Title Change - "Two gay men in Texas fined for having sex"

[Michael]

Based on his(her?) posts, I have never thought that AmusedOne was a conservative. I think that the reason why many of the "liberals" here jumped to that conclusion is that they tend to be rational and fact based with a lower emotion to fact ratio. That often is the polar opposite of what the "liberals" post so the assumption is that it must be conservative.

Czar started this thread with a title that is an unfair comparison. There's a big difference between a fine and jail time. There is zero background about the two who were fined and why the police felt that they had to apply the law. Often, under community policing, the idea is to use every tool available to convict criminals. Maybe one was a well known male prostitute and the law was used as there was no evidence that money was exchanged. Heck, one of the cops might have been a homophobe and saw a chance to apply a law that any other cop wouldn't have.

I personally do not support a law the restricts behaviour between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own house. If the behaviour was a terrorist plot or drug making or some other activity, that would be one thing. Sex between two consenting adults doesn't fall into that area for me and shouldn't be regulated against.

I do disagree with the statements supporting such behaviour that use "moral" grounds to argue. It comes down to the same argument I have about gay marriages. I support them. However, I support the right of people who have different views to voice their views and vote. If that means that gay marriages do not happen, then I can live with it. I have a lesbian sister-in-law who is married to another woman and they were happy to hear that I supported legalizing gay marriages and then got mad when I supported the referendum in California voting on it. My wife's side of the family is super-liberal and they had a hard time understanding my point of view - that the correctness was a religiously moral choice and, as such, should be vetted by the citizens. I do not claim my moral point of view is superior (even though it is my choice) and they did claim theirs was superior and any who questioned it were hate filled bigots.

The question about what is the biggest factor in he spread of AIDS is fun with statistics. If you study it, you'll see that homosexual transmittion is the highest category in the developed world and heterosexual transmittion the highest in the developing world. Peel back the statistics more and it is obvious that unprotected sex is the highest risk with IV drug use the second highest. All the differences show is the attitudes between societies (Western/developed and others/undeveloped).

Claiming that AIDS is a "gay disease" is ignorant. It is a virus that doesn't care about the sexual preference of those it infects. Ignoring the fact that, in the US, it still spreads in the gay male population more than any other also is ignorant. Apologists in this thread are trying to remove the responsibility from the gay men by saying they're persecuted and that makes them have promiscuous, unprotected sex. That is complete BS and flies against every study of human sexuality I've ever seen. The basic fact is that sex is pleasurable and both sexes are motivated by that to have sex. Since women bear the highest consequences (pregnancy) and since the only way to ensure that the child is one man's vs. another's is monogamy, societies have created a strong moral code to control heterosexual activity (I'll leave religion out of it to keep it simple). Other than STD's, homosexual sex doesn't have the same level of consequences so there never really has been the same pressure on gays to be monogamous.

Michael

 

[Cyberian]

<< And that law will hopefully be struck down, because its a joke.

As for the AIDS being a homosexual disease? Read it and weep: Statistics

From that page: Worldwide, more than 80 percent of all adult HIV infections have resulted from heterosexual intercourse Learn your facts before you spew them, and end up sounding like a moron. >>

I agree that the law is not right.
Am I reading this correctly from the above link?


<< Of new infections among men in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 60 percent of men were infected through homosexual sex, 25 percent through injection drug use, and 15 percent through heterosexual sex. Of newly infected men, approximately 50 percent are black, 30 percent are white, 20 percent are Hispanic, and a small percentage are members of other racial/ethnic groups.(6)
>>

 

[Amused]

<< Based on his(her?) posts, I have never thought that AmusedOne was a conservative. I think that the reason why many of the "liberals" here jumped to that conclusion is that they tend to be rational and fact based with a lower emotion to fact ratio. That often is the polar opposite of what the "liberals" post so the assumption is that it must be conservative. >>



His, not her. LOL

I doubt that has as much to do about it than my stridant defense of Second Amendment rights and calls for less government. Maybe my support for Israel could have a part in it as well.

Who knows, but I've seen some well reasoned and fact based arguments from liberals, and some overly emotional and non-fact based arguments from conservatives.

Thanks for the complement, though.

 

[flawedecision]

gawd, you stupid or something. AIDS is affects both gays and not gays. Gays are just as likely to get it than stright people. Stright people also have sex with hundreds of partners. Do you have something against gays?



I was under the impression that the aids cases per capita ratio was much higher with homosexual males than it was with heterosexual males.

Is this not the case, Czar?

 

[Czar]

<< gawd, you stupid or something. AIDS is affects both gays and not gays. Gays are just as likely to get it than stright people. Stright people also have sex with hundreds of partners. Do you have something against gays?



I was under the impression that the aids cases per capita ratio was much higher with homosexual males than it was with heterosexual males.

Is this not the case, Czar? >>


it is true, but does not justify banning gays to have sex, that is just discrimination.

 

[Bulk Beef]

Fer chrissakes, it has nothing to do with AIDS. It's about the legislature imposing it's own moral stance on people in the privacy of their own homes. Morality and law go hand-in-hand, and community standards define morality, and therefore, law, but there's a difference between a community saying that they don't want a porn shop around the corner from an elementary school, and a community forcing itself into people's bedrooms and telling people who they can do the nasty with.

 

[SmackdownHotel]

<<

<< You know that aids is not a "gay" disease like people thought once. >>



AIDS is a predominantly gay disease.

Gay people are at highest risk.

Gay people have sex with hundreds of partners they hardly know, often use no protection, and exchange both bodily fluids and blood due to rips in the anal lining.

Heterosexual people are much more monogamous, have protected sex much more often, and very rarely engage in anal sex. >>



Wrong. 90% of all AIDS transmission occurs between heterosexual couples. Try again.

 

[gopunk]

AIDS is an excuse for discrimination. if you were really concerned about it, you'd make a law against people with AIDS having sex, not homosexuals having sex.

i have to point out though, those worldwide statistics... i suspect africa kinda screws it up with the hetero/homo stuff.

 

[mithrandir2001]

After skimming through these posts what bothers me most is not necessarily the true-to-form Texmaster posts, but the one liner posts from others: the simply stated "Good"'s, the "No problems here"'s and the little smug remarks of satisfaction. Ignorance. Sheer ignorance.

Constitutional rights are being violated and all you have to say is that you're satisfied? What kind of American are you? Part of being an American is tolerating the peaceful actions of others even if you don't agree with them. When you silence gays...when you silence any harmless activity that goes outside of the mainstream...you silence yourselves and everything this country stands for.

And don't say being homosexual is harmful. That's simply an opinion. I think organized religion is harmful, but that doesn't convert the sheep.

There should be no surprise to AmusedOne's "liberal" stance. As he has said before, he has libertarian leanings. Why must everything come down to "conservative" and "liberal"? I'm both and neither at the same time. To me, that's the most logical. You're either for individual rights or government control. For instance, you can't fight for the right to pray in church on Sundays (individual rights) while simultaneously telling consensual adults that their actions in their bedrooms must be controlled by law (government control). You believe in freedom or you don't.

 

[yllus]

Your radical pro-Dreamcast stance has effectively made you unwelcome in both the Democratic and Republican parties anyways, mithrandir. BEGONE, CONSOLE OUTCAST!

 

[StageLeft]

Look, if they have a law on the books, there must be a reason to have them.

Maybe Texas is trying to clamp down on the spread of AIDS.

Are you pro-AIDS? Is that why you support illegal gay sex?

I hope you're kidding.

 

[Lankin]

I dont know where you come up with that 90% number.. I cqn tell ya right now its false

Also AIDS is making a comeback in San Fran, among what? The gay population, it was going down but has started sky rocketing again, because of sex clubs etc. Anal sex is the easiest way to transmit AIDs, and that is a fact. Its not a sure thing you will get aids through vaginal intercourse. Anal sex is near 99%... So pretty much if you have anal sex with someone that is infected, you are going to get infected.

 

[Amused]

<< I dont know where you come up with that 90% number.. I cqn tell ya right now its false

Also AIDS is making a comeback in San Fran, among what? The gay population, it was going down but has started sky rocketing again, because of sex clubs etc. Anal sex is the easiest way to transmit AIDs, and that is a fact. Its not a sure thing you will get aids through vaginal intercourse. Anal sex is near 99%... So pretty much if you have anal sex with someone that is infected, you are going to get infected. >>



So what? (even if your numbers are exaggerated a bit) The fact still remains that passing laws against homosexuality are meaningless, and will do nothing to stop it.

 

[Texmaster]

Excellent post Michael.

I left this thread alone because far too mnay people were acting on emotion rather than fact.

Czar started this thread and updated it saying I refused to believe the story which was nothiong short of a flat out lie.

What I had trouble with was the context the article presented the case. But I can't say I'm suprised looking around that website of hate for anyone who doesn't agree with their stance.

For instance they have a section of murdered gay people implying that there was a hate motivational killing yet ZERO and I mean ZERO evidence to prove 99% were hate motivation, merly unsolved murders. I guess gay people can only be killed by bigots and not theives or simple murderers.

It was that kind of warped context I was addressing.

OF course only then did Czar look for another site that was more unbiased.

But Michael is absolutely right that we have ZERO knowledge as to the history of these two or any past record that would be important.

Czar and the others here tried to make it look like Texans were just looking to lynch some homosexuals when nothing could be furthur from the truth.

Czar even went so far as to accuse me of gay bashing by asking me if I had any gay friends. Of course I had to tell him that I have personally hired 2 gay individuals because they had the skills I was looking for. WhenI asked him if he was friends with anyone who had different opinions than himself, his reply was that he cant help it if all his friends and co-workers were liberals.

I think that answers the question about bias and who is the true person with a diversity issue. He's in ICELAND for God's sake. I have good money that not only do I have FAR more ethnic friends than he has but I also tolerate more people and more opinions than he ever can.

Then the emotion swelled back in when a few bleeding hearts here jumped to the conclusion that saying AIDS was transmitted more easily through male homosexual contact to mean that those same people believed AIDS was a gay disease.

Not only is it not true but it just proves the fact that the people here reacted on emotion instead of evaluating before posting.


Michael once again, great post. And I know its great because Czar and his cronies are avioding it like the plague LOL

 

[Amused]

OK, let's think this through logically.

Some here have advocated laws like this as a way to fight against HIV infections.

Let's address this in a real world situation, with historical knowledge to guide us, shall we?

Homosexuality has existed throughout time. This is a fact no one has argued with.

Homosexuality has existed under the most oppressive and hostile governments on earth. Another fact that has not been argued with.

When homosexuality is oppressed, it does not go away, it is simply driven underground. A fact I don't think anyone here can factually argue against, either.

What happens when you drive homosexuals underground? They hide in society, and pass themselves off as straight men. They marry, have kids, and every Tuesday night have wild gay monkey love with anonymous boyfriends at motel no-tell.

In many cases, Mr. closet man's Wifey is getting none at home, so she starts having affairs.

OK, so we've banned homosexuality, but it still exists. Only now, gay men are marrying women in an effort to not appear gay, and having secret affairs with other gay men. Their wives, being sexually frustrated, are in many cases having affairs with the neighbor's husband. Gay men will refuse to admit they're gay, and avoid at all costs any exposure of their sexuality... including voluntary HIV tests.

Far fetched? Hardly. This was the typical scenario just 30+ years ago, before gay men dared come out of the closet. In fact, because of the stigma against homosexuality that still exists, this scenario still happens, although to a lesser degree than it did before the 60s and 70s.

Now, ask yourself this: Has this scenario helped, or hindered the fight against HIV?

Folks, any time you drive something under ground, you only make it worse. It happened with drugs, it happened with alcohol, it happened with prostitution, and it has happened with gays. You cannot effectively regulate vice, or sexual morality among consenting adults. It's impossible, and in every case, only causes more problems. Driving sex underground only promotes promiscuity and makes healthy monogamous relationships impossible. This is counterproductive.

In short, the "laws against homosexuality prevent HIV" arguments are absurd, and contrary to logical reasoning and historical fact.

 

[Czar]

Texmaster,
You started to question the vality of the news article because of the site it was on.
You don't even know the history behind the website he is posting.
That was a response to PrinceofWands who as as shocked as I was about this. The rest of your post is some text from newsmax.com that criticizes usqueers.com and accuses them of untrue anti-gay bashing.
Next I provided a link to a news story on yahoo news that mentions this exact case. I say that I couldnt find the story on yahoo news. You say :
Ever wonder WHY?

Come on Czar. These morons have a list of dead homosexuals implying they were hate killings yet 99% of them have ZERO evidence to support that claim.

This is a BS hate filled website against religion and some in Washington.

Its not credible by any stretch of the imagination.
How can I take this any other way than you did not belive this because of the site it was posted on?
Then I respond that I do not care about the site its posted on and that I´v read this story on other news sites but that was just a long time ago.
Your response.
You cared enough to quote it and if it is so old why are you rehashing it?

You would be all over me if I couldn't find an outside source to a story from a clearly biased and hateful website.

The same applies to you.
Accusing me of being biased and hateful, biased towards what and hateful towards what?
Another item
your reply to royaldank
#1 Some people see homosexuality as morally wrong like it or not
#2 Try reading more about that hate filled website before you go believing it as factual.
How can you still go on saying that it was not true that you did not belive it to be false?

I did not accuse you of gay bashing, I asked you a question before I could accuse you of anything, your reply nullified any reason I had for starting to accuse you.

I have not tried to make texans look like a lynch mob, my only mention about texas is in the thread topic. The rest of my reply's in this thread I´m questioning the vality of this law they were arrested for braking.

I would not try to question about you knowing more "ethnic" people than I do, you live the US while I in stinking Iceland. But I have never ever shown any hint of racism, I do not judge anyone by their race but by their actions. You have a bet if you want about the tolerating part.

Want to know why I did not reply to Michals post?, two reasons, for most part I found it to be a very good post and that I was rather busy to reply to it when I read it, then i forgot it. By your request I´ll post my thoughts about it.

(this next part is directed to Michael and not you Texmaster)





Michael,
I agree, I see that now that the comparison is a bit unfair but still true. In both situations living a gay lifestile is illegal, in both situation they were arrested for living their own lives as gays. The police did the right thing obeying the law and arresting them, I do not question the police motives, I question the motive for that law still being in the law book.

True we dont know much about these guys except their names and their pictures shown
here and here, age 55 and 31. Maybe one of them was a male prostitute and prostitution is illegal. And I agree maybe one of the cops was "anti-gay", who knows. But these factors do not matter because the motive for the "sex" or the "arrest" are not what shocks people. The shocking part comes from the law the judge judged them for braking.

Gay marriages, I support them. If you are against them fine, but if anyone activly trys to stop gay couples from marrying I will criticise them because they should not stop 2 people doing what "other" 2 people can do. It all comes down to ... discrimination.

I admit that homosexuals are more likely to transmit aids, but that doesnt change the fact that there are more heterosexuals with aids than there are homosexuals. The reason aids spreads so fast among gays are two, first, not likely to get pregnat, second, the gay lifestile is still a taboo in our society and therefor there are limited number of places they go and find a sex partner (hope you get what I mean, I'm having a hard time putting it down in words)

The rest I agree on.

I commend you Michael in your post I found it very much worth reading.

 

[Aelus]

There's still too many laws based on religious preference (that's an international statement). If we want a clear separation inbetween state and religion, and we don't want to become like ie saoudi arabia, or afghanistan under the taliban regime, we should draw our conclusions and close down those laws. Unfortunately, there's too many fundamentalists out there, who are too shallow (or stupid) to realize that, and those fundamentalist laws will stick around.

Unless we want to have a Taliban Light (r) regime, our only choice is to get rid of those silly laws.

Aelus

PS. for the christian fundamentalists among us, remember that christ said personally to sell all your property and give it to the poor, if you compare that statement to another about homosexuals in some unimportant book, consider that you might have to re-evaluate your priorities about christianity.

 

[Michael]

Aelus - The Constitution of the US does not say that citizens cannot have religion. As long as any religiously inspired laws do not violate the Constitution, then they are as "valid" as any other. The US is a democracy. The people vote in their representatives. Many of those people are religious. Should their views be marginalized and ignored by the "enlightened" who do not believe? Especially since the non-believers are a minority.

There is a huge difference between the US and Afghanistan under the Taliban. I see zero need to eliminate all religiously inspired laws.

I disagree with the Texas law in question (I really should get the actual reference to make sure it really is anti-homosexual sex vs. sodomy in general), but that's just my opinion. The people of Texas, balanced by the State and US Constitutions are the real deciding factor.

Michael

ps - Texmaster - thanks for the words of praise. To be honest, I generally disagree with either 1) your opinion, or 2) the extremes you take your opinion to. However, I tend to disagree with the people you argue with even more <grin>.

 

[Dark54555]

The states have the right to place such a ban, read up on your constitutional law.

 

[BlueApple]

One more reason to get out of this god awful country.

 

[ToBeMe]

<< One more reason to get out of this god awful country. >>


Well.......See ya' then...........what are your plans????? Let us know when you get there OK!

 

[Dark54555]

<< One more reason to get out of this god awful country. >>



Why don't you try Afghanastan? I've heard a lot of nice badlands property will be available soon...maybe you'll get lucky and step on a mine.

 

[AaronP]

yeah, but they like prison! 8:: (o)

 

[damocles]

The highest risk factor for HIV transmission is gay sex. So you have to start with that.

Maybe in the US, I'm not sure. However on a world scale the greatest risk is through unprotected heterosexual sex and lack of education.

 

[AGodspeed]

OMG that's INSANE!!! I'm completely straight and I'm thinking about driving to Texas just to have sex with a guy on the courthouse steps in opposition.

LOL LOL!