I think if anyone but december would have posted that OP, they wouldn’t have got any shit.
Here is the main point as posted:“I think this is terrific. Gay couples ought have have the same right as hetero couples, to have their union recognized. This sort of publcity could lead to a sensible law recognizing gay unions. As a side benefit, the Times reports may tend to encourage gay monogamy, which could help reduce the spread of AIDS.”
WTF is wrong with that? Maybe it’s the “gay monogamy, which could help reduce the spread of AIDS” line? So would het monogamy, which december should have mentioned.
I mean, he does have a bit of a point re monagamy, although it’s a little simplistic.
I think this is one of the rare times the dude should be cut some slack.
And Guin, gratuitous “Fuck You’s”, even in the Pit might add to your post count, but are basically lame.
Uh, I’m not that familiar with december’s views on various issues…
But his praising of the New York Times for recognizing gay unions is hardly worthy of all this flaming. Just what did he say in the OP that was so wrong?
I guess it’s fortunate that december started this in the Pit, though. It would have been put here anyway, due to the responses.
those of you who think he was tongue in cheek in the OP, I think you are wrong. I would lay odds that he was serious. And if that is the case, I see absolutely nothing wrong with the original post. If I’m right, IMO there are some apologies owed to december.
How refreshing that a bunch of self appointed arbiters of proper thinking can read a man’s mind and know exactly what he means. How wonderful that these right thinking people have the moral certainty to judge things based on their merits and not on any preconceived notions of the person who posted the statements. In short, while december may have a lot of really stupid and questionalbe posts, coupled with a posting style that borders on trolling, I see nothing to condem him for here, unless and until he expands on his statements and makes it obvious that they were meant as sarcasm. Until that time, those who have jumped all over december in this thread, for his statements made here,
Oh december. That was so lazy and ham handed. A whole sentence! If you have kept it to three words or less your position of PCesque piety could have been much more defensible, and you could had more fun with the SOP “Who me? What’d I say?” position. A whole sentence though… tsk…tsk, you need to sharpen up your mad gadflyin’ skillz.
Turn this
into this
You would have achieved your goal of the same level of simmering, suspicious pissed offedness at your intent and implication winding itself into high dudgeon, and your “but I’m just sayin’” position would have been much more defensible, leaving your opponents grumbling and frustrated at their inability to lay hands on your argument’s teflon hide. With that whole sentence flopping out there you have left your hapless gonads swaying in the breeze and now everyone is going to wander by for a kick.
You know what?? You people are nuts. I can’t believe december makes a sensible post (finally, after reading alot of his Israel stuff) and you go off on him. Now you’re just dissing the man, not the ideas, and you’re searching and scrounging for things in his post to attack.
So he mentioned gay people and AIDS in the same sentence…ooooooooh, how naughty! It’s been one of the keystone issues of gay activists for frickin’ years, but I guess when december takes note of that he’s being a dickhole, eh? I guess you can’t mention the danger of unprotected homosexual relations without adding the caveat “but of course that’s true for hetero couples also”, even though hetero couples weren’t under discussion at all, totally unrelated to the topic at hand??
I understand that gay people have had to put up with alot of moral indictment coming at them over the years. (Indictment that as an atheist I don’t take part in.) Newsflash: this wasn’t it. Every single thing I’ve read from december on the rights of homosexual couples has been progressive and favorable. This seemed to be an honest remark.
I find it disheartening that so few are willing to listen to a person’s words, the words he actually says rather than the words you so want to force into his mouth to demonize him. I have given december the respect of taking him at face value on this one. I would hope people might do the same for me, and so I extend this courtesy.
See, december, if you had included information like this in your OP, it would have looked a hell of a lot different.
Instead, you chose this: “As a side benefit, the Times reports may tend to encourage gay monogamy, which could help reduce the spread of AIDS.”
To me, this roughly reads as: “gays are more likely to engage in unprotected sex”.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I agree that tyhe acceptance of gay marriage promotes monogamy, and I also agree that monogamy decreases the risks of contracting an STD. But it’s all in how you word it. With your posting history, you have a lot to prove. Make sure you chose your words carefully, so that they’re not subject to misinterpretation.
The way you did it here, it just looked like the classic december style thread:[ul][li]Open a thread, link to an article, say you think it’s great;[]Close off your OP with a vaguely worded remark that is bound to be misinterpreted as inflammatory;[]Only qualify your statement when 300 normal posters or one moderator urge you to.[/ul]Further to that list, there was no clear debate in your OP, so it just didn’t qualify for GD.[/li]
You want to be taken seriously, december? Then avoid the pattern described above, and realise you’ve got bad reputation to work up against. That’s all the advise I can give you.
Actually, the OP was qualified after prompting by exactly ONE normal (?) poster and ONE moderator, and then immediately after this qualification, people started jumping in to say “fuck you.” And december is the one being chided here?
Why? Monogamy does decrease the risk of AIDS and other STDs. It’s not the only way to reduce transmission rates, but if you’re monogamous, and so is your partner, and neither of you have HIV or get it from something else, like infected needles, you’re not likely to get it from sexual contact, because you’re both only having sexual intercourse with someone who’s HIV-.
To me, it meant “unmarried people are more likely to be promiscuous.” Not something I believe to be true in all cases, but not something I’d consider inflammatory, either.
And, as mikan said, december did qualify his statement right after it was replied to by you and one other person (8 hours before your last post, I might add). And you didn’t “urge” him to do anything.
Yeah, december has built up a reputation. I think, however, that a number of people had already decided what to post before they even opened the thread.
In the Amsterdam-Yiddish dialect I’m familair with, it means something like “idiot” or “loser”.
Sublight, I can see how someone would interpret december’s sentence like you did. It’s just that with a little more effort, he can make sure those misunderstandings never occur - as per his second post in this thread. If he keeps posting things that look dubious at best, he’s going to have his reputation against him.
Of course, it’s not like December’s argument makes any sense.
1)Gay people who want to be monogamous are going to do so, one way or another.
2) The State of New York, to my knowledge, does not have laws against adultery.
3) Publication in the society column of the New York Times is not equivalent to legal recognition.
4) People who are predisposed to monogamy anyway are less at risk (not “at no risk”), whether they are married or not.
5) It would be (indeed, has proven to be) much more effective to promote safer sex techniques to those most at risk, given that this is a contagion we’re dealing with, not just an individual social problem like alcoholism.
6) The New York Times society page is printed on porous newsprint and not medical-grade latex and therefore should not be used as a barrier method for the prevention of disease, whether or not it has gay wedding announcements printed on it.
But for that, I don’t find myself disposed to doubt the OP’s earnestness - praying that this will prove a justified posture.
I think the OP is largely compassionate (of course, he couldn’t resist getting in a snipe that sounds at best patronising), but come on - it’s a step in the right direction. Well done.
Coldfire, I agree with you on your last post. I see his post more as clumsy wording than bad intent. While his reputation from earlier threads could certainly sway a reading toward believe it was the latter rather than the former, I was disappointed by Guin’s reply.
Well, I think that there’s something not yet mentioned here, about the Grey Lady. When the Times does something… everyone listens. Because of this, many, many, many other papers are going to pick up the convention.
I’d like to thank Mr. Raines for, if not innovating, leading the way, and not following after. I’m wondering, frankly, if he hasn’t wanted to do this for a while, because the timing of it and the law passed in NYC legalizing… bad word. Affirming, perhaps? gay ‘marriage’, is really quite close.
Do you believe him when he says he meant to post in Great Debates? I don’t. Nor do I believe the AIDS comment was an afterthought: I think the rest of the post was composed in a clumsy attempt at cover. It’s not his reputation, it’s his history as a poster.