A new sport: Anti-trolling - a known inflammatory poster posts something sane, in the attempt to generate a pile on.
I’ll have to be careful what I think before I post…there are a remarkable number of people on here who are apparently psychic.
I don’t know december, and I haven’t gone out of my way to see what’s offensive about december OR his writing OR viewpoints. Therefore, when I read the OP…particularly after having seen thread TITLES directed at december…my thought was, “Wow, nice post, what’s it doing in the Pit?”
Not everyone who reads the boards is an enduring, long-term member, and to those who have come in recently or who haven’t really cared about december’s record, this looks like nothing more nor less than a mean-spirited pile-on with the occasional voice of reason throwing in a small rebuttal.
Now, if december should come back into this thread and start being an irredeemable bastard, yeah, I’ll throw right in.
Unfortunately, Guin’s short, blunt reply containing nothing more than an unexplained obscenity doesn’t surprise me in the least.
December is at worst stretching his point. This is deserving of a “Fuck You?”
I think Howell Raines did the right thing. I also think it’s an incredibly minor issue, and is very unlikely to encourage gay monogamy. (Ooh, honey, no sleeping around, we’ve got to make the society page!) However, when NY gets gay unions, publishing those might actually make a difference.
Anyhow, December, you said “May” and you used an apostrophe correctly, so despite your prior record of idiocies, I think you’ve been treated pretty shabbily here.
Oh shit, I always try to respond to the OP even when I only FEEL like responding to the thread as a whole, and I forgot to this time.
I agree that this is a big step…the line “This sort of publcity could lead to a sensible law recognizing gay unions” is dead on. When sheltered folks who don’t even SEE gay couples can read announcements in the paper regarding unions between loving individuals, it provides more opportunity to reflect on why it’s such a big deal in the first place…and, with luck, why it shouldn’t be.
Translation: This might be just the thing for those promiscuous, disease-ridden gay people.
Gee, where would anybody get the idea that december was playing on stereotypes yet again?
So the Pit rules are going to forbid “pulling up a lawn chair” posts, but not gratuitous insults regardless of what the OP says.
And matt_mcl - yours are the arguments that make no sense.
Monogamy is safer sex. And one of the reasons that AIDS has been less common amongst heterosexuals is that monogamy is so much more common amongst married people.
Nor did december claim that printing notices in the New York Times constituted a legal marriage. For you to argue that he did is the most ridiculous form of straw man argumentation.
What the hell is wrong with you people? Do you do searches on the names of the members you dislike, and automatically post “F**k you” no matter what they say? Or are there secret mind rays that tell you that when someone says one thing, they really mean exactly the opposite?
I second the request to move this to Great Debates. At least there, certain posters will not feel the freedom to behave like a**holes that they do in the Pit.
Regards,
Shodan
A boy and a wolf comes to mind…
minty, if I didn’t know december’s style, I might give him a bit more leeway. So pretending I don’t know who started this thread, I did a quick search, and perhaps the OP is not necessarily dealing with stereotypes:
You’re reaching. One of the arguments that’s been proposed for gay marriage, and for gay rights in general, is that the way our society is set up, we encourage, both legally, and socially, monogamy and fidelity among straight couples, by institutions like marriage, while our society encourages promiscuity for gay people, by subjecting gay people who are honest about their sexuality and want to be in a committed relationship with someone to discrimination and harrassment.
You might disagree with the argument, or even with the assumption it makes that monogamy should be encouraged. However, that doesn’t make it bigoted.
Freaking hell, he would not be offended by that statement. I’ve heard him say virtually the same thing to counter the moronic arguments from fundies arguing against gay unions, recently. If a former editor of the Advocate would not be offended, where does the absurdly vulgar hostility come from?
Hello. Gay men die in droves from AIDS. AIDS is often sexually transmitted. To not relate promiscuity to AIDS is to not relate the number of trigger pulls to deaths from russian roulette.
The statement had TWO, count them, TWO qualifiers - “may” and “could.” Leapinjezjehosaphat, fighting ignorance does not mean putting words in december’s mouth.
I need to weigh in here on the side of december, shodan, and jjimm.
AIDS is, as has been obvious to most intelligent people for some time, a major problem. Though modern treatments lead to prolonged survival, it remains incurable.
Jillgat has brought up the wide variety of modes of contagion in past threads on it. And numerous of our gay members have found it offensive that every time someone mentions being gay, they immediately get warned about AIDS – as though it does not affect anyone, gay or straight, druggie or straight, who engages in the specific behaviors that cause contagion (which can include getting a blood transfusion, lest somebody think “specific behaviors” is making a moral judgment) with a person or object that can carry HIV.
I had seen that article which jjimm referenced. Though the well-informed and intelligent gay members of this board (and the well-informed and intelligent straight members of this board) do not need further warning, apparently there is a significant group of young gay men who do.
To the extent that the New York Times carries some influence in the national community – and it does – what December said, albeit less than perfectly phrased, is true – encouragement and recognition of monogamous same-sex couples will help to reduce the risk of infection, and promote fairer treatment of gay people by helping lay the groundwork for changes in the laws that now discriminate against them.
Sorry if this does not fit into what your ideal world would consist of. In a world where supposedly intelligent religious leaders can seriously suggest that all gay people are potential pedophiles and laws make active gays felons in over a dozen states, where there are U.S. Congressmen actively trying to pass a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as between one man and one woman and outlaw recognition of anything else – and where people catch AIDS through ignorance – it’s not an unreasonable comment to make.
Although, december, it did sound a trifle supercilious and snide in the way it was phrased.
Thank you jjimm. Maybe I give the folks on this Board too much credit. My spouse does a alot of professional work in the field of AIDS statistics, and she works with a gay men’s anti-AIDS group, so I pay attention to this sort of thing.
For those who didn’t know it, in the US the HIV virus is primarily spread through gay men and their sex partners (including female sex-partners of bi’s) and through those who share needles in intravenous drug use and their sex partners.
The cut-off title of the above post should read:
If we’re not permitted to discuss a problem, how can we solve it?
Whoa, december.
The last round of statistics I saw were:
48% through unprotected gay sex
~5% through both UGS and intravenous drugs
… which leaves 47% from other causes than gay sex.
Granted it’s the largest single mode of contagion, but by no means is AIDS “primarily spread” by UGS – unless your definition of “primary” simply means plurality.
Precisely so. Nobody’s disputing that gay men have higher rates of HIV-infection, or that monogamy seriously reduces one’s chances of acquiring the virus.
But if you compile a list of reasons why we should recognize gay marriage, promoting monogamy and fighting AIDS aren’t even in the top 50 on that list. Highlighting that argument is just ridiculous–unless, of course he’s just looking to provoke a response, then play the victim. Again.
Thank you, Beagle. The statement even had a third qualifier, “tend to.”
It’s even worse than that. Truth is an offence. A comment implying something clearly false, e.g., that gay men tend to be overweight, would be less offensive.
Polycarp, am I missing something? Your statistics appear to show that 48% + 5% = 53% were through gay sex or intravenous drugs. That’s a majority, not just a plurality. Also, I had included their female sex partners. With that addition, it’s a larger majority than 53%. I don’t know what the numbers are on that last category, but my wife does come across quite a few of these women at her hospital in Newark, NJ.
Right, that’s why the OP said it was “a side benefit.”
shaking his head in confusion
Erm, can someone help me out here? December’s OP seemed reasonable enough - a little patronising maybe, if I was looking to be offended, but nothing bad.
if you count “tend.” BTW, december, my support is contingent on your sincerity. I have no reason to believe that you are baiting homosexuals at this point. I could be wrong, but I don’t think I am. If I am wrong, I am off this ship faster than a burning rat.
I have no idea what it is like to be discriminated against, except perhaps by Louis Farrakan and his ilk. I bet I would hate it. This may explain why some people are so sensitive to these issues. If it looks like a duck, etc. Although, I must say, it did not look like a duck to me.
I dunno, I find the idea that a gay monogamous union being accepted by society at large making it any more monogamous to be fairly condescending. How many heterosexual couples cheat on each other, get divorced etc… and their union is equally valid. 50% of marriages end in divorce, and I am sure of the 50% that don’t end in divorce there are people who cheat on their spouses. I don’t see how mainstream recognition has anything to do with the spread of AIDS.
Erek
I need some medication.
Anyway, I think that if gay folks want to unionize, its just hokay with me. Later peeps.