Exactly. Hell, we called on particular young lady at the small university I attended Kevin Bacon, because you could connect any body at the school to her in 6 or fewer sexual encounters. God bless you Stacey, wherever you are.

Dan--Maybe you can re-read the two earliest posts in this thread, and get back to me on that.

William F. Buckley Jr., as I understand it, is not a regular on comicon. Then again, there's a lot of socks around here. So who knows, really. Either way, I'm really not left with the impression that he's secretly gay. His attitude towards homosexuals seems to just fall in line with overarching right-wing ideology.

Porta is a lunatic. Or a jokester, I can't really tell which. But to ascribe his attitudes to repressed homosexuality would be about as accurate as ascribing them to beekeeping.

It's usually best to not put too much energy into looking for linear logic in Porta's posts.

Hm. "Looking for linear logic in Porta's posts"... I feel like Stan Lee.

Hey Steve,

Since you wanted to actually discuss this ridiculous idea, don't you think it a little...odd that Buckley and Porta are restricting themselves to talking about gays? AIDs is all-to-common in the African American community too - how do you think the idea of rounding up up blacks and tatooing those infected with HIV would go over? Of course, to be fair, we would have to have mandatory testing and tatooing of EVERYONE, wouldn't we?

While we're at it, shouldn't people who carry genetic disorders that can be passed on to their children also be marked? I mean, wouldn't that suck to find out you had children with someone who didn't tell you cystic fibrosis was carried in their family, when you could have gone and bred with a more healthy bloodline?

Oh, and we should also tatoo the foreheads of gun owners. They're far more likely to kill someone than a person who's infected with HIV, and they're not likely to take off their clothes before shooting someone, so it needs to be somewhere prominent.

All that being said, I think there is a reasonable case to be made for charging someone who knows they're HIV+ and has unsafe sex with a partner without telling them with a crime. Of course, the partner is pretty stupid to have unsafe ex with someone they don't absolutley know and trust, but on the other hand, there are assholes everywhere among all types of people, and some of them would just lie about it. Contrary to what Porta and Buckley would have you believe, there is a lot of discussion about this issue in the gay community, which you would know if you ever made an effort to inform yourself. It is widely regarded as a serious problem that a lot of young people have grown up with the idea that the HIV drugs can keep you alive indefinitely, so they don't think keeping safe is all that important. The answer is education, not the Mark of Cain.

Lastly, tatoos can be removed, you idiots.

By and large?

By and large?

By and large, "people" date to get to know someone, then marry early, and have kids.

By and large, fudgepackers don't do that, because they're, like, out there packing fudge. Un-natural, in the procreative sense. I never heard of an anal birth.

What is linear logic, you patriarchic fascist? Get in touch with your feminist side!

Okay, fine, pretend that the problem does not exist. Make me out to be a phobe because i bring it up but don't get all holier than thou the next homosexual rights thread appears on this board. If your legitmately concerned abotu the health, safety and well being of homosexuals then this issue should weigh heavily on your minds.

Ya know i see it like this. Men, "by nature", are more promiscious then women, particularly young men. Therefore it is only natural that gay men have more promiscious sex than hetero young men solely because eager partners are more readily available. Certainly there are those young ladies that are looser than the average, but by and large men are much more eager to have sex than women. So taking this as a given (i'm certain there will be argument) it makes perfect sense that gay men are more promiscious, as a whole, than hetero men. Basically for lack of willing partners.

This to me is most easily evident in the late 70's early 80's with initial widespread outbreak of the AIDS virus. The virus originally ravaged the gay community such that it was initially called Homosexual Associated Immune Deficiency Virus for a time. I'm aware that the virus spreads more rapidly thru anal sex, but even still, one would think that percentage of hetero men to gay men would have been much more equitable than it was. To me, that it swept thru the gay community with such vigor, while for years seeming to spare heterosexuals, speaks directly to the vast amount of promiscuity that must have been present. There were more heterosexuals having intercourse than homosexuals, yet this STD appeared in far superior numbers in the gay couplings. If the film "and the band played on" is to be taken truthfully, they literally tracked a large swath of the epedimic to several individuals who basically screwwed thier way from San Fransisco to Paris. And while that may lead you to say "well that only accounts for a few individuals" i would counter that it also accouts for the hundreds of partners they bedded down with, which in turn leads me to the conclusion that there was promiscuity far and above what one would term "normal, youth related, promiscuity" at play there.

Steve

You're quoting the wrong guy, you secret boy band-loving miscreant hate-monger. Dan wrote that--but he's right.

Sean, my last post was not in response to your post, it should have been addressed to Dan and Eldritch.

in response to your post though, i am not an advocate of the "Tatoo" solution to the problem. Quite honestly i don't have any sort of suggestion for solving that problem as it's not something i'm very familiar or close to. My stance is basically thus "gay men (or women or hetero men for that matter) inflicting other people with the Aids virus is a problem that requires immediate attention". If it's so that the same incorrigable act represents a serious problem in the African-American community (or oriental, or hispanic or Caucasion, hell where ever the problem exists) then it should be addressed and in my eyes criminalised there as well.

Steve

Hey Steve,

So really, can you (or anyone else here, for that matter), think of a rational way to address the issue that doesn't boil down to increasing education and awareness of the facts about AIDs and HIV (for instance, that the new drugs are in no way a guaruntee you'll survive the disease) so that people adjust their behaviour of their own free will?

Of course, Bush and his fundie clique have been actively workig against this, by such actions as pouring money into "abstinence only" programs and taking down information about condoms protecting people from STD's from government health websites.