda-Harvey"Males need to stop having homosexual sex," said Harvey. "That means, close homosexual hang-outs, especially all bathhouses. Patrol public parks and arrest men having sex in public toilets. Stop sponsoring large public events, like Folsom Street Fair, that allow public sex and nudity. Ignore the screams of the homosexual lobby when officials do the right thing, even for them. Think of the lives that would be saved and disability prevented."
If we are unwilling to do this, Harvey said, taxpayers should stop subsidizing the current phony approaches to this disease, including the proposal of the Obama-Biden administration, which does not even mention homosexual behavior (www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/FactSheetAIDS.pdf).

And they should hold California officials accountable if they would presume to call homosexual behavior "marriage."

Saying an unequivocal "no" to homosexual sex, along with discouraging injection drug use and high-risk heterosexual sex, should be the top priority in any honest and effective prevention strategy. And it should be the primary message we teach our youth.

Okay, first off: We refuse to again go into all the reasons why gays are disproportionately affected by AIDS. This is something Linda tries to throw into the gay community's face on every World AIDS Day, and we're not going to take the bait this year. It's obvious to anyone who has studied the subject why gay males, who were hit earliest and hardest by the disease, have continued to see higher rates in the years since. And it's disgusting to use these rates to launch politically-motivated attacks against the community rather than health-motivated attacks against the disease itself. For no other community than the LGBTs would such attacks be so widely tolerated.

But looking at Linda's points themselves: What she is decrying here is not even same-sex sex itself. Linda is lashing out against anonymous encounters, promiscuity, and public sex. This is a conversation that she has every right to raise, and one that many people, including LGBT folks, would willfully have. However, it is not a conversation about gay people and their innate desires: It is a conversation about human beings of ALL sexual orientations and their certain chosen sexual behaviors and expressions! The distinction matters. A lot.

Which leads us to the flawed link Linda tries to make to marriage equality. By what crazy logic is encouraging monogamous marriage helping to promote AIDS?! If both partners are negative, a monogamous gay couple is at zero risk of transmitting HIV/AIDS via sex. Linda and her anti-gay allies act as if this disease is something that God sends down on gay households whenever he is bored and in need of a pastime. The truth, obviously, is that the disease must be introduced before the risk is heightened. If the "pro-family" folks TRULY want to do their part in combatting HIV/AIDS, they would foster a world where gay kids are told from birth that they too have the freedom to live, live, date, and marry just like their hetero peers. This, along with accurate information about safer sex practices (which they also shun), could immeasurably change the climate!

But ya see, truly changing the climate is not what fringe people like Linda are all about. They have a self-serving agenda, and their every word and action are designed to justify their views. Nowhere is this more illustrated than in the AIDS crisis, which we truly believe some of them see as a positive development for their culture war side! For those who think God hates gays and their "lifestyle," AIDS is just another talking point that they can use to, in their mind, embolden their claims. On World AIDS Day they are like kids at Christmas delighting in the fact that Pandora sent the gay community one particularly painful package. Consequently, we are annually made to feel like kids at Halloween, shrieking over the horrific places to which the human mind can go.

Should California Declare Homosexuality 'Marriage' in Light of HIV/AIDS Data? [Christian News Wire]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

I hate to say it, but I agree with Linda on only one part. I see events like the Folsom Street Fair to be, frankly, disgusting. This is not because of the planned content of the events, but because, as we all know and sometimes like to ignore, there IS the aspect of unhindered public sex. Even in an event that is blocked off from the general public, this is against the law, and for some of our fellow gays to blatantly ignore this fact is ridiculous. And I know that there are probably just as many straights that do this. If I were supreme overload of the world, I would either cancel these events, or take a cue from our good old friend Peter LaBarbara and sneak into these events taking pictures to expose them for the hypocrisy.

Posted by: Andrew B | Dec 1, 2008 11:43:48 AM

But Andrew, as mentioned in the post, this is a separate conversation. That is a conversation about certain behaviors, not orientations.

Linda and crew want you to take the bait and link it to her central thesis that "Males need to stop having homosexual sex." Please be careful about doing so.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Dec 1, 2008 11:53:38 AM

On that same note, I don't see any of these folks attending any heterosexual sex events. And as I understand it, they make it a point to ignore heterosexual behavior at Folsom. But having said that, anyone who takes Linda Harvey as an expert is reaching. A look at her webpage (especially her accusations that folks who are even friendly to lgbts shouldn't be around children) clearly negates any credibility she has.

Posted by: A. MCEWEN | Dec 1, 2008 12:27:18 PM

Just to point out: European countries where safe sex is taught in schools and LBGT-specific information is easy to find are on the decline for new cases of HIV/AIDS, it was in a EU-wide health survey recently.

The HIV/AIDS problem is part of a wider sex-ed problem across america, encouraged by the bush policies of the past, it just happens to disproportionate amongst gay men.

Perhaps Linda might want to teach young LBGT people about contraception, rather than telling them they're going to die because they are gay, that might actually save lives.

Posted by: Corvidae | Dec 1, 2008 12:28:17 PM

And of course, if AIDS is god's punishment, then lesbians are god's chosen people for they have the lowest incidence of HIV/AIDS of various categorized groups.

Posted by: tjc | Dec 1, 2008 12:43:32 PM

There's no way in hell I'd ever feel that males need to stop having homosexual sex. I LOVE the sex, I just feel that, even though things like Folsom are a separate issue from what you were discussing in your blog entry, they are still an important part of the overall discussion that needs to be analyzed. And NOT analyzed by people like Peter LaBarbarian, but instead by reasonable thinkers.

Posted by: Andrew B | Dec 1, 2008 1:29:14 PM

"Males need to stop having homosexual sex," said Harvey.

Like abstinence has stopped teenage daughters of fundie Veep wannabes from gettin' knocked-up! But what does work for both cases is safe-sex. Just think, that turd that inseminated Bristol wouldn't have been shotgunned (under the threat of a statutory rape charge) into marrying the jail-bait!

Just think of all the hatemongers who would be out of a job if Aids ceased to be transmitted because the participants were properly informed about the risks of unprotected sexual activity. And were informed about the preventative measures that mitigate that risk. But, then, Ms. Harvey isn't thinking about the lives that could be spared, or she would be advocating for widespread dissemination of valid information. What she is doing is misinforming for the purpose of stirring up hatred, because that ensures that the hatemonger's money trough doesn't dry up.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Dec 1, 2008 2:11:55 PM

"Just to point out: European countries where safe sex is taught in schools and LBGT-specific information is easy to find are on the decline for new cases of HIV/AIDS, it was in a EU-wide health survey recently."

Actually, that is not correct.

http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/global?page=cr10-00-00

"Men who have sex with men continue to be the population group most at risk of acquiring HIV within most Western European countries. Indeed, the number of new HIV diagnoses attributed to unprotected sex between men has increased sharply in recent years in Western Europe."


Next:

http://data.unaids.org/pub/Report/2008/jc1532_epibriefs_namerica_europe_en.pdf

Page 6 has the details.

"Between 2002 and 2006, the number of HIV infections newly diagnosed in men who have sex with men almost doubled in Germany (where they rose by 87% to 1412), and increased by three quarters (by 77% to 237) in Switzerland, by two thirds (by 67% to 255) in Belgium, and one third (by 31% to 2597)in
the United Kingdom. In France, the number of new HIV diagnoses in men who have sex with men increased by 84% to 1235 between 2003—when a new HIV reporting system was introduced—and 2006 (EuroHIV, 2007). Fuente et al., 2006; Lindenburg et al., 2006) (see also UNAIDS & WHO 2006)."


Meanwhile, back in the United States, an interesting phenomenon; despite the insistence of gay liberals that children are taught nothing about sex, somehow the heterosexual and injection drug using ones are figuring it out.

http://www.365gay.com/news/cdc-underestimates-number-of-us-hiv-cases/

"Yearly estimates allow better recognition of trends in the U.S. epidemic. For example, the new report found that infections are falling among heterosexuals and injection drug users.......

But they also lamented the CDC’s finding that infections continue to increase in gay and bisexual men, who accounted for more than half of HIV infections in 2006. Also, more than a third of those with HIV are younger than 30."

Read that again: infections are DECREASING among heterosexuals and injection drug users, but INCREASING among gays.

Meanwhile, as for "monogamous marriage", let's see what typical gays are doing when it comes to marriage.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/us/15marriage.html?_r=2&pagewanted=2

"Eric Erbelding and his husband, Michael Peck, both 44, see each other only every other weekend because Mr. Peck works in Pittsburgh. So, Mr. Erbelding said, “Our rule is you can play around because, you know, you have to be practical.”

Mr. Erbelding, a decorative painter in Boston, said: “I think men view sex very differently than women. Men are pigs, they know that each other are pigs, so they can operate accordingly. It doesn’t mean anything.”"


The biggest problem in the gay community is illustrated nicely in this post, where Jeremy spins and weaves and dodges and refuses to deal with the most basic and obvious issue: HIV/AIDS disproportionately affects the gay community because the gay community's values of supporting and enabling promiscuity while blaming others for their problems is most conducive to spreading the disease.

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | Dec 1, 2008 2:15:57 PM

Everyone: I've seen North Dallas Thirty rile up too many web forums to count. Inciting flame wars is his game.

The best thing to do is ignore him.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Dec 1, 2008 2:32:12 PM

And again, Jeremy, you illustrate the problem.

I corrected one of your commenters, who incorrectly stated that HIV rates among gays in Western Europe were declining, by citing scientific evidence to the contrary from UCSF, the CDC, and the UN.

I pointed out, again with citation from the CDC, that rates among heterosexuals and injection drug users in the United States were declining, while rates among gay people were rising.

Finally, I pointed out, again with citation from what liberals like yourself consider to be a reputable news source, that gay couples are not practicing monogamous marriage and in fact are continuing promiscuous behavior when married. A check of the LGBT beyondmarriage.org website, which demands marriage rights for "households with more than one conjugal partner", would further reinforce this fact.

The reason you are upset is twofold. First, if rates of HIV are rising among gays in Western Europe, it neatly undercuts your argument that the cause of the rise in the United States is due to either lack of sex education or religious repression. Second, your attempt to argue that gay marriage is about monogamy is quite ludicrous when there are notable and obvious public examples of gays supporting and doing anything but, with little to no outcry or complaint from the gay community (or at least from "real gays" like yourself).

In short, HIV/AIDS is not a disease to you; it is a propaganda tool. You project onto others that which you are guilty of yourself.

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | Dec 1, 2008 3:13:44 PM

Unfortunately, North Dallas Thirty is not far off (aside from insulting Jeremy, of course :)

Posted by: Andrew B | Dec 1, 2008 3:15:28 PM

NDT: It's hard to just ignore your inaccurate claims and presumptions about me and mindset (despite us never having had any interaction whatsoever). But as one who is quite aware of your intentionally provocative online reputation, I'm going to have to just ignore you. Post all you want -- there's no "banning" here. Just don't expect me to engage you.

And yes, Andrew, his thoughts are far off. He can insult me all he wants -- BFD. But ideas like that which says gay couples are incapable of monogamy should insult us all.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Dec 1, 2008 3:33:07 PM

I didn't read his comments assuming that he meant that all gay couples are non-monogamous, but I can see where that may be concluded. I myself have been in a completely monogamous relationship with my partner for 2.5 years, so I know that it's possible and, in my opinion, not that difficult.

I do, however, feel that, outside of the LGBT activist/advocacy community, in the portion of our community that attends things like the Folsom Street Fair, etc, there appears to be a complete lack of concern about promiscuity and unsafe sex. It almost feels like there are two entirely separate camps within the LGBT community.

I'm sorry if I at all offended you Jeremy. I read your blog religiously (as religiously as an athiest can get, at least) and I really enjoy it. By the way, my last post was made without seeing NDT's second post.

Posted by: Andrew B | Dec 1, 2008 3:42:22 PM

Offended me? Of course not, Andrew! I love respectful disagreement and discussion.

And the thing is, I don't at all disagree that your points are worthy of conversation. The only reason I engaged you on this point was just in context of Linda's piece. I just wanted to urge to be careful about taking the far-right bait that male-male sex is the same thing as promiscuity, anonymous encounters, public nudity, etc.

I've been with my partner for six years, going on life. Monogamy is also my easy, chosen reality.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Dec 1, 2008 3:49:26 PM

"But ideas like that which says gay couples are incapable of monogamy should insult us all."

The readers will please note from where that came.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/us/15marriage.html?_r=2&pagewanted=2

"Eric Erbelding and his husband, Michael Peck, both 44, see each other only every other weekend because Mr. Peck works in Pittsburgh. So, Mr. Erbelding said, “Our rule is you can play around because, you know, you have to be practical.”

Mr. Erbelding, a decorative painter in Boston, said: “I think men view sex very differently than women. Men are pigs, they know that each other are pigs, so they can operate accordingly. It doesn’t mean anything.”"

In addition, we have the Beyond Marriage manifesto that states clearly that gays demand marriage rights for "households with more than one conjugal partner", and the statements made by the ACLU that bans on marriages to more than one person are unconstitutional.

http://www.acluutah.org/pluralmarriage.htm

But of course, you don't attack THEM for stating that monogamy is not "practical" and that"men are pigs"; instead, you get all huffy and blame ME instead for THEIR behavior.

Just as you blame religious people for HIV and spin and ignore the behavior by gays that clearly spreads the disease.

http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hscout/2007/12/03/hscout610571.html

Why? Because it's an easier target. Blaming religious people for HIV is a lot simpler than pointing the finger at the sexual practices of other gays; after all, that would be "sex-negative", "prudish", and "intolerant".

http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=330

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | Dec 1, 2008 4:01:57 PM

Linda Harvey is making it sound as if gay sex actually gernerates HIV. This is absurd.
And anecdotal evidence of open relationships is not a reason to ban gay couples from getting married, anymore than it would be a reason to ban heterosexuals from getting married. Nor is it proof that all gay men are promiscuous, nor is it proof that all gay men eschew safer sex. Nor is it a compelling argument for demanding that ALL gay men be celibate for life, which is an incredibly simple-minded solution.
Harvey's a bigot. The jury's still out on N.D.T.

Posted by: Bill S | Dec 1, 2008 4:49:46 PM

"I corrected one of your commenters, who incorrectly stated that HIV rates among gays in Western Europe were declining, by citing scientific evidence to the contrary from UCSF, the CDC, and the UN." - North Dallas Thirty

Perhaps you'd better look a little deeper into those stats. The UK, which has a very poor sex ed program in schools (in fact to my knowledge we don't have one at all at present) has rising infection rates for STDs, especially amongst people in their late teens & early 20s, irrespective of sexuality. Chlamydia and HIV are particular concerns - according to a news report I saw yesterday, in some areas of England Chlamydia infection rates are up to 10% in some age-groups.

By contrast, Germany has long had an effective and consistent sex ed program and has falling HIV infection rates. That, I believe, blows your argument out of the water.

Posted by: tavdy79 | Dec 1, 2008 4:53:38 PM

N.D.T.:

"Read that again: infections are DECREASING among heterosexuals and injection drug users, but INCREASING among gays."

Yes, it shows that even people who engage in behaviors some find distasteful (i.e. injecting drugs) can see significant drops in HIV-infection rates with the right programs and outreach. Thank you N.D.T. for pointing this out.

So instead of moralizing and sermonizing we can look for practical approaches when it comes to men who have sex with men--yes even those who go to (dunt dunt duunnnnn!) bathhouses and the Folsom Street Fair! Or were you not really concerned about that and more concerned about preaching at people?

"But of course, you don't attack THEM for stating that monogamy is not "practical" and that"men are pigs"; instead, you get all huffy and blame ME instead for THEIR behavior."

Um...actually people are blaming you for extrapolating from one NYT article and two quotes broad statements about gay men. There is no way you can pull from that source what "GAYS are doing about monogamous marriage." That quote represents TWO gay families in two cities miles apart.

Now I will say that in my subjective experience as a MSM, gay men are, on the whole, less conservative about sex than straight people and even lesbians, on the whole. But the idea that these two gay families represent what "gays" do is ridiculous; there is a spectrum from strictly monogamous to very open.

Posted by: Brian | Dec 1, 2008 5:56:17 PM

And in Africa.... of the 22,000,000 with AIDS 12,000,000 are women and 1.8 million children...e.g. 65%... of the men with AIDS just what percent do you actually feel developed the disese from MSM?... and not from promiscuous heterosexual expoitation??

Just how many STD's do you think are passed between monogamous heterosexual couples?.vs. promiscuous ones?. And monogamous homosexual relations will have, presumably the same percentage of transmission.

PROMISCUITY is the link, not orientation.

Posted by: LOrion | Dec 1, 2008 7:15:14 PM

Other cultures...other stats...all these from AVERT. ...these in particular relate the the increase among WOMEN...worldwide...Generally women are at a greater risk of heterosexual transmission of HIV. Biologically women are twice more likely to become infected with HIV through unprotected heterosexual intercourse than men3. In many countries women are less likely to be able to negotiate condom use and are more likely to be subjected to non-consensual sex.

In the USA, African American and Hispanic women account for 80 percent of AIDS cases, even though they represent less than one fourth of all women. These primarily relate to IV drug use patterns....and promiscuous heterosexual habits.


It is estimated that the number of adults living with HIV/AIDS in India is 2.4 million. According to the National AIDS Control Organisation (NACO), women account for 39.3 percent of these14. As HIV transmission is largely through heterosexual contact, the infection rate for women is increasing. Some studies have suggested that 85 percent of women in India were infected through heterosexual sex, and around 90 percent said that they had had only one sexual partner, usually their spouse15. Women’s vulnerability to HIV infection in India has been attributed to their low economic and social status.

In countries such as Indonesia, Vietnam and Pakistan, HIV transmission is largely through injection drug use. Not only are female injecting drug users (IDUs) at a high risk of contacting HIV but also increasing numbers of women are becoming infected with HIV from male IDU partners.

MSM transmission is up a bit in the US and that is an EDUCATIONAL shame on the BUSH ADMINISTRATION...again not related to sexual orientation.

Posted by: LOrion | Dec 1, 2008 7:29:06 PM

It seems the issue of homosexual promiscuity is always so prevalent in this debate, but it has been my experience that the issue of heterosexual promiscuity is all but ignored.

The focus on gay sex is because, by its definition, the word homosexual forces us to think of sex. In addition, homosexuals may be perceived to be more sexually liberal than heterosexuals simply because homosexuals are forced to talk about sex when the issues of inequality are brought up and we are forced to seriously consider our sexuality - something not one gay person will ever take for granted. Radical rights demonize sex entirely - as if they don't have sex... it doesn't matter if the gay sex is monogamous or with multiple partners. Every gay person in the world could become completely monogamously coupled and "they" will still hate us. It's about sex, not promiscuity, not monogamy, not normalcy.

Heterosexuals (those within the radical right) believe, regardless of how many partners they have, that they are pure. Their sex is normal and healthy and makes babies so they can have lots and lots of it without the same stigma.

Complete hypocrisy - and I for one am INFURIATED by it.

Posted by: jaysays | Dec 1, 2008 7:39:24 PM

Hmmm, I wonder when we can expect Ms. Harvey to start demanding the closure of all singles bars that cater to African-Americans. After all, 44% of all AIDS/HIV cases in the US have been in the African-American population (http://www.avert.org/statsum.htm). IIRC, over 50% of new cases are in African-Americans.

It is also interesting that people continue to equate "gay men" and "men who have sex with men." The whole reason the CDC even had to create the MSM designation was to account for all the men in straight relationships who are secretly, or not so secretly, having sex with other men on the side but refuse to identify as gay. In fact, as an educated, caucasian, gay man over the age of 40, I have an extremely low risk of HIV infection, and I am not even in a relationship.

As for the Folsom Street Fair, I've been there and find it ironic that so many people want to hate on something they've only read about. I have very rarely seen any public sexual behavior at one of these events, and then only a little fellatio (which has a VERY low risk of HIV transmission). In fact, leathersex is one of the safest forms of sexual pleasure, HIV-wise, because so little of the action involves sharing bodily fluids. At least 50% of my leather-oriented encounters have no risky activity whatsoever, but are still hot.

Finally, NDT, please do not use anecdotes from a newspaper, even a reputable one, to denigrate an entire community. From the examples of John McCain, Newt Gingrich, Eliot Spitzer, John Edwards, Rudy Guiliani, etc. etc. etc., it is pretty clear a heck of lot of straight men have an issue staying faithful. And straight men have the added bonus of being responsible for nearly all violent crime, murders, rapes, embezzlement, etc.

Posted by: CPT_Doom | Dec 1, 2008 8:20:36 PM

"By contrast, Germany has long had an effective and consistent sex ed program and has falling HIV infection rates. That, I believe, blows your argument out of the water."


I do sometimes wonder why I bother with going to all the trouble of actually finding, citing, and quoting references when it's so obvious that people are not reading them.

http://data.unaids.org/pub/Report/2008/jc1532_epibriefs_namerica_europe_en.pdf

Page 6 has the details.

"Between 2002 and 2006, the number of HIV infections newly diagnosed in men who have sex with men almost doubled in Germany (where they rose by 87% to 1412), and increased by three quarters (by 77% to 237) in Switzerland, by two thirds (by 67% to 255) in Belgium, and one third (by 31% to 2597)in
the United Kingdom. In France, the number of new HIV diagnoses in men who have sex with men increased by 84% to 1235 between 2003—when a new HIV reporting system was introduced—and 2006 (EuroHIV, 2007). Fuente et al., 2006; Lindenburg et al., 2006) (see also UNAIDS & WHO 2006)."

If we need any more examples, the massive resurgence of syphilis among gay men in Europe provides additional reinforcement.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/12/20/international/i104955S18.DTL&tsp=1


"So instead of moralizing and sermonizing we can look for practical approaches when it comes to men who have sex with men--yes even those who go to (dunt dunt duunnnnn!) bathhouses and the Folsom Street Fair!"

Which, by "practical", means following the same three rules we've seen expressed in the comments here:

1) Avoid any criticism of gay peoples' behavior

2) Blame heterosexuals for gay peoples' problems

3) Claim that, because rates of HIV in the Third World are similar to those among gay men, that gay promiscuity and HIV rates are somehow acceptable

What you call "practical", the rest of the world calls "enablement".


"Finally, NDT, please do not use anecdotes from a newspaper, even a reputable one, to denigrate an entire community."

If that anecdote were "denigrating", CPT_Doom, it seems odd that you would be attacking anyone other than the gay person who is TELLING the New York Times that that monogamy is not "practical" and that "men are pigs".

Tell me; is your problem with what this person is actually doing, or the fact that my pointing it out rather ruins the pleasant fiction that the gay community supports monogamous marriage? Are you actually concerned with the behavior, or just with the PR issue?

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | Dec 1, 2008 11:26:55 PM

'Which, by "practical", means following the same three rules we've seen expressed in the comments here:
1) Avoid any criticism of gay peoples' behavior

2) Blame heterosexuals for gay peoples' problems

3) Claim that, because rates of HIV in the Third World are similar to those among gay men, that gay promiscuity and HIV rates are somehow acceptable

What you call "practical", the rest of the world calls "enablement".'

1.)What a straw-man! No one said you can't criticize some behaviors by gay men (have you not seen anti-crystal meth ads or campaigns against barebacking?). It's just that self-righteous sermonizing and anti-gay rhetoric will not be received well. Because usually such people are only interested in their own smug, self-satisfied sense of morality and not solving problems.

Yes, we do need to encourage more critical reflection on our sexual behavior. We do NOT need Victorian-era tirades about what "gay men" supposedly do. That's not reflective; it's reactionary and uncritical.

2.) Not dealing with a health issue in a humane, realistic way is certainly worthy of criticism.

3.) Actually, this point is made to remind people that "promiscuity" is not an exclusively gay phenomenon and cannot be used to say anything about gay people inherently. Also, with other demographics the numbers are also increasing--i.e. black women. Perhaps this is also the fault of "gay men's" behavior?

And I suppose needle-exchanges and outreach to injection drug users is "enablement" as well--which apparently works based on the evidence you were so quick to throw at us.

Oh wait, those are "practical" programs that are more concerned with actually preventing HIV than getting on high-horses and lecturing people. Those programs probably wouldn't appeal to you.

"Tell me; is your problem with what this person is actually doing, or the fact that my pointing it out rather ruins the pleasant fiction that the gay community supports monogamous marriage? Are you actually concerned with the behavior, or just with the PR issue?"

Neither. My problem is with YOU and ONLY YOU painting gay men with a broad brush based on two anecdotes. It's not about PR, it's about YOUR distortions. You said, "my pointing it out rather ruins the pleasant fiction that the gay community supports monogamous marriage?" It does no such thing; it shows two gay men's families in NY and Boston and their view on the issue. That's their opinion but our community is diverse. I could go to swingers sites or even highlight prominent heterosexuals (Elliot Spitzer, etc) and make broad statements about heterosexuals, but that would be absurd. Obviously, anti-gay discourse will allow you to humanize and individualize heterosexuals, but prompts you to lump all gay men in one box.

And as usual, like most anti-gays, you put a microscope on gay men and ignore lesbians completely when you talk about the "gay community" as a whole. So you use careless, sweeping rhetoric and then have the gall to portray yourself as some prophet of truth persecuted by gays. Please, go jump in a lake.

Posted by: Brian | Dec 2, 2008 12:59:38 PM

"That's their opinion but our community is diverse."

That, really, in a nutshell, is the problem here.

You claim to oppose using crystal meth, but "our community is diverse", so you won't do anything about it.

You claim to oppose barebacking, but "our community is diverse", so you won't do anything about it.

You claim to support monogamy in marriage, but "our community is diverse", so you won't do anything about it.

Bringing up Elliot Spitzer is an excellent example of the difference between gay and straight communities; his actions met with universal, loud, condemnation from heterosexuals. NOWHERE was it stated that his behavior was acceptable because "men are pigs" and that monogamy is not "practical", nor were there straight people running around saying that his behavior was justified because "our community is diverse", and there certainly weren't people saying that criticism of his behavior was "anti-straight", "self-righteous sermonizing", and "Victorian-era tirades".

That is why heterosexuals get "humanized and individualized"; they have made it clear that they will loudly and publicly oppose the behavior of other people in their group, and thus they should be treated as individuals. Gays like yourself, on the other hand, make it clear that drug use, promiscuity, and so forth are all part of being gay and the "diversity" of the gay community, and thus any criticism of either is "antigay".

This sort of enabling mentality explains why HIV-positive gay men are having bareback sex with uninfected individuals at an appalling rate, why gay and lesbian parents are dressing their children up as sexual slaves and taking them to the Folsom Street Fair for an "educational experience", and why gay and lesbian "rights" groups are demanding that the age of consent be kept as low as possible because it is "common" for gays to have sex with children seventeen years younger than they are; they know full well that they will have the support and endorsement of the gay community in the name of "diversity", no matter how perverse and stupid what they're doing is.


http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hscout/2007/12/03/hscout610571.html

http://xpress.sfsu.edu/archives/news/004352.html

http://www.xtra.ca/public/viewstory.aspx?AFF_TYPE=1&STORY_ID=4379&PUB_TEMPLATE_ID=9


"And I suppose needle-exchanges and outreach to injection drug users is "enablement" as well--which apparently works based on the evidence you were so quick to throw at us."

It is enablement of drug use.

The entertaining thing is that there are two ways to protect people against HIV transmission by needle stick; one is to simply swap needles and perpetuate the addiction, and the other is to stop the addiction and thus eliminate the possibility of the person using a dirty needle.

Of course, gay liberals supported the former; after all, the important part is making getting high safer. Everyone else should simply enable the addict; if children get stuck by the dirty needles they're leaving all over, that's OK, because we wouldn't want to CRITICIZE anyone for drug use.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/08/03/MN28RC9FL2.DTL&feed=rss.news

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | Dec 2, 2008 1:45:42 PM

"You claim to oppose using crystal meth, but "our community is diverse", so you won't do anything about it.

You claim to oppose barebacking, but "our community is diverse", so you won't do anything about it."

Don't tell me what I do and don't do, you don't know me or what campaigns I've been involved with. Your arrogance in presuming to know what I do or don't do is breathtaking. Obviously you haven't noticed the campaigns against these behaviors (or choose to ignore them because it doesn't fit your worldview).

"Bringing up Elliot Spitzer is an excellent example of the difference between gay and straight communities...blah, blah, blah"

Actually, even if your characterization were correct (it's not), it shows that straight people are more hypocritical than gay men (and that goes for the straight men who find same-sex action on the side). So there's no real difference in behavior, they're just louder when one of them gets caught. I'm not impressed with the "morality" you project onto the straight "community" (as if they even thought of themselves as a "community" lol).

Of course, your views on what "straight people" do are just as romantic as your views on what gay people do are bleak. No, there is not universal condemnation for all sex-scandals. You see what you want to see. Remember when Letorneau (female teacher) was caught having sex with her 13 year old student? What was many heterosexual men's reaction? Again, go jump in a lake.

"That is why heterosexuals get "humanized and individualized"; they have made it clear that they will loudly and publicly oppose the behavior of other people in their group, and thus they should be treated as individuals. Gays like yourself, on the other hand, make it clear that drug use, promiscuity, and so forth are all part of being gay and the "diversity" of the gay community, and thus any criticism of either is "antigay".

No, the former are humanized and the latter dehumanized because you are an anti-gay bigot who thinks we believe drug use and barebacking are ok.

"that's OK, because we wouldn't want to CRITICIZE anyone for drug use."

Or, we recognize that there are limits to preaching at a problem.

Posted by: Brian | Dec 2, 2008 5:16:40 PM

"Obviously you haven't noticed the campaigns against these behaviors (or choose to ignore them because it doesn't fit your worldview)."

Such as the campaign by gays to sue Pfizer because (they claim) the advertising for Viagra was forcing gays to have bareback sex AND Viagra itself was making it easier for crystal meth users to get erections.

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=42372

How about holding people who have bareback sex and use meth accountable for their own behavior? Oh right, that's not respecting the "diversity" of the gay community and is therefore "antigay". After all, that might make HIV-positive people who use drugs, have unprotected sex with others, and spread lethal diseases feel less than accepted and supported in their behavior, and those sort of "Victorian" and "self-loathing" attitudes just go against everything for which the gay community stands.

"Actually, even if your characterization were correct (it's not), it shows that straight people are more hypocritical than gay men"

Ah yes, the old, "I'm not doing anything wrong; everyone else is lying" theory. Since you can't defend your promiscuity, you claim that everyone else is promiscuous as well and lying about it.


"Remember when Letorneau (female teacher) was caught having sex with her 13 year old student? What was many heterosexual men's reaction?"

Given her arrest, trial, and conviction, it obviously wasn't overwhelming support.

In fact, LeTorneau wrote a book about the experience; oddly enough, no one in the United States would publish it, but she found plenty of support for her justification of having sex with children in Europe.

http://www.courttv.com/talk/chat_transcripts/Letourneau.html


Meanwhile, how about that Susan Wiseman?

http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=3188

"No, the former are humanized and the latter dehumanized because you are an anti-gay bigot who thinks we believe drug use and barebacking are ok."

Like I pointed out above, when confronted with the problems of drug abuse and bareback sex, your response is not to get upset over the fact that it was done or hold the individuals who carry it out responsible, but to try to blame, sue, and intimidate heterosexuals who had nothing to do with either into paying for the consequences of both.

What that makes obvious is that you think both are perfectly OK. You're merely concerned that someone else pay to clean up your messes.

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | Dec 2, 2008 8:39:04 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails