While I mostly agree with this statement, do you thing “no concern for the welfare of others” applies in this case? Consent, assuming full disclosure, should count for something.
If you think guys are consulting their doctors before they trick, you’re living in a fantasy land. Most gay guys trick on a moment’s notice.
Second, NOBODY should knowingly pass on their viruses to another person. Period. There is no case for disagreement here. Unsafe sex is off-limits for everyone, but especially for poz guys.
Nope, no change of heart. Sullivan’s still wrong and a jerk.
I wasn’t addressing “guys”, I was addressing Sullivan (whom you likened to a murderer).
Everyone, eh? Looks like Santorum’s not the only one telling us how to behave in private…
Unsafe sex is a Bad Thing-- do you have some relevant argument
to contradict this ?
No, but the implication wasn’t that it’s Bad, but that it’s Wrong (even with mutual consent). Stupid? Yeah, maybe. Morally wrong? Again, I don’t agree.
In the first editorial, he is claiming that war isn’t a gay issue. Or, at least it isn’t a gay issue when it comes to protesting the war.
In the second, he’s banging a drum, trying to get gay people on board for the war.
It’s okay as a gay man to be for the war, because look at the unsubstatiated claims he makes about gays in Iraq.
But, to be against the war… it’s not a gay issue and we should stop being divisive.
What a load of bullshit from this toady kiss-ass(in the bad way).
No he isn’t. He says it’s not an issue specifically for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. In other words (as I already said), the ‘anti-war’ movement was no more a place for an organisation concerned with a single, not-related cause to be than, say, ‘Save the Whales’
Sure, as individuals within the wider society.
I don’t understand why this is so difficult to grasp. And I don’t even like Andrew Bloody Sullivan !
Let’s change the premise a bit.
Let’s say that Bush had advocated going to war against The Netherlands, which has legalized same-sex marriage and prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. Let’s further say that NGLTF and Andrew Sullivan both oppose the war and NGLTF joins a coalition against the war. Would Sullivan damn NGLTF for joining the coalition in that instance? Given his silence in the face of Log Cabin Republicans support for the Iraq war, I believe not.
It’s OK for individuals to vocalize on the war but not groups? Who does Sullivan think composes groups if not individuals? Sullivan wants to dictate what is and isn’t a “gay issue” based on what he believes about the issue. If opposing the war isn’t a gay issue then it’s ridiculously disingenuous to cite gay oppression (in a territory not being warred upon at the moment by the U.S. no less) as reason to support it.
I’ve never heard that the LCR are specifically dedicated to the advancement of gay rights as much as they are simply a collection of gays who happen to be Republicans. The LCR don’t pretend to speak for the gay community the way the NGLTF does.
Here’s what would have been hypocritical: if Sullivan specifically took the NGLTF to task for not supporting the war, using the “gay oppression” angle as a reason. Blasting them for taking any stand, and then promoting that they take a particular stand would be talking out of both sides of his mouth.
But he doesn’t do that. In the first article, he lists many other issues the NGLTF takes stands on that have nothing to do with the advancement of gay rights in America. The war is just one of many he takes them to task for. I’m not crazy about some of the rhetoric he uses in the 2nd article, but that’s hyperbole, not hypocrisy.
From the LCR Mission statement:
So I would say that they pretty clearly believe they speak for the gay and lesbian community and that their primary mission is gay and lesbian equality.
And again, where is the criticism of the gay conservative group for taking a position on the war that happens to match up with Sullivan’s? Even if one were to grant that Sullivan was doing nothing more in the first article than stating that gay groups shouldn’t take stands on non-gay issues (which I don’t) his failure to task groups other than NGLTF reveals that it’s the stance on the issue, not the issue itself, which he’s attacking under the guise of criticising groups for taking stands.
The title of the first editorial is about war not being a gay issue.
Why is that so difficult for you to grasp?
And Sullivan is again being disingenuous. Especially in light of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” war is very much a gay issue.
He brings in the big lie about how gays are treated in Iraq, and yet the gays who are in the military are more oppressed by trying to protect their country and serve their Commander and Thief.