Yes, i enjoy how people throw these assumptions around. I can't remember the last study that I read that has objectively proved this. They are so abundant.

It'd be like me saying that young straight catholics have more anal sex than regular people.

The portrayal of homosexual men (as opposed to lesbians) as hypersexual is a result of the inevitable association between gays and sex. Honestly, what is the first thing you associate with someone being a homosexual? Does it have anything to do sex or sexuality? Probably.

With straight people, since they are the 'norm', sexuality is not at the centre as much.


Also, due to the social stigma attached to being gay, many homosexuals who are married or in the closet will probably only present themselves as homosexuals (usually in discreet environs in private) in order to have sex. I mean, there is anonymous sex. Does this happen with straight people? But of course! Except, social pressures to keep it hidden are nothing like what they are in the case of homosexuals. It was not long ago that such activities were illegal, let alone sanctioned (they are still not sanctioned; even promiscuity among straight people is not sanctioned).


Let me add:

The fact that associations between gays had to be done in private and secretly lead to a sub-culture, which had its own modes of operation. I'm sure that, throughout the centuries, this has been a strong support systems for homosexuals, giving them a place where they could get away from the crushing pressures of the homophobic society.

Now, to relate this to my statement above, some gays (I read about this in the NYT, and not in the Canadian media), feel that gay marriage and other such implementations are basically a threat to that culture, and that this means that society will force its morals on them. In other words, under the pretense of accepting them, it really imprisons them in another way.

That is a very ineteresting viewpoint. And of course, it has not been discussed.

Yes, because the man has married another woman, has children, has another life, and will not give her over to her parents, who want to take care of her.


Just my personal opinion, but I find it so sickening. Honestly, her parents want to take care of her, and he has another life, and has had one for a while, why must she be starved to death? But that's a personal opinion. I'm not laying out a moral argument here. I just think of him as scum, that's all. Just MHO.

Both liberals and conservatives, who are involved in politics, eventually present their positions in a way that violates somebody's rights. For liberals such issues are gun control, equal opportunity enforcement, higher taxation, etc.

Me too, it makes me want to vomit that he has more say.

Um, since he has another life, and could go to it and "move on," and yet he continues with this battle that has villified him in the eyes of the entire nation, anyone ever thought he might not be doing it for selfish reasons, and that he truly believes she would have wanted the tube removed? That he is acting on some care and consideration that he thinks she wouldn't want to live/die this way?

If he truly did care for her i dont see how he could have moved on to another woman his wife still being alive.How can a husband go home and fuck another woman while his wife is in that state?
Now that is fucking wrong,so much for true love and being together in sickness and health.So much for his vows.

Regardless of whether one thinks she should live or die, allowing her to simply starve/thirst to death is one of the most sickening things I've seen.

Wow there are alot of big words in this thread.

Yeah but at least liberals aren't hypocrites about it, like saying they support "getting government off our backs" or supporting "state's rights" while doing the exact opposite.

Would you still feel that way if it were the parents wanting to shut off the machine and he was saying not to?

I don't get the whole "shut off the feeding tube" thing period. I mean either euthanise her or feed her, but what's up with this slow torture death they are putting on her which must be extremely painful?

If he was saying not to, that would at least be him acting against his narrow self interest. As it is, he comes across as just trying to shed himself of baggage.

It's not that I think the courts should do what the parents say, it's that I don't think they should take the husband's word as more important. It's not just that many marriages end in divorce, but even those that don't, a lot of them don't have much affection in them. At least with the parents, there is a greater likelihood they are looking after the woman's interests.

It must be extremely painful if you were able to feel, yes, but isn't she sort of brain dead? I.e. not able to feel at all? Not able to think, not able to do anything at all. She really doesn't exist anymore, she's just this block of brainless organic material; a vegetable.

Liberals have their own hyporcisies.

For example, they had hardly any minority cabinet appointments under 8 years of Clinton. Bush has had two minority state department heads and one AG, as well as others in other posts, such as FCC. I'm no fan of Bush at all, but I'm just saying liberals have their hypocrisies too.

Another one is that a liberal in 2004 says torture is outrageous. But a liberal in 2005 says starving and thirsting a woman to death is a step forward for progress!

Clinton increased minority representation 100 times more than Bush senior did. To say that liberals do not appoint minorities is ridiculous.

"Where his predecessor, George Bush, could find only one qualified woman, one African-American and two Hispanics for his Cabinet, Clinton nominated three black men, a black woman and two Hispanic men to join nine white Cabinet nominees — three of them women. George W. Bush’s push for diversity in his own Cabinet this year can be seen as an affirmation of Clinton’s work on that front." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3071906/

I am happy Bush Jr is also doing more but even with high profile appointments like Rice and Powell, you have to look at the big picture. Bush's appointment of women has "plummeted" from Clinton's years (http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/600/), and obviously there are no prominent gays in Bush's community, because republicans only care about diversity when it can help them get votes.

There is no reason to assume that had Gore or Kerry been elected that they would not also have put in even more minorities than Clinton had. That's the way it's going to be, as more and more minority candidates become qualified.

Liberals believe the government should not be making private decisions about personal decisions, such as what religion you should believe, who to marry, whether to have an abortion, and when to terminate life. That is consistent. Majority Leader Bill Frist agreed completely when he was a doctor, removing life support from his patients, but now that he is a politician, he apparently finds it repulsive. That is hypocracy.

Eh, where's Beeblebrox when you need him?

All of the big words and arguments and prayer vigils and vote patterns of the conservative groups all boil down to one simple argument: "We are the majority here; you have to do what we say." This is precisely what the Amendments guard against.

And I won't believe one word of Bush's "culture of life" until Bush apologizes for all the executions he failed to stop while he was governor of Texas.

Just to add to what make Mike and Erendis have said...

Archie, Terri Schiavo likely won't experience any pain: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u ... logistssay

It's hardly the "torture" that most conservatives are making it out to be.

Wow, I popped into this thread to see if anything was being said about how the religious Republicans are exploiting the Terri Schiavo case for political gain, and I see my name pop up. Very cool.

What strikes me as intriguing about this is watching religious Republican "principles" disintegrate before our very eyes. Less intrusive government? What a laugh. The sanctity of marriage? Only when attacking gays obviously. Of course, that's provided you think they ever had any real principles to begin with...but I digress.

The fact is that Republicans KNOW that they have no chance whatsoever of winning this fight. The rights of the husband supercede that of the parents and the only way to save Terri's life is to change the law. And that's just not going to happen. And furthermore, no one WANTS to change that precedent. Can you imagine the ramifications?

So why the media frenzy over this when just the other day in Texas a baby was taken off life support(against the wishes of the parents no less) in much the same way? Where's the outrage? Where are the Republicans? Why, they're where the cameras are, of course.

First of all, no one has said that starving Terri Schiavo is a "step forward for progress." That's asinine, and if that's the best you can do to illustrate a hypocrisy, then give it up.

Second, comparing the administration's advocacy of torture of prisoners with a husband's right to terminate the life of his brain dead wife is less comparable than even apples or oranges. They are two completely different things. For one, Terri Schiavo won't feel any pain or humiliation. She has no brain activity and has had none for fifteen years. She is alive in only the loosest sense of the word.

I'm sure I could point out liberal hypocrisies, but this isn't one of them.

Ironically, some of Bush's appointments might be seen as just the kind of affirmative action tokenism that Republicans usually rail against. Witness the Illinois Republicans's disasterous selection of Alan Keyes as their candidate against Barack Obama last November. There is definitely reason to believe that these nominations and appointments are politically motivated. I mean, honestly, is Condie "I believe the memo was entitled Bin Laden determined to strike in US" Rice really the most qualified candidate for Secretary of State?

Jackpot!

This is all hypocrisy from the Bush administration and his cronies of the worst kind. Bush paints himself as a moral crusader of life even after allowing the execution of retards when he was governor of Texas. The Republican party used to be about miniscule government interference, is Congress getting involved in this case anything like that? Not to mention they nowadays want to protect the "sanctity" of marriage, while when wearing another mask deny the husband as the caretaker of Schiavo.

This country is in some serious shit this year, and we are only in March. Natural gas prices are going through the roof, our overextended troops are locked in an unstable country that will go into civil war the minute all of our troops come home, the government is slowly trying to interfere in things that are none of it's business, school shootings, rising poverty, etc., etc.

I can't wait for 2006, 2007, and 2008. Joy!

I'm not sure how equal opportunity enforcement infringes on other people's rights, but on the issues of gun control and taxation, both liberals AND conservatives are seperated by only the tiniest of margins in terms of Constitutionality of the laws they advocate. In other words, it's more about degree than it is one side or the other.

I love how the religious right has managed to make this a case about "life" vs. "death" when its ultimately just about who has the legal right to make the decision for a married woman. If the sentiment had been reversed, and the parents wanted it pulled, would the government suddenly want to intervene on the husband's behalf? That's not sound legislation. I'm surprised at how everyone has sucked up the life or death discourse as though this was just like abortion and everything else that the religious far conservatives have managed to collapse into their "morality" needing to be "the law."

Conservatives and right to lifers have taken the ability to euthanize patients and made it nearly criminal. She must be "starved" because they won't allow them to inject her with things that would kill her. So don't blame them for the method. Yeah it's silly, but welcome to planet Earth.

By "unplugging her feeding tube" they are allowing her to die in the way in which she apparently told her husband she wanted to be. I mean, my mom has had this discussion with my dad. "If 'x' ever happens, and there is basically no hope left, I want you to unplug me and move on a protect the family". I see that is what the husband is honoring. I can forgive him for being a little gruff... it's a difficult situation and undoubtedly many people want his head on the platter.

Her parents are selfish, in my humble opinion, and are clinging on to an idea of their daughter which does not exist anymore.

I'm glad to see the courts honoring the decisions that married couples make.

I'm not too versed on this subject, but ideally, a will can help clarify these issues.

I agree.

And Congress getting involved has morphed even further, into a case of the government getting larger and nosier.

Sound legislation? Nope, far from it, but are you really surprised?