Homophobia Gone Wild: The Worthless Words Of Worden

Oh, we won’t give in,choicestraight
We’ll keep living in the past. – Jethro Tull, Living in the Past

Recently, I’ve been visiting blog of someone named the ‘Warrioress’ – a misled single mother who deems us ‘militants’ because atheists are not polite, friendly, or willing to respect ridiculous superstitions. She came by a few times to lecture us on our tone and attitude. While seemingly pleasant enough, she is wildly misinformed on a number of topics.

One of her current followers is someone who is one of those ‘gawd is great!’ survivalist/militia types (yes, I can hear the collective groans and face-palms from here). She quoted some fellow I’d never heard before, here, which led me to perhaps one of the stupidest ‘editorials’ on homosexuality I’ve ever had the misfortune to read. It’s nicely written, in a kindly-statesman-giving-good-advice kind of way, but utterly epically fails with the simple application of sense of any sort.

And this clown has the audacity to entitle this, of all things, The Truth About Homosexuality. Bear with me while I fisk this bad boy to the ground:

I am going to address the issue of homosexuality and it’s effects because I worked very closely with over 300 homosexual men in the late 60s and early 70s, which was just before gay rights groups began to organize into the political power base they represent today.

Doing what exactly? He doesn’t say. And do the observations of some 40-odd years still apply? I’m old enough to know better: he should be as well.

I considered most of these “gay” men to be at least close business associates, and a number of them would definitely fall into the category of being close personal friends, so any attempt to categorize my comments here as “homophobic” would be in vain.

We’ll address that a little bit later.

I’m going to write the truth here, and because of the nature of the subject, that truth will be graphic and make some of you very uncomfortable reading it. However, all but perhaps one of those healthy young men I knew 25 years ago is dead, and nearly all of them died from an AIDS-related illness, so this is not the time to sugar-coat the reality of what the homosexual lifestyle is, and what it does to it’s willing participants.

No name dropping, no real ‘AIDS-related’ illness is mentioned. Is he aware things have changed?

Articles written with a critical eye toward homosexuality are all too often based upon emotion, and include biblical references which condemn the practice. I wrote the original version of this article back in 1999 with a reference to the religious view, and a reader asked me to modify it to exclude any mention of God or religion. I gave it some thought, and the reader had a good point: Christians don’t have to be reminded of the biblical view toward homosexuality, but one mention of it to non-believers and you can hear their minds slam shut. So this is my very dispassionate, non-religious tale of a terrible tragedy I personally witnessed.

Trust me, he’s doing no favors to us non-believers.

Now, I warned you I’d have to get graphic here, and it is time to bluntly remind everyone just what this horrendous, perverted, septic and medically dangerous practice really is. To refer to this physically revolting act as something flowery, like “Gay Love” is like referring to an execution by disembowelment as mere “euthanasia”.

Really, talk about talking out both sides of your mouth here. Does that sound dispassionate to you?

We all need to go back to square one, before the desensitization of the media lulled us away from the reality of what a homosexual act is.

Oh, because this guy knows, and we don’t?

We need to go back to that time when the initial thought, that impression we envisioned when we first heard about this act filled us with revulsion. That revulsion and nausea you felt wasn’t borne of ignorance, but of a spontaneous and instinctive rejection of what you immediately recognized as an abhorrent, disgusting and wholly unnatural thing to do. There’s nothing whatsoever to be ashamed for admitting this, because it just happens to be the natural response.

Firstly, that’s the naturalistic fallacy, AKA the ‘appeal to nature’. Secondly, it can be successfully argued that those ‘impressions’ are hammered into us at an early age. Thirdly, human beings can be revolted by some of the most frankly silly things around, say like, envisioning your parents having sex, etc. So the ‘EEWWWW!’ argument isn’t even an argument, unless you’re in middle school.

As I mentioned earlier, gay rights groups didn’t really exist until around 1975, and even then, they were very disorganized at best. That was before they got together and agreed on the fat lie that they were somehow born into homosexuality.

And again, we find the simpler folk more willing to buy the easier lie. The wikion the topic states:

Biology and sexual orientation is the subject of research into the role of biology in the development of human sexual orientation. No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated. Various studies point to different, even conflicting positions, such as a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences, with biological factors involving a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment, or no genetic influence. Biological factors which may be related to the development of a heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or asexual orientation include genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure.

I’ll never buy that nonsense, and I’ll tell you why: Not one of my friends ever told me they thought they were born into homosexuality. Not one of them. They would tell me why, and their stories were often similar, but not one of them ever told me they believed they were born that way. In every case of the men I knew, they had made homosexuality a choice, and many of those men had been married prior to adopting that lifestyle.

I like how he doesn’t name drop, cite scientific studies of any sort, or even relate a single ‘story’.

Let’s clear something up right now: Homosexuality, including Lesbianism, are fetishes.

Which explains why so many teenage homosexuals are bullied into suicide.

They are not biological conditions people are born with.

Mr. Ph.D says so!

Anne Heche is a celebrity lesbian one minute, and goes heterosexual the next. Go figure.

Obviously this guy thinks that the exception makes the rule.

In many cases, today’s homosexuals were molested at a very young age by another man, and experienced their very first orgasm that way. That experience can and does warp a young man’s sexual orientation, no doubt about it, and helps explain why we hear young homosexuals relate the same story that they just felt different sexually than their friends. Of course they do, and understandably so, when we remember their very first imprinted sexual climactic experience came from the hands, mouth (or worse) of another man.

Does that include the ‘family men’ who ‘adopted’ the lifestyle?

In recent years there has been a rather predictable development that has been very carefully hidden from the public:
Organizations of “recovering homosexuals” have sprung up all over this nation, made up of both men and women who have escaped the homosexual lifestyle and have taken up successful heterosexual relationships. In some cases, former lesbians have met and married former gay men and are now raising families. You will find it interesting to note that Anna Freud, Sigmund’s daughter, reported the “recovery” of three homosexuals in her writings in the 1940’s. If homosexuality is so natural and people are born into it, how can this be? Answer: It can’t be.

Aye caramba? Does this idiot know that these organizations fail regularly – that these are religious organizations that are laughed outta town by actual psychologists and psychiatrists? Nothing fails like prayer.

There are those who keep telling the persistent lie that homosexuality occurs naturally in animals, so therefore it occurs naturally in man. So where are the photos? Have you ever seen a photograph of two male animals completing an act of anal intercourse?

No, the actuality is that homosexual acts are persistent in nature.

Think about it: We’ve all seen photographs of Big Foot and flying saucers, right?

Bad choice, bringing up known hoaxes.

And I know you’ve seen male dogs mounting one another as well and other animals like elk and deer doing it too, but you have never seen photographic proof of a completed act of penetrating anal intercourse in animals, because it simply does not exist in nature, and if it did, we’d damn-sure have photographs of it.

This guy obviously doesn’t cruise the Internet very much – but most smug nimbulbs are like that.

Does that little revelation trouble you? It should. It should make you question all the other “truths” you’ve accepted over the years, like “Prohibition was a mistake, but the War On Drugs isn’t”, but that’s another subject altogether.

Oh great – another conspiracy wacko.

Now let me tell you about my very dead friends.

You mean the friends that filled you with revulsion at their ‘unnatural acts’?

This saga took place in the San Francisco Bay Area, before HIV infections caused the San Francisco Health Department to shut down the public “bath houses” where these men would go to “meet” each other. Okay, so I’m getting all flowery. The men would go there to engage other men in anal intercourse.

Sometimes these men would have 4, 5, 6 or more sexual liaisons with complete strangers in one night. Some of these acts would take place through plywood walls with penis-sized holes cut in them to secure the anonymity between the participants, and sometimes they would take place through holes cut in cloth sheets.

This sort of thing is not exclusive to the gay lifestyle: and in the case of a lifestyle that has been oppressed by ignorant Christians since Theodosius the II, small wonder anyone would revel in it once the barriers are bridged. Also, there was the Sexual Revolution, where taking a pill would cure the STD’s that have plagued humanity since the dawn of time – STD’s like syphilis, gonorrhea, you know, all those HETEROSEXUAL diseases.

If you thought the “gay lifestyle” was just about two guys playing house, you’ve bought into just another of the many lies they want you to believe.

Four decades later, it does play out that way.

Brutal acts of sado-masochism between homosexuals are often played out, sometimes resulting in injury and even death, and the physical beatings between homosexual and lesbian “lovers” are legend within the law enforcement community as well as with emergency health care professionals — which is another fact you won’t see reported in the mainstream media. If there ever was a misnomer, it is the term “gay” when referring to these pitiful creatures.

This again, isn’t exclusive to the gay lifestyle. There are plenty of heteros who abuse spouses, engage in sado-masochism. I’d be willing to bet the rent that they actually outnumber the gay community in this regard.

My friends would get totally wasted on alcohol and drugs, often coming in on Monday morning looking like they were at death’s door after a typical weekend orgy, and it came as no surprise to learn recently that both male homosexuals as well as lesbians have a life span roughly 40% shorter than heterosexuals.

People can be stupid, regardless of sexuality. I’ve had plenty of hetero friends do this very same thing.

Dr. Paul Cameron holds a Ph.D. from the University of Colorado, and his work has been published in the medical journal Omega. This is what he reported: For heterosexuals, the average man lives to be 73; women 77.

Oh don’t even get me STARTED on this asshole.

For homosexuals, the average AIDS caused death is 39 and non-AIDS caused death is a remarkable age 42! For lesbians the average age of death is 44 because the rate of AIDS among lesbians is not a significant factor.

First off, these aren’t official – he whipped up those figures from cutting out obituaries in the paper. His own Wikientry states:

For the most part, official scientific organisations have paid very little attention to Cameron’s studies, and thus extensive scientific analysis of his claims have not been widely available. However Cameron’s research, public statements and legal testimony have received criticism from researchers and organizations over methodologies they view as academically dishonest and misleading.

Dr. William Bennet, who authored the book “The Death of Outrage”, commented that the Clinton administration has made such a big deal about tobacco use shaving 6-7 years off one’s life, while openly supporting the gay death style that is known to shave off over 30 years from the average life span.

If the author is referring to this asshole, Bennet is NOT A DOCTOR.

David Foster, a former homosexual and author, found that the rate of injury and death from domestic violence among homosexuals is at least five times that of heterosexuals, and when it comes to lesbian relationships, the rate goes right off the scale. Apparently, lesbians beat the hell out of each other, and often. He also points to a very high incidence of drug and alcohol abuse as another strong factor in reducing the life spans of homosexuals and lesbians so drastically.

Wait – which David Foster? This guy? Or this guy?

Nothing I personally witnessed falls in dispute with the above published findings, and I have over 300 dead bodies as evidence to back them.

From what he’s demonstrated thus far – he has diddly squat. Anecdotal evidence? Doesn’t count. Cameron’s a kook, Bennet’s a conservative talking-head, and who knows who Foster is?

Now that you are aware of these facts — and they are facts indeed — how could any parent of one of these hapless, errant children join a support group like Parents And Friends of Gays And Lesbians which openly defends the gay lifestyle — and even promotes it? How could any parent encourage their child to continue a lifestyle known to lead to an early death? Why would any parent tolerate a public school that teaches their children that homosexuality and lesbianism are naturally occurring sexual orientations? They are those who refuse to learn the truth, or worse; those who refuse to accept the truth.

All of this crap is based on anecdotal hearsay four decades old, and extremely poorly studies by some nincompoops. Hardly the sweeping condemnation when one addresses these seriously in less than an hour.

When I tell an openly gay person to seek help in order to save them from an early death, is that an act of hate? They will tell you it is. Not only are we to accept the gay lifestyle, but these individuals and groups also insist we embrace their lifestyle in our schools where it can be painted as “normal”. Normal?

It actually WAS normal, until the Christians decided to be the final arbiters of who can do what with their naughty bits.

Let me ask you something: What is normal about a young man with a herniated sphincter who must wear diapers due to fecal incontinence from having submitted to so many acts of anal intercourse? I knew several young men who had that disgusting problem. What’s natural and normal about that? What’s so natural and normal about your child dying before you? What’s so natural and normal about having to get an AIDS test every three months? I don’t have to, and I’ll bet the average reader doesn’t have to either.

I actually looked up fecal incontinence – and guess what? A lot assholes claiming this happens, zero studies proving this happens regularly. As for getting an AIDS test every three months: anyone who’s the least bit sexually active should be tested regularly. For all the possible STD’s. And AIDS isn’t exclusively a gay disease anymore.

Perhaps I am more sensitive to this issue than most, but whenever I hear someone describe themselves as openly gay, I automatically visualize them engaged with another man in a revolting act of anal intercourse, ruining my appetite.

Mr. ‘Dispassionate’ my homesick ass.

Yet few people understand that nothing turns gay men on more than the idea you’d be both shocked and disgusted by their behavior.

Wait – ALL gay men? Are you smoking crack, or what?

You see, all the homosexual men I knew were psychological exhibitionists as well, and they were absolutely thrilled to see “straight” people recoil at the sight of them prancing around, lisping almost every word.

It’s called ‘rebellion’ – but then again, I doubt that an isolated militianist (correct term?) is conversant with anything resembling a knowledge of human behavior.

As bizarre as it sounds, the homosexual community wants what it knows will rob the savor from their salt. The more we “accept” openly homosexual behavior, the more repugnant and bizarre their behavior becomes in order to garner the same level of shock and disgust. So when a gay rights supporter asks that frequently heard question, “Would a person deliberately place themselves in a position to be hated and reviled?”, the answer is an unequivocal “Yes, they would!”. And in fact, they do.

Obviously not, yet of course pretentious pundits offer up their pseudo-intellectual analyses.

The fact is, the homosexual lifestyle contributes nothing of a positive nature to society. If anything, the homosexual lifestyle has proven to be destructive to it’s participants, and because of the septic nature of anal intercourse, the homosexual lifestyle has proven to quickly spread HIV as well as that most recent and perhaps even deadlier threat, Hepatitis C.

Talk about speaking out one’s ass:

Whether hepatitis C can be transmitted through sexual activity is controversial.While there is an association between high-risk sexual activity and hepatitis C, it is not known whether transmission of the disease is due to drug use that has not been admitted to or sex as a risk factor.

The public health costs imposed by the gay community on the rest of society have been costly indeed — and no one can dispute that.

Mostly due to lack of sexual education, ignorance, and the overbearing religious objections of the past 1600 years, yeah.

And also consider this: Can you recall any invention, any life-saving vaccine or any improvement to society by any individual because he was gay? Did his “gay-ness” contribute anything at all, or did he achieve his accomplishments in spite of it? We all know the answer.

What an utter ass. Alan Turing revolutionized the technological advances of the Twentieth century, not to mention helping to win WORLD WAR II by cracking the Nazi codes. And yes, he was gay. And treated horribly because of it.

So should we be more compassionate for these people, or should we adopt a tough love kind of response? Should we allow our young children to be taught something is normal, when we know that not even the animals will engage in it?

Backwards idiots often repeat themselves.

What about when those children might be tempted to experiment with it and thus become its’ unwitting victims as well? Would any parent want their children to experience the degradation and early death I’ve described here? I hope not.

Dude, your descriptions here lack any kind of authority, intelligence, or study citations whatsoever.

However tempted I am to end on that note, let us all refocus on the problems of society in general, and not those imposed only by the homosexual community. I’m addressing those of the “straight” community now; those who are actively engaged in unmarried sexual relationships and adultery.

‘Imposed’? Dude, get a clue.

It was just reported that over 50% of all children are now born to unwed mothers. Divorce and good old fornication are proving to be the most long-term, destructive elements of behavior existent in our society today, and it is costing the taxpayers dearly for looking the other way for so long. When it gets right down to it, you have no right to take the chance of bringing an unwanted baby into this world in exchange for the fleeting pleasure of an orgasm. Fornication is just about the most selfish and self-serving act you can possibly commit, yet you’d think we were back in the early stages of the sexual revolution by the way people are conducting themselves. When you engage in a sexual liaison with someone you are not married to, and probably have no intention of marrying, you are rolling the dice on the life of any child born as a result, and you all know that, short of sterilization, no form of birth control is 100% effective.

And he rolls out the old party line again: never mind that hetero marriages are 50% likely to end, mostly ignominiously or acrimoniously. I keep hearing Jethro Tull’s ‘Living in the Past’ in my head. It’s the 21st century – try to join us in it. You want to strip sexual freedom of choice from adults because it doesn’t mirror the ‘good old daze’ of your sheltered Ozzie and Harriet youth? Too fucking bad. And…wait, ‘no form of birth control is 100% effective’? Are you kidding me? There’s absolutely NOTHING in this life that is 100%, except death and taxes.

The act of fornication is shamefully selfish and self-centered, and without any regard whatsoever to how it may effect the entire life of another innocent human being whose mother might just decide to kill it while it’s still “legal” to do so.

Dude, the 14th amendment specifically states that only persons BORN (or naturalized)  in the US are entitled to rights. Ergo a fetus (yes, not a BABY, a FETUS) has no rights.

So, while it is important to tell the truth about homosexuality, the fact is that today’s “straight” fornicators and adulterers are responsible for far more of society’s ills, in terms of both fiscal impact and moral decline, than the homosexual community could ever hope to achieve.

‘Moral decline’. Oh joy – if I had a nickel for every one of these yobbos spouted off about ‘moral decline’, I’d have a whole lotta nickels. What moral decline? Just about every nation on this earth (including the USA) has been guilty of moral crimes, from inception to end. The world is filled to the brim with people that want to guard our loins and gird their own.

And thus far, I’ve not encountered one that was not a prattling idiot. Including this one.

Till the next post, then.

This entry was posted in Absurdity, America's image, And now for something completely different, Boo-fucking-hoo!, Crazy fundies, Delusion, for fuck's sake!, Free speech, Gay Marriage, Health, Health reform, marketing to Christians, Morality, Politics, Psychology, Relationships, Religion, Skepticism, Stupidity, Superstition, Tragedy, Values. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Homophobia Gone Wild: The Worthless Words Of Worden

  1. mobathome says:

    Please note that I intend my reply to address only one comment of KA’s in their fisking of Carl F. Worden’s post. I do not intend to address any other topic, including but not limited to abortion, U.S. citizenship, or who is a person. I am replying purely in the spirit of fisking (e.g. “Someone on the Internet is wrong!” XKCD? ;)

    KA, you state

    “Dude, the 14th amendment specifically states that only persons BORN in the US are entitled to rights. Ergo a fetus (yes, not a BABY, a FETUS) has no rights.”

    Yet the the first section of the 14th Amendment states

    “Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ”

    The first sentence only states who is a citizen, not who is NOT one, and the second sentence prohibits states from taking the life of any person, not just citizens, or to deny them “equal protection of the laws”. Since “Dude” talks about killing “human beings”, and not U.S. citizens or persons, your statement about the 14th amendment does not address what “Dude” wrote.

    Perhaps Skitt’s Law extends to fisking? Is there another more appropriate law I should quote? (I can hardly wait to read the fisking of my reply :).

  2. KA says:

    The first sentence only states who is a citizen, not who is NOT one, and the second sentence prohibits states from taking the life of any person, not just citizens, or to deny them “equal protection of the laws”.

    It’s unambiguous – here, let me enlighten you:
    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
    Anything that defines who is a citizen, infers that those who do NOT fall under that definition ARE NOT citizens. So, nice try, but that’s Loki’s wager.
    So you’re wrong.

  3. Sue Blue says:

    Thank you, thank you, thank you! This post is spot-on, and so timely for me! I was just arguing these very points with a homophobic commenter on another blog. The willful ignorance, the cherry-picking of sexuality research to suit their agenda, and the religiously-inspired bigotry and hostility thinly veiled behind the “I’m just so upset about the waste of these fine young lives” smarmy concern-trolling was enough to nearly make my head explode. Pardon me for the following lengthy post, but I have to get this off my chest!

    First of all is the assertion that gays are solely responsible for the origin, transmission, and worldwide devastation of AIDS – as well as its presence in the blood supply (in the 80s and early 90s), and its presence in heterosexuals through bisexual contact. My argument, backed by epidemiology and my nursing background – and real scientific research – was that HIV was transmitted to humans by the practice of eating chimpanzees, who carry a very closely-related virus known as SIV. HIV is thought to be a mutant form of SIV. And no – Africans were not having sex, gay or otherwise, with chimps. HIV just happens to be present in saliva, semen, vaginal secretions, blood, and breast milk because it infects white blood cells, which are present in all these fluids. It’s especially transmissible through anal intercourse because the rectal mucosa is more fragile than the vaginal or oral mucosa, and has many WBCs in the tissues and blood. From testing blood and tissue samples going back to the 1950s, we now know that HIV was present in humans as far back as 1957, and these cases appeared in heterosexual individuals.
    The homophobes consistently ignore the fact that HIV does not have an agenda. It is not a judgment. It is equally transmissible through heterosexual intercourse; there is nothing special about female rectums. HIV/AIDS and all other STDs are epidemic in heterosexuals as well.

    Secondly, homophobes insist that the “gay rights lobby” is responsible for “keeping the disease under wraps and allowing it to spread” in the 1980s. In fact it was the conservative, rightwing Christian Reagan Administration which declared the disease a judgment on the gay lifestyle and actively blocked funding for research into the causes, treatment and prevention of HIV/AIDS – in essence, the religious lobby is responsible for the wildfire spread of AIDS in the population as well as the blood supply.

    Third, they ignore the fact that a monogamous, safe-sex-practicing homosexual couple is no more likely to have, contract, or spread HIV (or any STD) than is a monogamous, safe-sex-practicing heterosexual couple. They also ignore the fact that infection rates among homosexuals decreased dramatically as safe-sex education and practices improved. One of the greatest concerns among healthcare practitioners now is the rampant spread of untreatable drug-resistant gonorrhea, chlamydia, and a resurgence of syphilis – all among heterosexuals, especially teens (and in bible-belt, “abstinence only” states!). If people such as Warrioress and her followers’ concern for the health of homosexuals is genuine, they ought to be promoting gay marriage.

    In essence, HIV/AIDS is not an indictment of homosexuality – it is simply a virus, mutating as necessary to survive in any way it can. Do certain practices make its transmission more likely? Yes – but these practices are not exclusive to homosexuals. For instance, IV drug abuse is the surest way to transmit HIV, and is responsible for the most rapid and deadly spread of the disease. IV drug abuse is no more prevalent among homosexuals than it is in the general population. I could cite many other examples, but I’ve already ranted on a bit long!

    Lastly – the homophobes’ claim that homosexuality is an unnatural fetish, a purely psychological aberration, is refuted by the homosexual acts observed in many mammals, birds, and other species. Bonobos, dolphins, and dogs are known to have sex for pleasure – often homosexual sex. Penguins have been observed (by the Shackleton expedition and others) to have homosexual and non-procreative sex.

    These idiots have tried every argument and twisted themselves into contortions trying to obscure the fact that their only real objection to homosexuality is purely religious, rooted in ancient superstition and primitive outgroup hostility. It isn’t working, I’m happy to say. More and more voters are voting FOR gay rights. I see a certain sour-grapes desperation in these anti-gay screeds today.

    Finally, backed at last into a logical, fact-based corner, they resort to the old standby ad hominem attacks. “You’re just a fag who wants to be able to continue living in sin!” and “You liberal atheists just want to deny the consequences of your lifestyles! Wait till God judges you and you’re burning in hell!”

    OOOOO! We’re all really, really scared, aren’t we?

  4. mobathome says:

    Not so fast, KA. I’ll give you that for many dictionaries “person” is equated with ”human being” and vice versa, so you did intend to counter Worden’s claim. But you said in your article “the 14th amendment specifically states that only persons BORN [emphasis in original] in the US are entitled to rights”, and contrary to what you said, the 14th amendment protects the rights of both born or naturalized citizens and of persons, not just citizens.

    (BTW: Is there a way for me to leave a follow-up directly associated to your follow-up?)

  5. KA says:

    But you said in your article “the 14th amendment specifically states that only persons BORN [emphasis in original] in the US are entitled to rights”, and contrary to what you said, the 14th amendment protects the rights of both born or naturalized citizens and of persons, not just citizens.

    You’re engaging in pointless pedantry. So I neglected to mention the naturalized persons. So what? A fetus is not a person until it is outside the womb.
    So I’ll take the correction grudgingly, & update the article.

  6. and this guy had 300 friends? okay..

    here is the crazy part, if this took place in the 60s, I am assuming most of his “friends” were at least 18 years old. So in 2012, chances are that a large number of these guys would be dead of old age anyway, or car accidents, etc…

    if thoughts like these weren’t dangerous, they would be hilarious

  7. Mark says:

    Sue Blue…That was very educational. Thank You. I knew about the monkeys , but believed the rumor that AIDs came from humans (African tribesmen) having sex with them. And thought this believable since rural farm boys would have sex with sheep. The eating of infected meat sounds more logical now…good post!

  8. Mark says:

    So my new line when picking up a woman at a bar is, “I don’t eat spoiled African Monkey meat so I’m good” instead of, “I don’t have anal sex with African Monkeys, so I’m good”…LOL

  9. mobathome says:

    KA, I’m really not getting my message through to you. Even your revised claim that “the 14th amendment specifically states that only persons BORN (or naturalized) in the US are entitled to rights” is just Plain WRONG. This is no mere pedantry. In the U.S, under the 14th amendment, all person, not just citizens born or naturalized, have protected rights. For the first Supreme Court ruling stating this see “Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)”. There are many other such examples. Even illegal aliens have rights protected by the 14th amendment.

  10. KA says:

    Even your revised claim that “the 14th amendment specifically states that only persons BORN (or naturalized) in the US are entitled to rights” is just Plain WRONG.

    Let’s take a look see, shall we?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
    Its Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness. This clause has been used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural rights.
    Its Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. This clause was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision which precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation in United States education. In Reed v. Reed (1971), the Supreme Court ruled that laws arbitrarily requiring sex discrimination violated the Equal Protection Clause.
    Also:
    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    So sure: illegal immigrants have rights too. But these rights are applied to people within the jurisdiction of said state (or country).
    So of course there are rights allotted to people from other countries within the boundaries of state/country. That’s IMPLIED anyways.
    So you win. Hurray. Do you want a ticker tape parade? This still doesn’t invalidate my point: fetuses are not legally people unless they’re born. & my point about the 14th amendment still applies.
    You’re welcome to indulge in meaningless semantics some more, but it’s getting old.

  11. mobathome says:

    > You’re welcome to indulge in meaningless semantics some more, but it’s getting old.
    I agree this is getting old, The 14th amendment does two separate things:
    1- It links the citizenship status of persons to their place of birth or their naturalization.
    2- It provides the protection of some rights of persons regardless of their citizenship status.
    The question of protection of rights by 14th is not whether a fetus has been born but whether it is a person. If you don’t get that, you’ve missed the boat and are worse than useless in the fight about legislation at the federal and state levels to define fetuses as some kind of person.

  12. KA says:

    1- It links the citizenship status of persons to their place of birth or their naturalization.

    Ah – but if both parents are US citizens, & they’re not on American soil @ the time of birth, the infant is still an American citizen.

    2- It provides the protection of some rights of persons regardless of their citizenship status.

    It was actually the Civil Rights Act of 1866
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1866
    Formally titled An Act to protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil Rights, and furnish the Means of their vindication, the Act declared that people born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power are entitled to be citizens, without regard to race, color, or previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude. “…all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”

    The question of protection of rights by 14th is not whether a fetus has been born but whether it is a person.

    It is not a ‘person’ unless it’s been born.

    If you don’t get that, you’ve missed the boat and are worse than useless in the fight about legislation at the federal and state levels to define fetuses as some kind of person.

    So you pull some sleight-of-hand semantics, try to divert the conversation, & then try to say that I haven’t been saying what I have been saying all along? Up yours.

Comments are closed.