Miscellaneous: October 2006 Archives

Listen, I am not sure whether you got my first message or not. I am sort of concerned. People are making me feel uncomfortable and I don’t like being in the middle. Some of the staff are spreading rude jokes behind your back about your weight. I personally have no problem with you being you. Please don’t come back at me for informing. I just wish to help if anything. I thought about mentioning it to a boss but then to have something like this explode is silly and embarassing for everyone involved, including you being the center of attention. If you really want to make somewhat of a difference, I know my cousin and friend both used this and it worked very well for them. They grabbed it off the internet to keep a low profile & stay confidential. This was the site they got it from, if this helps any.

[ site name omitted ]

Again, I don’t like people insulting others behind their backs. I am only trying to help. Which I hope I am. Thanks for at least listening & I hope I am not out of line by writing this. I am only trying to help.

Mark

Well, perhaps I am a bit chubby, but it’s not that bad.

The Catholic bishops of the United States, faced with ongoing controversy over the church’s posture toward homosexuality, next month will vote on a proposal that would condemn “scorn and hatred” of gays and lesbians but would also declare that gay couples should not be allowed to marry or adopt children, that baptizing the children of same-sex couples presents “a pastoral concern,” and that the church has the right to deny “roles of service” to gays and lesbians who are not celibate. (source)

Pure Catholic bullshit. People who want to say that denying gay couples a recognition of marriage or any social recognition, which is the core basis of what makes a “family”, or the ability to have children, are selling hatred.

To say that they condemn “scorn and hatred” of gays and lesbians is pure crap. This comes from a church who’s leader, the Pope, has called gays an “intrinsic moral evil”.

First, there was Arnold Schwarzenegger who vetoed a bill in California that would have made California the first state to legalize same-sex marriage. That made me want to burn all my Terminator movies and bury them in a shallow grave in my back yard.

Next, came Wesley Snipes, who has been indicted on eight counts of tax fraud and charged with failing to file returns from 1999 through 2004 (hey, he was buzzzy). So now what? Do I burn all my Blade DVD’s as well?

Yes, I know. They aren’t great works of the cinema, but I’m a Science Fiction junkie. What can I say? Until they produce a Madame Butterfly who sings perfectly who goes around hunting vampires with a sword, I’m afraid I’m stuck with Wesley Snipes.

“At first, it hurt me. But then I stopped crying because I realized that these people don’t know me and I don’t know them. But I would hate to be their child, having to come out of the closet to them.” - a 15 year-old 10th grader over hateful comments made at a protest over school recognition of Gay History Month.

It kind of reminds me of the protests over segregation in the 1950’s, all over again. And people say that the struggles of gay citizens is different from those of black citizens.

I suppose if you are African American today, and straight, it would be easy to try to distance yourself from this struggle. After all, an awful lot of people just don’t like gay people today. Kind of like the 1950’s when an awful lot of people just didn’t like “black” people all that much.

Even in places such as the very liberal Yale University, dark forms of bigotry can emerge.

The e-mail, which appeared to have been sent from a Yale e-mail account, claimed to be sponsored by the National Organization to Gain Acceptance for Your Sins, whose acronym is N.O.G.A.Y.S. Information Technology Services officials could not be reached for comment on Wednesday about whether the University is tracing the e-mail.

The early morning e-mail, sent under the alias “Yale LGBTTQQQQ … (et al.),” appeared to implicitly compare gays who come out to people who expose themselves as racists or Nazis. Flyers posted in areas including Cross Campus and the Yale post office had similar messages - one featured a picture of Sen. Joe Lieberman ’64 LAW ’67 (D-Conn.) and suggested that he is “coming out” as a Republican. Another suggested that actor Mel Gibson is coming out as an anti-Semite.

“There’s no shame in being who you are,” the e-mail said. “Just remember, admitting it doesn’t make it right.”

Gay Rights Group: “AIDS is a Gay Disease. Own it. End it.” [...]

Words like disaster, humiliated, and saddened are being used by gays to describe the campaign, but the Center is defending the ads, saying, “If we have learned anything in the past 25 years, it is that we must speak the truth no matter how uncomfortable some may find it.” That’s good news to Randy Thomas of Exodus International, who lost several friends when he was gay.

“So to watch the gay identified community of today take personal responsibility for this issue was astounding to me, and something that affected me personally.”

Thomas want’s to take the message one step further.

“And it’s important for the Christian community to wake up as well, that we own the responsibility to minister to those dealing with HIV.”

While it may be a gay disease, it’s a human problem. (source)

And if AIDS is a “gay disease”, how does this explain the incidence of AIDS in Africa, where 90% of AIDS transmissions are done by heterosexuals?

AIDS is not a gay disease. It’s an opportunistic disease. The gay community has owned it and has for a very large part been responsible in it’s handling of the disease. There are admittedly people in the gay community who don’t care about this issue any longer. I hear stories more and more about some who practice unsafe sex. This is also very true about the straight community who still feel that they are not effected by AIDS.

To label this as a “gay disease” is dishonest and accomplishes nothing in terms of controlling this disease. But boy do the Christians love it. If they were really interested in helping, they’d stop with all the damn finger pointing and labels, roll up their sleeves, and try to be part of the solution instead of making worthless accusations.

It’s easy to throw stones.

I’ve written various articles on the subject of gay men donating blood. In the United States, all who have had sex with another many since 1977, regardless of the fact that all blood is tested. This is a very dangerous game the blood banks are playing. Perfectly good blood is being turned away that could be used, and yet, the American Red Cross are always complaining about being short of blood, and doing blood drives all the time. But that’s my pet peeve - one of simple discrimination without any scientific basis for it what so ever.

Scientifically, all blood is tested. Statistically, gay men practice safer sex than heterosexual men, many of whom (who donate blood) have been with prostitutes (many of whom do not practice safe sex because their clients don’t like to wear condoms). No one has disputed these facts. And yet, get men are banned for life from giving blood, while others who engage in risky sexual behavior are allowed to give blood, after a short period of time after their last risky sexual behavior. And, that is discrimination. Many would argue that if it’s discrimination where the blood supply is concerned, that is acceptable.

But I’m willing not to use the “D”(iscrimination) word for a bit. Let’s just look at the safety issues this policy presents to all of us. This spells it out pretty well, from a Canadian blogger.

Still the blood service feels they are being reasonable in limiting blood donations from gays to those who haven’t had any sex in six months. They have missed the whole point. No other population group is excluded from donating blood. In fact they recently changed the rules so that black blood can be mixed with white blood. Horror of horrors.

The decision in South Africa actually highlights the problems and the systemic discriminatory practice being applied around the world and here in Canada against gay men. The six month no sex and you can give blood rule is meant to ensure the gay man has been pre-screened for HIV, a standard not applied to any other group.

The stupidity in this position is that all blood is screened for HIV and other diseases and viruses after it is collected. The wrong in it is that it implies all gay men, even those that practice safer sex, are too much a risk to accept their blood. Instead of using a more practical tool such as pre-screening for unsafe sexual or drug injection activity, gay men are forbidden to donate. [...]

We practiced safer sex methods. In fact I am willing to bet that gay men use condoms more than any other group in society. 77% of us use condoms during sex according to surveys conducted in British Columbia. I would ask if there is any other group out there that can match that number. I seriously doubt it.

Yet despite the facts, hysteria and hypocrisy rules the day. In order to rebuild confidence in the safety of our blood supply gay men were vilified without any scientific basis to support such a ban. Gay men have been paying the price since. So have blood collection services.

Now a huge pool of perfectly good blood is left circulating in my body and others while hospitals are screaming for donations every long weekend and all summer long. “Warning only two days blood supply on hand.” You have all heard these warnings. (source)

And here in the United States, they are looking to change the rules a bit, similar to what Canada is doing. As so many other things in life, when you grow older, your priorities change. I’m coming to a point in my life that I view those who practice discrimination towards me as the same as a gay basher. They have issues.

But most importantly, those issues are only my issues if I let them be my issues (if I allow myself to care about them). That’s right. I’ve learned that I actually have the power to decide what I will and will not care about. The fact that the Red Cross won’t allow me to give blood is no longer a concern of mine. Their shortages of blood are no longer my concern, because they haven’t taken the steps to remove themselves from their own discriminatory practices and look at the scientific evidence; drug users are not banned for life, heterosexual men who visit prostitutes are not banned for life. To me, this puts the American Red Cross and the CDC right down their with the common street-thug-gay-basher. No more, no less.

Don’t concern yourself with the fact that you might feel that I have a poor attitude. I’m simply done with the issue. Today, if the ban were completely lifted, I would not give blood. It’s a matter of principle for me. What you really should concern yourself with today is the real safety of the current blood, surrounded by screening policies that are rotted in hysteria and misinformation.

P.S. I won’t be committing to being celibate for six months in order to donate so forget that possibility, even if all of you agree to a rule that says anyone that has had sex in the last six months can’t donate. There is only so much I am willing to give up. (source)

Nor would I submit to a six month period of celibacy. I’m not going to dignify their request at the expense of my own pride. Too much has been sacrificed already by people like me while others who engage in unsafe practices are given a free ride, so to speak.