<p>I think tellling people they can “control” their sexuality, like food or alcohol, is pretty much denying them the right to express that sexuality. </p>
<p>And what on earth does the “cruising” site have to do with the conversation? It is sensationalistic dreck, and really has nothing whatsoever to do with committed adults wanting to marry, any more than swinging or adulterers in hetereosexual relationships do.</p>
<p>HH, I don’t understand your apparent obsession with this issue. Whenever the topic comes up, you jump right in, feet first. It must be noted, however, that it’s always with a negative post. Do you honestly think that the individuals you’ve mentioned in the most recent post are an example of the majority of gay men? I’m honestly curious to know the answer and also to know how many gay individuals you actually know, as in, are friends with, have had discussions on various topics, have shared a meal, gone out to a movie with, shared family time with? Do you not know any ‘normal’ homosexuals, who go to work everyday, who pay their taxes, who take their kids to school, who go on vacation, who have birthdays, and who call their moms on Sundays? I have had gay friends since I was 12 years old, my parents are in their 70’s and know many gay couples, one who has been together for 52 years. Maybe that’s part of why I am so accepting, and have no fear or disdain for them, I don’t know. I’d sure like to figure it out, though, because it hurts me to see so many people who are so passive aggressive in their supposed acceptance, and some of whom appear to feel that the only way that a homosexual can be tolerated is if they remain celibate.</p>
<p>Ah, the old department store men’s room meet up. One guy would stand in a shopping bag so as to go undetected. (A friend who put himself through college as a Macy’s security guard told me about that one. One of his job responsibilities was to break up the fun.)</p>
<p>There’s a really offensive TV commercial where a hetero couple have a “date” in a public restroom. The coarsening of our culture is complete.</p>
<p>Thank you, Alwaysamom. A voice of reason amidst the homophobes (oh, I know you “have nothing against gay people” HH, but your posts belie this claim).</p>
<p>I’m glad to see the Secretary of State doing her part to “uncoarsen” it, and acknowledge the pride the mother-in-law felt at that moment. It was a great moment in American politics, and if Mr. Sleaze put her up to it, I congratulate him as well.</p>
<p>The point of bringing up the cruising site & the bareback websites was to show that gays have ample opportunity to express their sexuality. Perhaps Allmusic & alwaysamom think celibate gay people are forced into celibacy so as to be tolerated. They are not. They have free choice to exercise their sexuality in any legal way they wish. Or not. Just as straight people do. HH was giving examples, sensational ones at that, to demonstrate how open our society is.</p>
<p>Now, as to Condi Rice’s sexuality…I think most Republicans who would love to see her as a presidential candidate kind of suspect she might be gay. Most don’t really give a hoot.</p>
<p>"I have never seen more hatefulness than from Republicans in the last five years. "</p>
<p>Hateful? Move to New York and see how liberals act toward people with whom they disagree. As I’ve stated on her before, I’m a small, soft-spoken woman who has been spat on by liberals in New York. Literally. And accosted on the street.</p>
<p>No, SS, you are saying that gay people have no right to exercise their sexuality at all, and that the only good gay is a celibate one.</p>
<p>Or that the ones who do practice their sexuality are a bunch of cruisers and barebackers.</p>
<p>How narrowminded and ridiculous. You must not know a single lesbian mother, a gay colleague or relative. What you describe is aberrant behavior, much like much heterosexual aberrant behavior (remember all those pedophiles, contrary to yours and HH’s claims…most of them are heterosexual).</p>
<p>There are normal gay people…yes…normal, who are in committed relationships and would like to marry. And yes, they would like to have sex, just like most married couples do, not have to remain celibate for the likes of the homophobes.</p>
<p>PS, I have no horse in this race…I’ve been married to my husband for 20 years. I just can’t stand blatant discrimination.</p>
<p>I truly have no idea why people are offended by gay sex. Can somebody explain this to me?</p>
<p>My “obsession” began when my younger child encountered his “health” textbook in sixth (SIXTH) grade. This book touched on the topic of AIDS in almost every chapter. I do not exaggerate. This book did NOT touch upon the topic of marriage. Instead, it spoke of a “monogamous SEXUAL relationship.” Now, I thought that was odd, since to me marriage is much, much more. </p>
<p>But anyway, our ten and eleven year olds were told every which way how to avoid getting AIDS. Use contraception. Do not use intravenous drugs. They were told in detail about STD’s. They were told that AIDS was on the rise! They were told about date rape, and the specific names of drugs used for rape (10 and 11 year olds, keep in mind). They learned the male and female anatomies in detail. Pregnancy. They were educated about sexual harassment, about stalking, about suicide, cutting, about every kind of drug known to man, alcohol abuse-- of course. Emotional and physical abuse in the home. Most of these tied into AIDS (the drugs, alcohol etc. leading to promiscuous sex) in chapter after chapter.</p>
<p>Our kids were scared to death that if they, heaven forbid, had sex, as a virgin, with their 15 year old virgin girlfriend, they MIGHT get AIDS. (And you wonder why there is an increase in oral sex among middle and high schoolers?) Ridiculous? I’d say. But they don’t know that.</p>
<p>There was only one little, tiny fact left out of the ENTIRE “health” text, and that was this: man on man sex (to some of us known as homosexual sex, though not to others) is the greatest, primary, number one risk factor for AIDS.</p>
<p>These kids can graduate high school without learning that from their “health” textbook.</p>
<p>Please don’t tell me it is the “Christian Right” who is keeping this out of the texts! These textbooks were written and approved by our own liberal education establishment. Also, please don’t try to tell me that our kids don’t know about gays. That would kind of contradict the theory that gays are being beaten and bullied left and right in our public schools, wouldn’t it?</p>
<p>And AM: you are naive, imo.</p>
<p>And AAM: You seem to jump in too, don’t you? In fact, I took my son out of the public school over this issue. It made a huge impact on me. When my son has sex for the first time, as a virgin, with a girl who is a virgin (or even not!) I do not want him worrying about AIDS because of some silly gay activist agenda. And if that offends you, I’m sorry.</p>
<p>gla: Simple. Because it’s icky. I’ll go a step further and add that all sex is icky, except (1) sex involving me with the kind of people I like to have sex with, or, better yet (2) an idealized version of me having sex with an idealized version of someone I’d like to have sex with. Everything else is kinky and, well, icky. So if you think about anything besides (1) or (2) – your version, of course – a perfectly natural response is “eeeyew!”</p>
<p>What’s fascinating to me is the fixation some people have with gay sex. You have to figure that they either like to dwell on things that are icky - which is weird and kinky, in my opinion - or gay sex is actually (1) or (2) for them, whether they want to believe it or not.</p>
<p>Hereshoping: I’m sorry to hear your kids learned about something you would have preferred they were kept ignorant of. I can see that you would also prefer that they be kept ignorant of the fact that they are more likely to contract AIDS through heterosexual sex or drug use than as a result of homosexual sex, because, well — actually, why is it you want to hammer home the fact that homosexual sex is in first place, while concealing the fact that, among the three leading ways to get AIDS, heterosexual sex is a close second, with drug use a significant third place? You never explained that one. Unless your kids are gay, it seem to me that the information they need most is the information they got.</p>
<p>
Zoosermom, thank you for your post. </p>
<p>You have expressed the point that has always left me (a liberal) so puzzled – how can people who want to be married possibly be threatening the institution of marriage? If anything they are reviving it, by bringing out the discussion of the benefits and obligations that go along with marriage. And if marriage among homosexuals became more the norm, that would probably tend to reduce the more promiscuous behavior… so how can anyone who supports “family values” be opposed to marriage for gays? </p>
<p>I am left doubly confused by the posts of those here who seem to be opposed to gay marriage but argue that gays have the right to express their sexuality through cruising and bareback web sites. Isn’t that exactly the type of thing that those who favor real family values (sex reserved for committed, long-term, monogamous relationships) would favor? </p>
<p>In any case, I’m glad to hear from a conservative who recognizes the value of consistency. I wonder what message parents of gay children are expected to give to their offspring: are they to encourage the hetero children to marry and to try to defer sex until marriage, while their gay sibling is encouraged to check out the cruising sites?</p>
<p>I thought this forum was about Dr. Rice and the mother-in-law.</p>
<p>So this all comes from the fact you didn’t like your school district’s sex ed program? 
</p>
<p>Home school home school home school. </p>
<p>Homeschool has a purpose in education. It spares your family from things like this and it spares my family from families like yours.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What is your source for this statement?</p>
<p>You might be interested in
<a href=“http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/youth.htm[/url]”>http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/youth.htm</a></p>
<p>hey, maybe it’s icky to you, kluge, I never said so. Not my point, but way to ignore my the meaning of my post, my point being they should be educated TRUTHFULLY. May save a gay kid’s life, but why should that be important, right? Not when we have a MOVEMENT going here (gay marriage). Maybe allow straight kids to have normal sex lives, without the UNFOUNDED fear of AIDS around every corner? Not important up against the agenda, I guess.</p>
<p>I’ve looked at the CDC stats, gla. I’m done with them.</p>
<p>Home schooling not necessary. Most districts have an ‘opt out’ provision for sex ed.</p>
<p>HH:
Do you support lesbian realaationships, where there is very little HIV risk factor?</p>
<p>gla: Yes. I am against putting gay kids at risk for lack of education, and straight kids at risk of warped sex lives.</p>
<p>Sorry HH;
what is your 'yes answering? And why are you opposed to homosexual relationships?</p>
<p>You are against lesbianism because it is ‘warped’? and want children to be taught the risks of anal intercourse?</p>
<p>Don’t mean to put words in your mouth, but I am having difficulty understanding what you are suggesting. Sorry</p>