Mswas – you’re not wrong. It IS fairly condescending to consider social recognition to have a LARGE impact on monogamy.
However, it is possible, and even likely that it would have a SMALL impact on monogamy. Certainly the larger point put forth, that social recognition (or approval) of unioned-couples would have a beneficial effect on monogamy and therefore the spread of STD’s, is a common and sensible one.
er, specifically that the social recognition contained in the NY times Union Section would have the LARGE impact is the condescending part. Who reads that stuff, anyway?
Perhaps because he has a history of being condescending and patronizing?
Perhaps I should have explained myself better, but I still think it’s snotty.
Guinastasia -
If that was an apology, try again.
If it was an explanation or attempt at justification, try again.
If it was a self-parody, well done.
Regards,
Shodan
Matt_mcl:
It seems to me that you can’t have it both ways with points # 1 & # 5- Isn’t a monogomous relationship with a disease-free partner a safer sex technique? By your logic, could you say that “Gay people who want to be disease free are going to do so, one way or another.”?
Polycarp- I was under the impression that “primarily” does mean a plurality, not necessarily over 50% of the total.
and Guinastasia:
As opposed to the witty reparte that is “Fuck you”?
Speaking of snotty. . . . .
Do you seriously think that a gay person who wants to be living in a committed relationship is not doing so because it’s not legally recognized? Some of us have been living in committed relationships for quite some time now.
Monogamy is a safer sex technique, but it isn’t the only safer sex technique. Without stepping in that pile again, some of us on the boards have managed to remain disease-free for quite some time without being monogamous. Why? Because we have been educated about safer sex techniques.
It is tenuous at best to suppose that there are vast hordes of gay men who are saying, “Well, I would be monogamous except it’s not legally recognized, so I’ll go fuck around now.” It is even more tenuous to suppose that there were gay men who were saying, “Well, I could be monogamous except that my relationship wouldn’t be on the society pages of the New York Times, so I’ll go fuck around now.”
Furthermore, a relationship should be based on love, possibly with the desire to raise a family. Basing it on the prevention of disease is not such a great reason.
…I can’t read this thread without weighing in. Sorry.
I don’t think december has earned the “fuck you’s” in this thread that he’s been given. Granted, I’m not very familiar with his posts–he seems to have some sort of history. Be that as it may, judging by his words, he doesn’t seem be be engaging in offensive behavior.
I think that his comment about AIDS is more about misinformation, lack of complete understanding, and extrapolating things too far. In this case, wouldn’t educating him (as matt_mcl tried to do) just a bit more productive than saying “Fuck you?”
I mean, the facts are pretty off, but his sentiment seems to be relatively in the right place.
It is truly unfair to make this into another december bash-fest. Why, the OP suggests he has morphed into a truly enlightened New Jersey Renaissance Man. At least if you ignore the condescending little parting shot.
Guin, I believe your initial sentiment is now completely appropriate.
I see in the 8/19 USA Today* (datelined Hackensack) that New Jersey officials are bracing for a major upsurge in the HIV infection rate, due to a tripling in the number of heroin users aged 18-25. The obvious solution is to get the N.Y. Times society page to start featuring the activities of heroin addicts.
*Don’t look at me like that. It has a good sports section.
Marriage and monogamy have nothing to do with eachother.
I don’t see the correlation in either the gay or the straight communitys.
Straight people cheat on eachother, straight people have open relationships, gay people cheat on eachother, gay people have open relationships.
Most of the gay guys I know who fuck around are in relationships with another guy who likes to fuck around. Similarly most of the gay guys I know who don’t fuck around are in or want to be in a relationship with somone who doesn’t fuck around.
Matt, I don’t know about you, but where I grew up and went to college as an undergrad, if you were gay, you kept your mouth shut. Freshman year, my roommate and I had known each other a month, when we were talking about music, and I mentioned I liked Billy Joel and Elton John. He said he liked Joel, but not John. When I asked why he didn’t like Elton John, he said, “Because Elton John’s homosexual”.
A friend of mine, who wasn’t even gay, was jumped at night by a few people, because they thought he was gay, because he (he was the head of the student film club) had made a film encouraging tolerance for gay people.
This was the envirnment I came out in. One or two of my gay friends were dating…had boyfriend or girlfriends, but there was no way in hell I was going to get in a relationship. I wasn’t brave enough to risk having a relationship, and thus my gayness publicly known. There was a gay bar near the school, though, where I could have, if I was so inclined, picked up a trick for the night, and I seriously considered it, even though I never did. This isn’t ancient history, btw. This is just 5-6 years ago.
Announcements of gay unions in the NYT aren’t going to magically cause non-monogamous people to enter into monogamous relationships, but the fact that the Times is doing that is both a sign that society is growing more tolerant of homosexuality, and may help to encourage society to grow more tolerant of homosexuality, and that might encourage people like I was at 20, who would otherwise be too scared to get into a relationship, to do so.
If you don’t want to be monogamous, that’s fine, but realize that one of the reasons some gay people who otherwise would be aren’t is due to insecurity and fear about how their society will react to them.
Marriage has nothing to do with monogamy?
Seems to me that’s one of the covenants. Cite?
I guess I just don’t have your perspective on it, Captain. From where I’m sitting, sexual freedom != monogamy, and announcements in the NY Times != an effective method for the prevention of the transmission of HIV. That’s all.
Couple of points:
First, it was my impression, and I gathered December’s as well, that Times recognition and publicity for such unions would have a beneficial long-term effect in terms of familiarizing the Teeming Millions with gay/Lesbian couples who chose monogamy.
Second, I confess to a personal bias in favor of committed relationships, while respecting people’s right to do what they choose. The idea that this might be one more small step in (a) encouraging two gay people in love to make a permanent public commitment and (b) encouraging society as a whole to accept that commitment as a valid relationship and not “something that tears away at the fabric of our marriage customs” or whatever the current rhetoric is calling it, strikes me as an excellent idea.
My assumption if something is described as the “primary cause” or primary whatever is that a landslide-level majority, at least 75% and more probably in the neighborhood of 90%, of the results are caused by that particular cause. That is why I questioned December’s statement – which I see I did not read thoroughly.
The figures I quoted were from memory of a 1998 set of statistics for the U.S., I think from the CDC. But it’s worth noting in this regard that the overwhelming majority of AIDS cases worldwide are in subSaharan Africa and predominantly among promiscuous heterosexual people there. I don’t have exact figures, but the U.S. numbers for persons with AIDS are slightly less than a million, and Africa has on the order of 30 million cases. (Second place goes to southern and southeast Asia, in the low teens of millions.)
All right, so I “fucked” up, so to speak.
That being said, what difference does it make? He never listens to reason. It’s like arguing with a brick wall.
HA!
Never did I think that I would type these words:
Lay off december you grumpy piss-pots, he really didn’t mean any harm with this one.
On the other hand I have to say it again december; try, please try to choose your words better. Think of how others read your posts as well.
I can even see where to december is reasoning here. More publicity equals more acceptance equals easier to lead a normal life, which could, possibly, maybe motivate more stable relationships. Granted that this is no goal in itself, nor is it the Alexander chop that will cut the Aids epidemic… There is another side though; stable relationships might not be the goal for everyone, but for some people still stuck in the closet who only wish that they could live in a steady relationship, but do not dare, any increased acceptance has to be good.
As for fighting HIV there is also what matt_mcl said; that it isn’t legal partnerships that reduces HIV, but education and understanding of safer sex. On the other hand education and understanding is a lot easier in an environment where openness is encouraged… the Times announcing partnerships is not even close to a smidgeon of a panacea in that direction, but it’s a baby step towards where we want to end up…
Sparc
Gettin’ closer Guin. Could you possibly admit you were in the wrong without adding yet another jab?
Look, I know I was wrong, all right. But I don’t care. I still meant what I said.
Why can’t I be a shithead once in a while?
Why do I always have to be perfect?
“Could you possibly admit you were in the wrong without adding yet another jab?”
Apparently not.
Fortunately, the rest of this thread seems to have turned mostly civil. It looks as though the biggest problem is one of perspective (well DUH, fucking GENIUS…imagine OPINION being based on PERSPECTIVE. Unfortunately I do not have the ocular limberness necessary to roll my eyes at myself). It seems as though the general consensus is that december could have been less inflammatory in the OP…but I think there’s an exaggerated reaction because of december’s apparent history.
Having done nothing but state the obvious, I shall now take my leave.
the crowd goes wild
Sorry, Sparcy, but based on some of the responses, it makes no difference what december says or how he says it - they aren’t listening.
I don’t frankly see how he could have put his post differently enough not to give offense. I am sorry to say that some were offended after they read who started the thread.
Regards,
Shodan (who is still giddy at being mentioned for the first time in a thread title - I am easily thrilled)