Gay Marriage Down in Flames!

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Even in places like California, there is a huge backlash and discrimination and hatred every day.

Discrimination may have something to do with it, but there’s no data to support widespread homosexual abuse. There were 1500 anti-gay crimes last year out of a US population of over 300 million. I think the majority of “discrimination” they claim to experience stems from the projection of their anxieties and depressions over risky their behavior onto others. Straights make a great scapegoat.

Go down south and walk around holding hands with a guy. I’m sure you’ll be treated just the same as you would otherwise, and you’ll have first hand proof that all of the “discrimination” gays face is just them bein mean to you poor nice straight folk.[/quote]

True. Plus, the position that there’d be no marked increased incidences of depression and anxiety absent overt violence makes no sense. Being hated and reviled is certainly reason enough to cause psychological issues whether or not your face gets bashed in.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:

Society sends the wrong message which counter acts any sort of “education” that might be taking place. Tiny brained liberals like yourself don’t get it and never will.

[/quote]

I’m beginning to believe that libs and gays are either brain damaged, or a different species from us. That’s why they try and capture governments, to push their agendas and destroy the real people. Its really like something from ‘Invasion of the Body Snatchers’.

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

Beware of false prophets, who come to you dressed up as sheep while underneath they are savage wolves. You will recognize them by their fruit.

[/quote]

Are you talking about Obama?

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

The correct response is to advocate that male homosexuals be aware of the increased risk of STIs with their sexual behavior, encouraged to use safe sex practices, and get tested regularly.

At this point you’d have to be a moron to not fully grasp the fact that unprotected sex can lead to being HIV positive. But homosexuals still don’t get it.

According to the Center for Disease Control the rise in HIV/AIDS in “men who have sex with men” has risen 11% in 2005 (latest stat) over 2001.Homosexuals made up 68% of all men living with HIV in 2005.

All this in the face of spending tens of millions on “education”.

Are they morons?

San Fransico alone spends big bucks on “education” at a level where you’d think it would help.

For example…

100% of all San Francisco Middle School kids are taught about “safe sex” and how to avoid becoming HIV positive…did it help?

Did it turn back the tide?

No.

Society sends the wrong message which counter acts any sort of “education” that might be taking place. Tiny brained liberals like yourself don’t get it and never will.

[/quote]

Listen, Troll, you’ve already proven you aren’t worthy of actual responses.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

The correct response is to advocate that male homosexuals be aware of the increased risk of STIs with their sexual behavior, encouraged to use safe sex practices, and get tested regularly.

At this point you’d have to be a moron to not fully grasp the fact that unprotected sex can lead to being HIV positive. But homosexuals still don’t get it.

According to the Center for Disease Control the rise in HIV/AIDS in “men who have sex with men” has risen 11% in 2005 (latest stat) over 2001.Homosexuals made up 68% of all men living with HIV in 2005.

All this in the face of spending tens of millions on “education”.

Are they morons?

San Fransico alone spends big bucks on “education” at a level where you’d think it would help.

For example…

100% of all San Francisco Middle School kids are taught about “safe sex” and how to avoid becoming HIV positive…did it help?

Did it turn back the tide?

No.

Society sends the wrong message which counter acts any sort of “education” that might be taking place. Tiny brained liberals like yourself don’t get it and never will.

Listen, Troll, you’ve already proven you aren’t worthy of actual responses.

You have NO response to my comments because they’re true.

I’ve been reading your worthless tripe for a while now and when presented with facts you shriek back like a little girl under fire.

Then again I could be wrong little girls may have more backbone than that.

Ha…

[/quote]

Ok, you want a response? Here:

Last night Jon and I attended the Norah Jones concert at a venue called Red Butte Garden, a open field on the side of a mountain overlooking the Salt Lake valley. Seating at Red Butte is general admission, meaning you sit wherever you can find a patch of grass to park your ass, and you can bring anything in, including wine, beer, blankets, lawn chairs, even brown leather braided loafers without socks to match your brown leather braided belt holding up your cut-off denim shorts.

Last night we got to sit in the VIP section, a small rectangular area directly in front of the stage with upright white folding chairs, because our friend, Pat, knows the drummer, the bassist, and the guitarist in Norah’s band. For two exquisitely pleasant hours we sat facing the middle of the stage while sucking watermelon Jolly Ranchers, a suitable alternative to white wine, and listened to Norah’s voice drip like honey onto sandpaper. It was one of those sublime Utah summer nights where it’s almost chilly enough for a sweater, but warm enough that you can smell the neck of the lover sitting beside you, and the sun fell behind the mountains to the west in electric orange and plum-colored folds. It was a perfect night, and I haven’t even gotten to the part where I went on a joyride in a golf cart with Norah Jones.

The venue was packed with earthy non-Mormon Utah types, people who live here despite, not because of the religion. Everyone had some sort of alcoholic beverage in their hand, something they’d brought from home or bummed off the person sitting next to them, mostly white or red wine, a pint of lager here and there, and the mass level of slight inebriation made for one of the most sedate concert crowds I’ve ever witnessed. No one heckled the band or screamed out songs they wanted to hear, and the only interaction between Norah and the crowd took place when the entire left side of the venue pleaded with her to get the security guards to throw a blanket over a bush so that they could see her better. She kept repeating, almost muttering to herself after that, “Blanket on the bush? Blanket on the bush? You know, whatever floats your boat…”

The VIP section of the crowd was a virtual who’s who of Utah celebrity. Although I was disappointed that there was no Osmond sighting, we sat directly behind Channel 5 news anchor Keith McCord. While Keith is certainly no Jillian Barberie, he does have one of the most beguiling mustaches on the planet, and in a state where facial hair is considered an outward signifier of “evil doing,” those of us who do evil on a regular basis appreciate his high-profile representation. Plus, he wasn’t wearing socks, so there’s that.

Perhaps even more significant than Keith, however, was the presence of “The Bachelor 2” contestant Kyla Faye, the blonde Mormon looker who says on her website, “When I take that next ‘big step,’ I will marry in the Temple, which does require that my mate be of the same faith,” meaning somone who, like herself and not like bachelor Aaron Beurge, hasn’t engaged in pre-martial sex. You’ll be happy to know that Kyla was happily intertwined with a strapping young man wearing a woolen beanie, in the desert. It really warms my heart to know that you CAN find love after reality television eats you up and spits you to the curb, although it probably helped that she’s had an obnoxiously large breast augmentation and was wearing a white v-neck cotton shirt cut to her navel. Mormons may not be able to have pre-marital sex, but it doesn’t say ANYWHERE in the scriptures that they can’t walk around looking like over-priced, sun-baked hookers. GO KYLA!

Norah and her band played most of the songs off her multi-Grammy winning album, and her voice is a thousand times more remarkable live than any recording could ever capture. They played several covers, including one of my favorite songs, a tune called “She” by Gram Parsons. I don’t have the original recording, nor one of Norah singing this song, but I do have this version (mp3 now unavailable) by The Pretenders and Emmylou Harris, and you really should listen to it.

After the concert we followed our friend Pat to the aftershow party at a large greenhouse-type room up the hill from the venue. The room was littered with half-eaten food, including chicken, gravy, veggies, cheesecake, soda, and chips, and within seconds of stepping foot in the building the pregnant demon inside of me couldn’t keep its face out of the cheesecake. There I stood surrounded by members of Norah’s band, civilized people who use words like “amenable” and talk about Unreal Tournament, and instead of making small talk or kissing ass I stuffed my face with stale cheesecake, skipping utensils and napkins altogether. I also stole a $40 bottle of Napa Valley Silverado Chardonnay out of their cooler, something I plan to drink in a year-and-a-half when I’ve weaned the baby off breast-feeding, or perhaps sooner once I’ve mastered the whole horrific pumping mechanism. All I know is I will one day be able to drink alcoholic beverages again, and when that day comes, what better way to celebrate than with an illicit bottle of wine I poached from a rockstar with great tits?

I eventually ran out of cheesecake to eat (or more accurately, the wait staff had to tear the cheesecake platter out of my trembling hands to clean up for the evening), and jumped into conversations my husband was having with the drummer and the guitarist, two very lovely, sickeningly talented people who were way too sober to be on tour. The guitarist, an artist named Adam Levy, talked at length with my husband and me, mostly about some recordings he’d done in Memphis. I had remarked to Jon during the concert that he looked like a computer geek on stage, and that during the guitar solos it was stunning to hear such wondrous sounds coming from someone who seemed that he would be totally preoccupied with RSS validators. It was like that moment last season on “American Idol” when Clay Aiken opened his mouth for the first time and we all felt like we were part of the human race, beautiful and fragile, if not totally fucking annoying. Adam has that sort of mind-blowing talent, and he was so nice to us, so friendly and talkative that when he touched my belly WITHOUT MY PERMISSION, twice within the span of five minutes, niether Jon nor I bit his hand off or broke his arm.

After about an hour of milling about the after party and talking with the band, wherein Norah appeared and disappeared three or four times, everyone headed outside to wait for the VIP golf cart to show up and take everyone back to the tour bus. The drummer suggested that we wait with the band instead of walking all the way back to the parking lot, but Jon and Pat, not wanting to appear leech-like or ungrateful, refused the offer saying that we’d be fine walking back by ourselves. I, however, have no problem appearing leech-like or ungrateful, and instantly mentioned to the drummer that I was pregnant and probably shouldn’t walk back in the dark because that would be bad for the baby. I figured, I’m only going to be pregnant two or three or seven times, and if my baby is going to use me for nutrients for the next five months, why not use it to score a golf cart ride with Norah Jones? I can guarantee you that any child of mine would see the logic in this reasoning.

(Note: Here is where I suddenly and inexplicably switch from past to present tense. I’m pretty sure it has nothing to do with my raging laziness, even though I’m pretty lazy and that would explain everything. I just think that this part of the story reads better when it sounds like it is happening right now, so please forgive me this brazen disregard for form. It certainly isn’t the first time.)

So the golf cart eventually shows up, and everyone in the band piles on, except for the drummer who gives up his seat so that I don’t have to walk. And it turns out there isn’t enough room for Jon or Pat anyway, so they get to walk back in the dark content in their un-leech-likedness, manhood still intact. And I happen to be sitting directly behind Norah who looks back at me and smiles like, I’m smiling because I’m friendly, not because I have any idea who you are. And she says, “Are you the one who’s pregnant?” And I know that she can see straight through me, that

I’m a total leech and that I’m so much of a leech that I would use my unborn baby to score a ride on a golf cart with her, and I nod, afraid that if I open my mouth to say anything the blood I’ve been sucking from her band members all night might drip from my leech-like fangs.

So she turns back around and the golf cart starts motoring down the mountain, as fast as its little golf cart motor can go. And the moon is bright, and the breeze is perfect as it comes down the canyon, and I’m sitting behind Norah Jones on a motherfucking golf cart. And 30 seconds into the ride as we round a tree-covered corner, about seven members of the tour group, roadies and managers and sound technicians, they all come SCREAMING out of the bushes like crazed, ferocious werewolves. And the golf cart almost goes careening off into a ravine, and I almost poop my pants.

And after everyone on the golf cart regains composure including the banjo player who was making a strange high-pitched shrieking noise, Norah turns around, eyes on FIRE, the hair on the back of her neck standing straight on end, and she reaches back to cover my stomach and screams, “THIS WOMAN IS PREGNANT, YOU IDIOTS!” And in that moment I felt so accepted, so understood, that she had welcomed me and all my leechiness into her glorious rockstar world and had forgiven me for stealing that bottle of Chardonnay. And even though we don’t know yet whether we’re having a boy or a girl, I have officially decided that regardless of the sex, this baby will be named Norah Jones Armstrong.

Hahaha, excellent. Here’s hoping baby Norah will be a girl!

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Hey, I’m for gay rights. But I still don’t understand the high percentage of people having unsafe sex in the gay community in this day and age. It makes no sense. Of course I encourage safe practices. I don’t even understand while this needs encouragement and isn’t treated as matter of course as brushing your teeth.[/quote]

I think there are probably a few reasons for this (all conjecture on my part, certainly). Firstly, as I pointed out earlier in this thread, the main limiting factor (IMO) in the spread of STIs in the heterosexual community is the frequency with which women turn men down. Removing women from the equation results in more sexual activity, and the increased rates. Also, in my experience, women are generally the ones encouraging the guy to wear a rubber.

Secondly, I think the psychological effects of the act being often demonized and, at very least, taboo, makes gays less likely to use safe practices. To make a very rough analogy, when you decide to pig out during a diet, you don’t check the nutritional information or ingredients of the food you’re eating; if you’ve gone through discrimination most of the time for being gay, why would you settle for “getting less” out of sex by wearing a condom or, even worse, pass up the opprotunity for lack of proper supplies?

Lastly, I generally think most people don’t see themselves as “at risk”, straight or gay. STIs, like cancer or other illnesses, oftentimes get filed in the “other people” folder: we know it happens, but when it happens to us or someone close to us, it’s still a shock because its not supposed to happen to us, dammit.

What do you think?

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

Hey, I’m for gay rights. But I still don’t understand the high percentage of people having unsafe sex in the gay community in this day and age. It makes no sense. Of course I encourage safe practices. I don’t even understand while this needs encouragement and isn’t treated as matter of course as brushing your teeth.[/quote]

Not enough sex ed. in the formative years! Time to target the kindergartners!

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Hey, I’m for gay rights. But I still don’t understand the high percentage of people having unsafe sex in the gay community in this day and age. It makes no sense. Of course I encourage safe practices. I don’t even understand while this needs encouragement and isn’t treated as matter of course as brushing your teeth.

I think there are probably a few reasons for this (all conjecture on my part, certainly). Firstly, as I pointed out earlier in this thread, the main limiting factor (IMO) in the spread of STIs in the heterosexual community is the frequency with which women turn men down.

Removing women from the equation results in more sexual activity, and the increased rates. Also, in my experience, women are generally the ones encouraging the guy to wear a rubber.

Secondly, I think the psychological effects of the act being often demonized and, at very least, taboo, makes gays less likely to use safe practices. To make a very rough analogy, when you decide to pig out during a diet, you don’t check the nutritional information or ingredients of the food you’re eating;

If you’ve gone through discrimination most of the time for being gay, why would you settle for “getting less” out of sex by wearing a condom or, even worse, pass up the opprotunity for lack of proper supplies?

Lastly, I generally think most people don’t see themselves as “at risk”, straight or gay. STIs, like cancer or other illnesses, oftentimes get filed in the “other people” folder: we know it happens, but when it happens to us or someone close to us, it’s still a shock because its not supposed to happen to us, dammit.

What do you think?[/quote]

I’ve read that it’s a thrill-seeking behavior. There is peer pressure within certain social groups to engage in high risk behavior.

Analogies might be driving too fast to beat someone coming off of a red light or eating the worm at the bottom of a tequila bottle. Things you wouldn’t do if left to your own devices, but will if someone’s looking or taunting.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Hey, I’m for gay rights. But I still don’t understand the high percentage of people having unsafe sex in the gay community in this day and age. It makes no sense. Of course I encourage safe practices. I don’t even understand while this needs encouragement and isn’t treated as matter of course as brushing your teeth.

Not enough sex ed. in the formative years! Time to target the kindergartners![/quote]

Actually my girlfriend pointed out to me that some people were trying to claim that Obama (obuma? obi-wama?) supported a bill that would teach sex ed to kindergarteners. What they failed to mention was that, yes, he supported a bill that would teach age appropriate sex ed… which, for children of that age, would be how to avoid molestation, good touch vs bad touch, etc.

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Hey, I’m for gay rights. But I still don’t understand the high percentage of people having unsafe sex in the gay community in this day and age. It makes no sense. Of course I encourage safe practices. I don’t even understand while this needs encouragement and isn’t treated as matter of course as brushing your teeth.

I think there are probably a few reasons for this (all conjecture on my part, certainly). Firstly, as I pointed out earlier in this thread, the main limiting factor (IMO) in the spread of STIs in the heterosexual community is the frequency with which women turn men down. Removing women from the equation results in more sexual activity, and the increased rates. Also, in my experience, women are generally the ones encouraging the guy to wear a rubber.

Secondly, I think the psychological effects of the act being often demonized and, at very least, taboo, makes gays less likely to use safe practices. To make a very rough analogy, when you decide to pig out during a diet, you don’t check the nutritional information or ingredients of the food you’re eating; if you’ve gone through discrimination most of the time for being gay, why would you settle for “getting less” out of sex by wearing a condom or, even worse, pass up the opprotunity for lack of proper supplies?

Lastly, I generally think most people don’t see themselves as “at risk”, straight or gay. STIs, like cancer or other illnesses, oftentimes get filed in the “other people” folder: we know it happens, but when it happens to us or someone close to us, it’s still a shock because its not supposed to happen to us, dammit.

What do you think?

I’ve read that it’s a thrill-seeking behavior. There is peer pressure within certain social groups to engage in high risk behavior. Analogies might be driving too fast to beat someone coming off of a red light or eating the worm at the bottom of a tequila bottle. Things you wouldn’t do if left to your own devices, but will if someone’s looking or taunting.[/quote]

Good point.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Hey, I’m for gay rights. But I still don’t understand the high percentage of people having unsafe sex in the gay community in this day and age. It makes no sense. Of course I encourage safe practices.

I don’t even understand while this needs encouragement and isn’t treated as matter of course as brushing your teeth.

I think there are probably a few reasons for this (all conjecture on my part, certainly). Firstly, as I pointed out earlier in this thread, the main limiting factor (IMO) in the spread of STIs in the heterosexual community is the frequency with which women turn men down.

Removing women from the equation results in more sexual activity, and the increased rates. Also, in my experience, women are generally the ones encouraging the guy to wear a rubber.

Secondly, I think the psychological effects of the act being often demonized and, at very least, taboo, makes gays less likely to use safe practices. To make a very rough analogy, when you decide to pig out during a diet, you don’t check the nutritional information or ingredients of the food you’re eating;

If you’ve gone through discrimination most of the time for being gay, why would you settle for “getting less” out of sex by wearing a condom or, even worse, pass up the opprotunity for lack of proper supplies?

Lastly, I generally think most people don’t see themselves as “at risk”, straight or gay. STIs, like cancer or other illnesses, oftentimes get filed in the “other people” folder: we know it happens, but when it happens to us or someone close to us, it’s still a shock because its not supposed to happen to us, dammit.

What do you think?[/quote]

I don’t know what I think. Still baffles me. I know that neither myself nor any of my straight friends would have sex without a condom no matter how drunk or fucked up. Whether or not the woman insists.

I know that there are plenty of straight people who stupidly don’t practice safe sex. Mostly as a result of abstinence-only education and stupid policies. Especially teenagers.

The studies show they don’t view anal and oral sex as ‘sex’ and engage in these activites WITHOUT protection in much higher percentages than those who receive comprehensive sex-ed. But I don’t actually know any of these people.

But failure to practice safe sex is much higher in the gay community. The discrimination thing doesn’t make sense to me. I can see how it affects daily life. But see no logical link to that and irresponsible sexual practices.

Whatever the reasons, I think it’s a big problem, and one that’s mostly not externally-driven. I’d like to have a better grasp on why it is and ask some gay people. I have gay friends but am not close enough to any to actually ask that question.

It’s no excuse that it feels better. Feels better for everyone. You want to have sex without condoms, be in a damn relationship and make sure you have both been tested. Shooting heroin probably feels damn good too, but that’s also not worth the risk.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Hey, I’m for gay rights. But I still don’t understand the high percentage of people having unsafe sex in the gay community in this day and age. It makes no sense. Of course I encourage safe practices. I don’t even understand while this needs encouragement and isn’t treated as matter of course as brushing your teeth.

Not enough sex ed. in the formative years! Time to target the kindergartners![/quote]

Your anti-sex ed stance is wrong. It may not result in everyone being responsible. Especially in the gay community. But teenagers who DON’T get it or get abstinence-only sex ed are almost as likely to have sex as those who do and much MORE likely to do so unsafely.

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Hey, I’m for gay rights. But I still don’t understand the high percentage of people having unsafe sex in the gay community in this day and age. It makes no sense. Of course I encourage safe practices. I don’t even understand while this needs encouragement and isn’t treated as matter of course as brushing your teeth.

I think there are probably a few reasons for this (all conjecture on my part, certainly). Firstly, as I pointed out earlier in this thread, the main limiting factor (IMO) in the spread of STIs in the heterosexual community is the frequency with which women turn men down.

Removing women from the equation results in more sexual activity, and the increased rates. Also, in my experience, women are generally the ones encouraging the guy to wear a rubber.

Secondly, I think the psychological effects of the act being often demonized and, at very least, taboo, makes gays less likely to use safe practices. To make a very rough analogy, when you decide to pig out during a diet, you don’t check the nutritional information or ingredients of the food you’re eating;

If you’ve gone through discrimination most of the time for being gay, why would you settle for “getting less” out of sex by wearing a condom or, even worse, pass up the opprotunity for lack of proper supplies?

Lastly, I generally think most people don’t see themselves as “at risk”, straight or gay. STIs, like cancer or other illnesses, oftentimes get filed in the “other people” folder: we know it happens, but when it happens to us or someone close to us, it’s still a shock because its not supposed to happen to us, dammit.

What do you think?

I’ve read that it’s a thrill-seeking behavior. There is peer pressure within certain social groups to engage in high risk behavior. Analogies might be driving too fast to beat someone coming off of a red light or eating the worm at the bottom of a tequila bottle.

Things you wouldn’t do if left to your own devices, but will if someone’s looking or taunting.[/quote]

Could be part of it, yes.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Hey, I’m for gay rights. But I still don’t understand the high percentage of people having unsafe sex in the gay community in this day and age. It makes no sense. Of course I encourage safe practices. I don’t even understand while this needs encouragement and isn’t treated as matter of course as brushing your teeth.

Not enough sex ed. in the formative years! Time to target the kindergartners!

Your anti-sex ed stance is wrong. It may not result in everyone being responsible. Especially in the gay community. But teenagers who DON’T get it or get abstinence-only sex ed are almost as likely to have sex as those who do and much MORE likely to do so unsafely. [/quote]

So, teach your kids the way you want.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Hey, I’m for gay rights. But I still don’t understand the high percentage of people having unsafe sex in the gay community in this day and age. It makes no sense.

Of course I encourage safe practices. I don’t even understand while this needs encouragement and isn’t treated as matter of course as brushing your teeth.

Not enough sex ed. in the formative years! Time to target the kindergartners!

Your anti-sex ed stance is wrong. It may not result in everyone being responsible. Especially in the gay community. But teenagers who DON’T get it or get abstinence-only sex ed are almost as likely to have sex as those who do and much MORE likely to do so unsafely.

So, teach your kids the way you want.[/quote]

Exactly. Why is it the state’s job to be a parent?

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Hey, I’m for gay rights. But I still don’t understand the high percentage of people having unsafe sex in the gay community in this day and age. It makes no sense. Of course I encourage safe practices. I don’t even understand while this needs encouragement and isn’t treated as matter of course as brushing your teeth.

Not enough sex ed. in the formative years! Time to target the kindergartners!

Your anti-sex ed stance is wrong. It may not result in everyone being responsible. Especially in the gay community. But teenagers who DON’T get it or get abstinence-only sex ed are almost as likely to have sex as those who do and much MORE likely to do so unsafely.

So, teach your kids the way you want.

Exactly. Why is it the state’s job to be a parent?[/quote]

Because many parents don’t do their jobs and that shouldn’t constitute a death sentence for their children?