Gay Parents Ready Kids for White House Easter Egg Roll

[GotZoom]

Did civil rights marches in the 60's annoy you, too? That's really what we're talking about...peaceful protest. Again, I'm not sure how I feel about the forum...but people have the right to make their cause heard. If people stop trying to prevent them from marrying the person of their choice and give them equal rights to heterosexuals, I figure you won't see them acting "differently".

You feel that gays and lesbians wearing pink shirts at the White House Egg Roll is equivilent to the civil rights marches of the 60's?

Just so ridiculous.

And so sad.

 

[Dr Grump]

You feel that gays and lesbians wearing pink shirts at the White House Egg Roll is equivilent to the civil rights marches of the 60's?

Just so ridiculous.

And so sad.

I agree using the Egg hunt is a dumb idea, too. As an aside, as long as the likes of OCA still have a say through the ballot box on how gay people run their own lives, then I dont' see you how you CAN'T compare them to the civil rights movement. That is what they are wanting. Not much to ask IMO..

 

[Kagom]

Umm without queers in S.F. in late 70's early 80's there is no AIDS in America, please keep up here at USMB.

Thing is, AIDs would've hit America whether it was through gays or straight people. AIDs was something that mutated over from primates. Whether it was from intercourse or eating of the infected primates is unknown. That there is speculation, but we do know that it mutated over (as I have already said). The first case of AIDs in a straight male was in the 70's and he had had no sexual contact with AIDs infected gay males.

 

[GotZoom]

Thing is, AIDs would've hit America whether it was through gays or straight people. AIDs was something that mutated over from primates. Whether it was from intercourse or eating of the infected primates is unknown. That there is speculation, but we do know that it mutated over (as I have already said). The first case of AIDs in a straight male was in the 70's and he had had no sexual contact with AIDs infected gay males.

Sorry. Wrong.

------

During the last few years it has become possible not only to determine whether HIV is present in a blood or plasma sample, but also to determine the particular subtype of the virus. Studying the subtype of virus of some of the earliest known instances of HIV infection can help to provide clues about the time it first appeared in humans and its subsequent evolution.

Three of the earliest known instances of HIV infection are as follows:

1. A plasma sample taken in 1959 from an adult male living in what is now the Democratic Republic of Congo.
2. HIV found in tissue samples from an American teenager who died in St. Louis in 1969.
3. HIV found in tissue samples from a Norwegian sailor who died around 1976.

A 1998 analysis of the plasma sample from 1959 has suggested7 that HIV-1 was introduced into humans around the 1940s or the early 1950s; much earlier than previously thought. Other scientists have dated the sample to an even earlier period - perhaps as far back as the end of the 19th century.

In January 2000 however, the results of a new study presented at the 7th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, suggested that the first case of HIV-1 infection occurred around 1930 in West Africa . The study was carried out by Dr Bette Korber of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. The estimate of 1930 (which does have a 15 year margin of error) was based on a complicated computer model of HIV's evolution. If accurate, it means that HIV was in existence before many scenarios (such as the OPV and conspiracy theories) suggest.

What about HIV-2? When did that get passed to humans?

Until recently, the origins of the HIV-2 virus had remained relatively unexplored. HIV-2 is thought to come from the SIV in Sooty Mangabeys rather than chimpanzees, but the crossover to humans is believed to have happened in a similar way (i.e. through the butchering and consumption of monkey meat). It is far rarer, significantly less infectious and progresses more slowly to AIDS than HIV-1. As a result, it infects far fewer people, and is mainly confined to a few countries in West Africa.

In May 2003, a group of Belgian researchers lead by Dr. Anne-Mieke Vandamme, published a report8 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. By analysing samples of the two different subtypes of HIV-2 (A and B) taken from infected individuals and SIV samples taken from sooty mangabeys, Dr Vannedamme concluded that subtype A had passed into humans around 1940 and subtype B in 1945 (plus or minus 16 years or so). Her team of researchers also discovered that the virus had originated in Guinea-Bissau and that its spread was most likely precipitated by the independence war that took place in the country between 1963 and 1974 (Guinea-Bissau is a former Portuguese colony). Her theory was backed up by the fact that the first European cases of HIV-2 were discovered among Portuguese veterans of the war, many of whom had received blood transfusions or unsterile injections following injury, or had possibly frequented local prostitutes.

http://www.avert.org/origins.htm

 

[jillian]

Jillian Wrote:Glad we see eye to eye on this point. Others were trying to state that they WEREN'T using their children for publicity...that is the point I was refuting.

Fair enough.

You've said this several times. I'm not quite sure how it relates. This is a fairly anonymous political message board. No one is flashing images of their children saying, "If you don't agree with my political views this child will go to Hell!!!!" No one is calling the media to get the views they express here espoused on the 8 o'clock news. You don't have to like all the views here, thats fine...I know I groan and roll my eyes at what is expressed here occasionally, just like everyone else.

Oh sorry...perhaps I didn't make myself clear, I was saying that I wasn't sure how I felt about the Easter Egg hunt being used as a forum for their political expression.

Are there other groups that have used traditional children's events to espouse their political viewpoints and agendas - using their children in order to grab the media's attention? I must have missed the Come and Meet Santa Who Also Happens to Be a Member of the NRA event at my local mall.

But is the NRA the focus of the white house effort to marginalize it?

Do I think this is/will be a peaceful event? Sure. Do I think the children are being harmed? No, I don't. But I do think they are being used...and for a group that wants to convince the American people (who - for better or worse - do NOT feel that they are "normal," and "just like them") that they are normal, this is a pretty stupid way to go about it.

Actually, most people have no problem with what consenting adults do. Nor do most people have a problem with them having equal rights, such as the ability to inherit, the ability to share pension and social security benefits, etc, with a life partner. It's only a small group of extremists who really have issues about it.

Absolutely. If your goal is to demonstrate on the White House lawn to protest what you feel are the wrongs this adminstration has perpetrated against you than this is JUST the way to go about it.

However...

If your goal is to enjoy a traditional Easter experience with your family, just like everyone else...than this is exactly how NOT to go about it.

You have framed my point beautifully, Jillian. If they are protesting - thats fine...they have every right to do so, and I believe they have issues that should be and need to be addressed.

But don't try to feed me a line of bullshit about how you are JUST going for the children and how you JUST want to be like everyone else...

Because we all know that in this case, that is just subterfuge for what is really going on. I don't mind the protest....I mind the bullshit.

What would have been effective is a gay couple bringing their children to the Easter Egg hunt. Enjoying the activity and the day. And when the media asked them questions about it...responding with, "Our children wanted to come, we wanted to enjoy the day and we did. No big deal."

All fair points, again, I have mixed feelings about the Easter Egg hunt being used for a political statement.

 

[William Joyce]

The guys are treating their kids to an Easter activity and they are trying to communicate that families can consist of healthy gay parents and children.

No, they can't. There is no such thing as a "healthy gay parent." Homosexuals, by definition, do not have children.

 

[Dr Grump]

No, they can't. There is no such thing as a "healthy gay parent." Homosexuals, by definition, do not have children.

Disingenuous. There are plenty of gay, healthy parents. Which dictionary do you get your definition of homosexual from? There are plenty of homosexuals who were married and had kids, then "came out"...so really, your example doesn't hold water.......

 

[Gunny]

Disingenuous. There are plenty of gay, healthy parents. Which dictionary do you get your definition of homosexual from? There are plenty of homosexuals who were married and had kids, then "came out"...so really, your example doesn't hold water.......

Disingenuous is right. WJ's intent is pretty clear; yet, you choose to play literalist with his choice of words.

It is a biological fact that homosexual couple cannot conceive nor bear children naturally. Disingenuous would be attributing a product of a homosexual's heterosexual relationship to his homosexuality.

 

[GotZoom]

Disingenuous is right. WJ's intent is pretty clear; yet, you choose to play literalist with his choice of words.

It is a biological fact that homosexual couple cannot conceive nor bear children naturally. Disingenuous would be attributing a product of a homosexual's heterosexual relationship to his homosexuality.

Wait for it Gunny.

"You mean artificial insimination isn't natural?"

"You mean that all the heterosexual couples who can't have a child except for artificial insimination aren't conceiving naturally?"

 

[Gunny]

Wait for it Gunny.

"You mean artificial insimination isn't natural?"

"You mean that all the heterosexual couples who can't have a child except for artificial insimination aren't conceiving naturally?"

Artificially inseminating a woman is natural in a biological sense. Artificially inseminating a man would be a perversion of nature, but then, that is exactly what homosexuals are anyway.

 

[GotZoom]

Artificially inseminating a woman is natural in a biological sense. Artificially inseminating a man would be a perversion of nature, but then, that is exactly what homosexuals are anyway.

What they don't understand is that, in simplist terms...

A man can't make a man pregnant.

A woman can't make a woman pregnant.

 

[mattskramer]

Lol fencesitting about drugs? Only people insecure in themselves use drugs, losers in other words, and no cigarettes and cigars and alcohol I do not consider "dangerous" drugs like heroin etc. etc.. Your argument is a strawman and another example of you unwilling to take a solid position other than to say "as long as it doesn't bother anyone else" moral relativism.

Bazookas??????????????? LMFAO!

A life? Oh you mean you finally told your wife that yes you are queer and went to that pole smoker you fantasized about long ago?

No, I do not condone child molestation in any situation, that you even thought up a situation where its ok with you is a sure sign of an unbalanced mind.

Come on. Tell it straight. Is it that cigarettes and alcohol are not dangerous or is it that they are not as dangerous as are other drugs. Of course alcohol is dangerous. Again, it all comes down to where you draw the line. I do take solid positions on very specific things. Unlike you, who seems to muddle his comments?

Yes, bazookas. Do you remember the question? It was in a discussion having to do with whether or not the Bill of Rights should be absolute. Considering a bazooka to fit the definition of an arm. Should private citizens be allowed to awn bazookas? You never gave a solid position on that question.

Your next ignorant and fallacious comment really is not worthy of a reply, but I’ll go ahead and respond. No. Life as in having several real and important relationships. Do you think that people should be allowed to smoke cigarettes? Then you must be a heavy smoker. Do you think that people should be allowed to drink alcohol? Then you must be an alcoholic. Oh come on. Give me a break.

Wow. A straight answer from you about molestation!! I’m so impressed. So if someone kidnapped your family and forced you to molest a child or the kidnapper would kill everyone, you would refuse. Okay. The kidnapper killed everyone. Way to go. As distasteful as it may be, I would have gone with the molestation rather than having everyone get killed.

 

[Gunny]

Come on. Tell it straight. Is it that cigarettes and alcohol are not dangerous or is it that they are not as dangerous as are other drugs. Of course alcohol is dangerous. Again, it all comes down to where you draw the line. I do take solid positions on very specific things. Unlike you, who seems to muddle his comments?

Yes, bazookas. Do you remember the question? It was in a discussion having to do with whether or not the Bill of Rights should be absolute. Considering a bazooka to fit the definition of an arm. Should private citizens be allowed to awn bazookas? You never gave a solid position on that question.

Your next ignorant and fallacious comment really is not worthy of a reply, but I’ll go ahead and respond. No. Life as in having several real and important relationships. Do you think that people should be allowed to smoke cigarettes? Then you must be a heavy smoker. Do you think that people should be allowed to drink alcohol? Then you must be an alcoholic. Oh come on. Give me a break.

Wow. A straight answer from you about molestation!! I’m so impressed. So if someone kidnapped your family and forced you to molest a child or the kidnapper would kill everyone, you would refuse. Okay. The kidnapper killed everyone. Way to go. As distasteful as it may be, I would have gone with the molestation rather than having everyone get killed.

Yet more screwy, extremist analogies brought to us by mattskramer. How lucky can we be?

 

[Dr Grump]

Disingenuous is right. WJ's intent is pretty clear; yet, you choose to play literalist with his choice of words.

I chose to see his argument as vacuous....

 

[Dr Grump]

What they don't understand is that, in simplist terms...

A man can't make a man pregnant.

A woman can't make a woman pregnant.

No, that is a very basic concept. What homophobes do not explain/understand or whatever, is what makes homosexuals bad parents? What stats are there to prove if they are good or bad? As I stated before, which was ignored (mostly) is that most losers I know of, or who I went to school with, where brought up by hetrosexual parents. Personally, I don't think the sexual orientation of a parent has anything to do with how well adjusted a kid is or isn't. It's a combination of nature and nuture IMO...

<edited for clarification>

 

[Gunny]

I chose to see his argument as vacuous....

Because it doesn't agree with yours? I find people arguing that homosexuality is anything more than aberrant behavior to be vacuous.

 

[Gunny]

No, that is a very basic concept. What homophobes do not explain/understand or whatever, is what makes homosexuals bad parents? What stats are there to prove if they are good or bad? As I stated before, which was ignored (mostly) is that most losers I know of, or who I went to school with, where brought up by hetrosexual parents. Personally, I don't think sexual orientation has anything to do with how well adjusted a kid is or isn't. It's a combination of nature and nuture IMO...

And there's that word ....homophobe. I'm afraid homophobia is not required to see sexual deviants for what they are.

Personally, I think children raised by homosexuals are fare more likely to become homosexuals themselves, and they could not possibly be well-adjusted hearing the day to day ridicule of living with dad and dad from their peers.

 

[Dr Grump]

Because it doesn't agree with yours? I find people arguing that homosexuality is anything more than aberrant behavior to be vacuous.

But I wasn't arguing that was I?

 

[Dr Grump]

And there's that word ....homophobe. I'm afraid homophobia is not required to see sexual deviants for what they are.

Personally, I think children raised by homosexuals are fare more likely to become homosexuals themselves, and they could not possibly be well-adjusted hearing the day to day ridicule of living with dad and dad from their peers.

But until you can back it up with actual data, as you say, it is your personal opinion...

As for homophobe, hey I didn't invent the word, I'm just applying its meaning....

 

[Gunny]

But I wasn't arguing that was I?

Did I say you were?