Uechi-Ryu.com

I mostly agree with you, Justin, being a libertarian at heart. But like many points of view, you cannot take it to an extreme without problems. For example,

Justin wrote:I think the government should act impartially with regards to sexual preference. If schools are going to teach sex education, that means including (with as little bias as possible) information about homosexuality, and it means recognizing marriage regardless of participant gender.

Fine... So does that mean government should recognize the right of a 25 year old man to have sex with an emotionally mature 15 year old girl? Fifteen year old boy? What about seriously mentally challenged adults having intercourse with others? These are common practices, after all (and you know I am right here). What about the right of a lonely woman to have sex with her horny dog? Should any of this be allowed? Taught in school as part of sex education because it happens?

There are limits. Where are they, and why?

There's a timely movie coming out this week about the life of Kinsey. Check this out.

Kinsey's critics note that he didn't have a random sample: Participants were disproportionately college-educated and from Indiana. He also included male prisoners, which may have inflated his findings on homosexuality.

Oh yea, that's right... Put a bunch of horny young male prisoners together with no access to women, and guess what happens? Is that good? Bad? Doesn't matter? Consider this...

Meanwhile, the rate of sexually transmitted diseases in the USA is five times higher than Europe's, where sex ed is often compulsory, Barratt says. Most heterosexual women with HIV are infected by their male, bisexual partners.

Clearly there are issues, aren't there? The author wanted to score a point for more open sex ed. However the comment points to the issues involved with gay sex that some people want to pretend aren't there. Ignorance in a PC society. Those issues make me want to tell gays "By all means, get married and be faithful!" But they also point to health issues involved with gay sex that aren't there in heterosexual sex.

Houston, we've got problems.

More here

By the way, this point in the article reinforces my "bimodal distribution" point made above.

Kinsey pioneered a 7-point scale for sexual orientation, from 100% gay to 100% straight, with many falling in between. "We still don't get it, and that's hurting us," Barratt says.

- Bill

Bill Glasheen wrote: Fine... So does that mean government should recognize ...
Should any of this be allowed? Taught in school as part of sex education because it happens?

There are limits. Where are they, and why?

Well, some states allow marriage even under 15, with parental consent. While 25 with 14 sounds bad to me, I can't say that there's no possible way it can ever be all right. Is the government within it's rights in banning a practice that is harmful in the vast majority of cases, but not absolutely all? I think so, though I can't put a number on it. 99%? 90%?

The parental consent is reasonable solution for the age question. Generally the ability to give consent is important, and I think that's a fair place to draw the line. As for what should be taught in schools, I think it is reasonable to discuss these issues.

I'm not going to get into the animal question because I don't know enough about it, and I think it's very different from the other issues.

Kinsey.

The things you talk about with the skewed statistics, and the bimodal distribution and preference scale are what I was making reference to when I mentioned it initially.

Oh yea, that's right... Put a bunch of horny young male prisoners together with no access to women, and guess what happens? Is that good? Bad? Doesn't matter? Consider this...

Well, there's a whole other dynamic in prison about power relationships. It's not just sex, it's dominance and often abuse. I really don't think prison is a good example of all-male society sexuality.

When you ask if it's good or bad I'm not sure what you're asking. Generally I think it's good if people feel free to act on whatever harmless sexual interest they have.

If you ask me whether personally whether I think homosexuality is good or bad that's a different question entirely.

But they also point to health issues involved with gay sex that aren't there in heterosexual sex.

As you obviously know, HIV has nothing intrinsically to do with being gay. Some activities are higher risk than others, though those activities are not confined to gay relationships. Gay sex encompasses a range of activities some of which are high risk and some are low risk.

As you obviously know, HIV has nothing intrinsically to do with being gay. Some activities are higher risk than others, though those activities are not confined to gay relationships. Gay sex encompasses a range of activities some of which are high risk and some are low risk.

All technically correct. But this glosses over many issues.

* "Typical" heterosexual sex and "typical" gay (male-male) sex are very different. And statistics - the REAL world - show one set of activities (net) yields dramatically different outcomes than the next - on many levels. At the very least, a male can't get pregnant, no? Think about those implications...

* "Typical" heterosexual rituals are very different than "typical" gay rituals. Let's face it - on average, guys are sluts. In the words of Billy Crystal,

Women need a reason to have sex. Men just need a place.

Put a guy and a gal together, and you have a certain degree of checking and balancing. Gay ritual often means slut squared. You don't find boys and girls meeting in bathrooms to have anonymous sex. Meanwhile, I found out the hard way (oops... bad pun) that there were certain restrooms at U.Va. (multiple places in Cabell Hall) where it was unwise of me to do a simple thing like take a dump. Not unless I wanted to be interrupted...

Again, sometimes even tolerance can be taken to an extreme.

- Bill

Bill Glasheen wrote: * "Typical" heterosexual sex and "typical" gay (male-male) sex are very different.

Yes, the stereotypical male-male sex act is a higher risk activity than the stereotypical male-female sex act, no disagreement.

* "Typical" heterosexual rituals are very different than "typical" gay rituals. Let's face it - on average, guys are sluts.

Well if that's the case maybe we should focus our resources on altering this plague of guy sluttiness.

I think it is very much the case that it's social pressure and expectation that creates such a strong dichotomy between male and female behavior. Yes, I recognize the evolutionary basis for it, but I believe culture very strongly magnifies it. Truth be told, my impression is that women are much more sexual and inclined toward casual encounters than men like to think.

I found out the hard way (oops... bad pun) that there were certain restrooms at U.Va...

This is inappropriate behavior from anyone. Just as with the recent catholic sex scandal one must see the distinction between the group and the individuals within the group.

Justin wrote:I think it is very much the case that it's social pressure and expectation that creates such a strong dichotomy between male and female behavior. Yes, I recognize the evolutionary basis for it, but I believe culture very strongly magnifies it.

Obviously Billy Crystal - and I - disagree.

It's like the research on getting from point A to point B, Justin. Guys and gals all eventually get to point B. However we do so in very different ways. To deny this is to deny our unique nature.

Your view of men and women basically being the same was a popular one in the 1960s and early 1970s. This was after the advent of the birth control pill when women were exercising their freedom and were in search of truly significant and just goals such as equal pay for equal work. Unfortunately the more research we do to show how men and women are the same, the more times we find they are quite unique. The citations in the literature are too numerous to include here.


Along those lines... It's worth mentioning that the Equal Rights Ammendment never passed. Ponder that...

Justin wrote:Truth be told, my impression is that women are much more sexual and inclined toward casual encounters than men like to think

Yea, right! Only in our dreams, Justin...

Oh, and this statement of yours just tickled my brain.

Justin wrote:Well, there's a whole other dynamic in prison about power relationships. It's not just sex, it's dominance and often abuse. I really don't think prison is a good example of all-male society sexuality.

Hmm... So we never see the power, dominance, and abuse thing going on in male-female interactions, right? Riiiiggghhhttt!

Yes, I agree to an extent. Prison has a higher percentage of individuals totally lacking in empathy. That does tend to skew behavior a bit.

- Bill

Justin

Speaking of Billy Crystal... If you haven't seen this movie yet, by all means rent it and see it. More than once...

When Harry Met Sally

Then rent it again in ten years. See if it resonates even more with you after you've experienced more of the vicissitudes of life.

My wife can't see this movie enough. Same with my late father-in-law.

- Bill

Lots of stuff here that almost makes sense:

"Why create conditions for the proliferation of a set of practices that go against their moral beliefs?"

This requires another enormous burden of proof. IF sexual orientation is developed by nurture, it does NOT follow that treating those of the minority orientation equally will increase their numbers. For all we know, being raised in a religious family could be a risk, because of adolescent reactivity against parental edicts. It could be diet. I think it's none of these things, but they're possible. What I do know is that the kids of gay parents aren't more likely to be gay themselves (actual stats lacking, anyone have them? Anecdotally I know a lot of people whose rents are gay and they've all been straight. I wouldn't be surprised if somewhat more kids were gay than expected, because they'd be in the most welcoming family situation for being honest about something even if its not choice).

The other reason is that disagreeing with something is different from feeling obligation to legally oppose it. It's a free country, and everyone has a part in keeping it that way: people who don't think anyone should drink can still spport the right to.

"Yes, the stereotypical male-male sex act is a higher risk activity than the stereotypical male-female sex act, no disagreement."

This quite depends. The actual biology of the one act we're obliquely referring to is trumped by the biology of the alternatives, the effect of mate choice, protection chosen, and number of contacts. People sometimes say that the way HIV exploded in SOME gay communities proves the sex is less safe, but, you don't want to test that theory, say, with an urban prostitute in subsaharan Africa, where the HIV infection rate in adults is incomprehensible. In reality, the MSM AIDS epidemic was due to stupid behavior, just as it was among drug addicts. Yet, tho I obviously intend no moral comparison here, drug users can guarantee their HIV status by only snorting or not sharing needles. All said, individual choice is what matters most, not sexual orientation.

""Typical" heterosexual rituals are very different than "typical" gay rituals. Let's face it - on average, guys are sluts."

(I'm not implying intent, but raising an issue...) One wonders--as this relates to marriage--if the solution to MSM rituals having no "female" brakes involved is to ENCOURAGE long term relationships, instead of declaring gays unfit for and barred from them and then chastizing them for the consequences. And dare I ask if those who cite STD rates as an argument about gay marriage know the same data suggests they should champion remarkably but not perfectly safe lesbian sex?

Re: Cabell hall at UVA.... and misued restrooms, "Sometimes even tolerance can be taken to an extreme."

Well yeah--but does this apply? Who's been championing the takeover of public restrooms as pickup sites as a tolerance issue?

"So does that mean government should recognize the right of a 25 year old man to have sex with an emotionally mature 15 year old girl?... seriously mentally challenged adults... What about the right of a lonely woman to have sex with her horny dog? Should any of this be allowed? Taught in school as part of sex education because it happens?"

I'd be speechless, if this were possible. This is quite a nonsequitor. The demonstrable NEED of high school students to learn about safe sex in a way that is meaningful to them and their same sex or opposite sex orientations has nothing to do with molesting those who can't consent: kids, functional kids, and nonhuman mammals. These things happen, but are not appropriate for sex ed, which is about how to protect one's emotional and physical wellbeing and that of the partner, something that doesn't apply in an assault. The slippery slope argument here--that if you acknowledge one new thing EVERYTHING comes flooding in--could have been used to keep oral sex between heterosexuals, or birth control, or "miscegenation" illegal. We need to focus on more tangible logical distinctions, and ability to consent is one logical prerequisite for sex that isn't going to disappear with equality.

"Health issues involved with gay sex that aren't there in heterosexual sex."

Note that gay men do everything that heterosexuals do with each other--everything, except one thing, for which they lack the required anatomy, and nothing more. So sexual practices that are dangerous aren't dangerous because of the gender of the particpants. And there are no dangers in male-male sex absent from male-female sex. It is simply a matter of what the individuals chose to do and not do with whom and how that determines safety. Despite the supposedly risky, (-) monogamous gay guys cannot get HIV and (-) guys with (+) partners can almost gurantee their safety, as well, without significantly limiting their sex life either...

Oh, on the choice webpage..... it's remarkable how much choice is involved even if sexual orientation is no choice. People can fight, or accept (choose) their feelings... they can choose quiet, open, or in your face lives... or they can choose concealed lives, dishonest lives, contradictory lives, etc. Then they choose how much they identify with the culture, the dress, the drapery selections they're told they want... and its a big deal (as a matter of choice) for some to be proud about their lives. Through in some bisexual tendencies and people can emphasize all sorts of different things. I've yet to meet someone (or find a relevant quote in skimming the page) that describes someone who, rather than being drawn to their preferred mates, made a conscious decision to be attracted to a whole other gender.

Ian

Thanks for jumping aboard; I was expecting you.

Understand that I am going to play devil's advocate just to keep you honest. That's been my motivation all along, after all. I'm just trying to get folks to evaluate their respective opinions and positions, and consider the same from those who feel - and vote - differently.

IF sexual orientation is developed by nurture, it does NOT follow that treating those of the minority orientation equally will increase their numbers.

That's what you hope and that's what we'd all like - in principle.

Understand though that the expression "treating someone equally" is a loaded expression. It's like the Equal Rights Amendment. Everyone thinks it's a good idea to treat women equally in principle. We think... Well... Exactly what do you mean by that? Give me some specifics. Next thing you know, we have opponents to it arguing about bathroom privileges.

To you, "treating someone equally" may mean having the federal government guarantee you the exact same rights and privileges ON EVERY LEVEL that heterosexuals get with respect to marriage. And all of us get the same sex education in public school that considers each and every aspect of an orientation and a lifestyle that is relevant to you.

The devil is in the details, my friend. In the words of Panther, where does tolerance end and advocacy begin?

And then put yourself in the head of Evangelicals who showed up in large numbers at the polls last week. Let's rephrase your statement.

IF sexual orientation is developed by nurture, it does NOT follow that advocating a gay lifestyle will increase their numbers.

That's the mindset of some, Ian. That's how they will frame the discussion. And then what evidence do we have to support your statement? Using the "show one exception" method of proof of mathematics... Let's say your statement is true. Fine... Then how do you explain the dramatic increase in gay activity within prisons? Men who otherwise behave as heterosexuals suddenly engage in homosexual acts in large numbers and with great frequency when confined in an all-male environment when at their peak testosterone years. Why?

Do we care? I wish I could share the data I have at my disposal, Ian. Health insurers cover these populations. I know the prevalence of HIV in the general population vs. the prison population. The differences are staggering. And we have every reason to believe that gay sex (within the prison) largely contributes to the problem. This is a public health concern.

Furthermore, Kinsey's work contributes to the theory that many of us have a little yin AND yang inside (in varying proportions), and environmental influences contribute to how we individually express those tendencies.

The libertarian shrugs his shoulders. Keep the government out of it ALL as much as possible. Give people a license to do what they want behind closed doors. Throw in a few tax breaks and partner rights that make sense, and be done with it. Believe what you want to believe; I don't give a damn.

The Evangelical sees this prison situation. They see what happens when "anything goes." They live (and vote by) their beliefs. They have kids and they want their kids to live a healthy, moral existence. They want healthy, moral grandkids. They resolve it all with a "Love the sinner; hate the sin" philosophy, and act accordingly.

I'm sitting here inside the body of this prototypical Evangelical, Ian. You're not moving me...

The slippery slope argument here

Indeed, Ian, it's the slippery slope argument. Your line on the hill is different than others. And the movement of the line in the past several generations has inertia. Can you and others acknowledge that?

And dare I ask if those who cite STD rates as an argument about gay marriage know the same data suggests they should champion remarkably but not perfectly safe lesbian sex?

You may, Ian. And if women figure out how to fertilize other women, then we males may one day become completely irrelevant!

Maybe they'll keep us around to take out the trash...

Note that gay men do everything that heterosexuals do with each other--everything, except one thing, for which they lack the required anatomy, and nothing more. So sexual practices that are dangerous aren't dangerous because of the gender of the participants.

You're glossing over a few points here... A good number of heterosexuals can be perfectly happy engaging in an activity (sexual intercourse in marriage) which in their mind is the raison d'etre on many levels. They have their bible in the right hand, and their book by Darwin in the left. They feel doubly affirmed, and don't understand why it's necessary to add all this "stuff" to the picture.

Meanwhile, they see you with ONLY these other choices. And they see the "typical" level of promiscuity of gay men vs. straight men. They see the statistics IN THIS COUNTRY on how the average woman contracts HIV. Follow the virus.

I'm the Evangelical, Ian. I'm still not feeling very warm and fuzzy towards your point of view.

In my book (as the Evangelical), the only thing you have going for you is giving you SOME kind of legal union that will make you happy and keep your practices behind closed doors with one lifelong partner. Anything more is too much information.

Out of role playing mode...

- Bill

To me, before you go mucking with amendments making other people's lives more difficult, YOU (or "one") face (faces) the burden of proof. I and others should not have to prove a negative to become teachers, get married, adopt, etc. There ought to be some rational reason for differential treatment. The evangelical you're playing may not feel that way, but hopefully he or she will listen to Panther's story about the sheep and the wolves voting over who eats whom for dinner. It's not their business to make me justify my rights. This is an important step because I'm NEVER going to convince a Jehovah's Witness, for example, to throw down for gay marriage. They stop becoming JW at that point; it's definitional. I have to convince them that my proving myself to them is NOT a prerequisite for fairness, just like THEIR intriguing me in the wrongness of having birthday parties is not a prerequisite for my supporting their full and unambiguous civil rights. You're right I haven't made an argument that's going to win me a guest speaker spot in their temples. I stress there is NOT such an argument to be made to them.

Here's the biggest problem: if HIV is already being spread, how on earth do they think gay marriage is going to make that worse? Prison rapists would be emboldened? Gay guys who are told they are welcome to form lasting relationships will go become more promiscuous? Why? And the mirror image is worth noting: I for one happen to know what happens when heterosexuals have sex: it's called the destruction of entire generations in Africa, where an AIDS crisis of astonishing proportions is impervious to the common sense of the heterosexuals who'd cast votes on civil rights. This isn't something to hang on the heads of those of a single sexual orientation.

"Then how do you explain the dramatic increase in gay activity within prisons? Men who otherwise behave as heterosexuals suddenly engage in homosexual acts in large numbers and with great frequency when confined in an all-male environment when at their peak testosterone years."

Not sure how this reflects on civil rights. What it does show: 1) sexuality is fluid, period. 2) the first rule of STDs: men are scum. All this shows is that sexuality is situational. It doesn't follow these people would be having same sex sex any more often on the outside if same sex marriage were permitted.

As a matter of semantics, I would clarify that 99% of gay people would NOT classify the largely rape and abusive same sex sex that happens in prison as gay. Gay is an identity. Rape is something anyone can do. Back when the Bible was written and same sex sex was condemned, raping the losing soldiers was a form of punishment. And it wasn't the big gay armies pushing this... gay didn't exist. This was cruelty, of the heterosexual kind.

All good points you make, Ian. And I identify with the libertarian mindset (as I have said many times).

The morals agenda has legs, and it's something GLB folks are going to have to face. But I will remind all that the fact that this was the "number 1" issue for voters may have had less to do with the subject and more to do with how they split out the various issues. (For example, are "security" and "Iraq" really two issues or one?)

Good point about the prison issues. I remind folks all the time to look at dogs and how they treat each other to understand the behavior of prisoners. "Mounting" of one male by another is an act of dominance and humiliation. It is designed to establish a male's position in the social hierarchy. However... That's not the only kind of sexual activity going on in prisons. In the end, it's difficult to understand what's going on from situation to situation.

1) sexuality is fluid, period. 2) the first rule of STDs: men are scum. All this shows is that sexuality is situational.

Indeed. We see eye to eye here. As J.D. used to say all the time, "You argue best when you argue my point."

It doesn't follow these people would be having same sex sex any more often on the outside {of prison} if same sex marriage were permitted.

We don't really know now do we, Ian? Nobody has proven anything one way or another. So perhaps you should understad those who fear a world they don't understand (hell, WE don't understand...) and don't identify with.

Back when the Bible was written and same sex sex was condemned, raping the losing soldiers was a form of punishment. And it wasn't the big gay armies pushing this... gay didn't exist. This was cruelty, of the heterosexual kind.

Indeed. Ever wonder why you can get kicked out of the military for being openly "gay"?

This is much more complex IMO than folks are making it out to be.

- Bill

See below re: a study authored by a UVA prof. I did not take, but did participate in a panel discussion during, her class. She's another example of how freakishly boring and benign and nice proponents of same sex marriage can be.

PlanetOut Network
Monday, November 15, 2004 / 04:32 PM

Teenagers raised by two moms develop as well as teens raised by opposite-sex parents, according to a groundbreaking new study published in the journal Child Development.

Researchers drew from a large U.S. sample of 12- to 18-year-olds, looking at measures of psychosocial well-being, romantic relationships and behavior in school. There were no significant differences between the two groups of teens in terms of depression, anxiety, sexual activity, self-esteem and school grades.

"This is the first study that has looked at adolescents with same-sex parents in a national sample, and it shows clearly across a wide range of variables that they're doing pretty well," said Charlotte J. Patterson, a psychology professor at the University of Virginia and co-author of the study.

The research was based on adolescents from 88 families, half of which were headed by lesbian couples.

Russell told New Scientist that the research shows that what is most important in a teen's development is the quality of relationship with his or her parents, regardless of their gender.

The authors said the results "provide no justification for limitations on child custody or visitation by lesbian mothers" and "do not support the idea that lesbian and gay adults are less likely than others to provide good adoptive or foster homes."

"That's not the only kind of sexual activity going on in prisons. In the end, it's difficult to understand what's going on from situation to situation."

Is it that bad? I mean, aggressive people in jail abuse each other; some might just be lonely for female attention (the Navy has functioned ok despite this issue) and a tiny minority might actually be gay. That's a sufficient explanation for me...

"We don't really know now do we, Ian? Nobody has proven anything one way or another. So perhaps you should understad those who fear a world they don't understand (hell, WE don't understand...) and don't identify with."

I can't prove a negative, but there's no plausible argument that suggests that same sex partnerships are going to turn the society into what we have in jail. I would instead focus on the fact that flouride, nuclear power, space travel, anesthesia, and the earth not being the center of the universe are small examples of how we can adapt to new and unfamiliar situations. All we need is to talk about it and take a little time. That's why I myself would not have pushed for "marriage," per se. At least not when people did. But I know why they did. And they should know why there's a backlash.

"Indeed. Ever wonder why you can get kicked out of the military for being openly "gay"?"

Not anymore. There's official policy on this. It's based on two things. Because the military has demonstrated this has no bearing on efficiency as soldiers, what's left is the possibility of blackmail (which is absurd, because what you want then is open and not closeted soldiers; can't blackmail Elton John, can you?) and the ominous threat of poor unit cohesion. In other words, the only rationale is the presumed distrust of the hetero soldiers. Source: "Conduct Unbecoming." (Shilts). Given the examples of other nations, and extensive anecdotal experience with soldiers in the US army, this (unit cohesion) has become an untenable argument as well.

And that's just what it was when it was proposed as a reason to keep the army segregated before WW2.

Not anymore. There's official policy on this. It's based on two things. Because the military has demonstrated this has no bearing on efficiency as soldiers, what's left is the possibility of blackmail (which is absurd, because what you want then is open and not closeted soldiers; can't blackmail Elton John, can you?) and the ominous threat of poor unit cohesion. In other words, the only rationale is the presumed distrust of the hetero soldiers. Source: "Conduct Unbecoming." (Shilts). Given the examples of other nations, and extensive anecdotal experience with soldiers in the US army, this (unit cohesion) has become an untenable argument as well.

"Randy Shilts was gutsy, brash and unforgettable. He died 10 years ago, fighting for the rights of gays in American society." -SF Gate

Hmmm... No bias there, huh? Not to mention up-to-date!

Unit cohesion has a hell of alot more to do with distrust of gays by straights in the military. I don't expect you to understand, and I'm not going to debate the issue with you. We know what lies down that road. Being in the military, the "Don't ask, don't tell" rule disgusts me. If you are gay, and know that gay sex is not allowed in the military, then you shouldn't join. God knows there are easier, better ways to make money. Finally, the don't ask, don't tell policy is based on rules governing CONDUCT, not traits. The US military is the most tolerant and mult-cultural institution I know of, and its' only goal is to kick a$$ as efficiently and effectively as possible. Inserting politics and social agendas is not conducive to that mission.

I'm not trying to pile on here, Ian, but I too was struck by some of your comments.

Let's be clear here from the start. I'm libertarian by nature. However...my dad was an extemporaneous speaking coach, and I have a sister who was 3rd in the nation and a brother who was 1st in the state as high school debators. We can take any position and defend it. I use those skills as device here to help draw truth out to the surface.

As I have lived a life both in liberal academia (as an assistant professor) and in corporate management with direct reports, I've seen it all. And I've even been the subject of so many rumors that are so varied and sometimes so bloody ridiculous that I can't even begin to state them here. And I don't care. Why? As my wife says, I can't be shamed. I don't give a rat's a$$ what others think of me. My mission in life as I see it (with the mind and peculiar mindset that someone gave me) is to seek truth and protect those I love and am responsible for. It's a mission I wish more in corporate management would take on but...oh well. The skin on my back is thick, and some people just bloody can't help themselves.

That's vague but...those who know me understand.

That being said... Sometimes the best way to love someone is to play the role of the nightmare that they will face in life. It's like dealing with my preadolescent son who now is making all the immature mistakes I made as a kid and I want to see gone before they really hurt him. And one of the mistakes I see "victims" making again and again is being fickle with the truth as a matter of convenience and a device to achieve their ends. That's when I - the ruthlessly undiplomatic truth seeker - pull out the bulls*** meter. We all have it done to us on these webpages at times, haven't we?

Example in corporate life... Part of my job is to design, sell, and analyze programs to paying large corporations that will improve the quality of healthcare to their employees. You want to know what the biggest temptation is when doing the sales pitch? "This will save you money!" Well, we in the academic community who don't believe in Santa Claus have a kneejerk "Bulls***!" response whenever we first hear this uttered. Missouri, I say. There are very, very few things in healthcare that save money. Immunizations save money (some, but not all) because they can save a lifetime (and sometimes even generations) of healthcare problems. Not much else.

Does a Lexus save you money? It's high quality alright. No...but you will PAY for that value (quality/cost), right? Same for most of healthcare.

So... If you go out to the GEs, Verizons, and Union Pacifics of the world and tell them you are going to save them money, you'd better be prepared to show it later on. And these customers are getting more and more sophisticated in their understanding of such matters with outfits like NCQA and such. And what happens when you say one thing and later on are found out to be full of poop? You'd better have advanced on to another job. (Some people actually do this on purpose, believe it or not. It is their modus operendum. Never stay in a single job long enough for folks to discover how bad your decisions really were.)

Back to GLB issues.

Tough love to my GLB friends means calling them when they say things that can't be backed up. It starts with telling the world that allowing gay marriage will not increase the level of gay activity in this country. The more I learn about this issue - and it is VERY complex - the more I see that it's impossible to make such a claim. Let's be honest here. Those with a "moral" agenda have this as one of their fears. Many of these voters are married with children, and they want happy grandkids whose parents don't have issues. This is a primal drive. It is the selfish gene expressing itself. We cannot deny people this type of selfishness.

Minority rights as well are an issue. We cannot have tyranny of the majority. This too I stand for.

But... In this path to a solution, the worst thing folks can do is lie to your enemies just to placate them or those who represent them. They will hold you to your lies later on, and will crucify you - as they should.

In my small, narrow world, there is no excuse not being on the side of what is just, and there is no excuse not being on the side of truth. Sometimes this means a LOT more pain. It's a burden I personally am willing to bear, and it is a burden that - IMO - yields the best longterm solutions.

A final aside... MedTech already commented on the military thing. Ian tried to compare prison activity to that on a Navy ship. I offer that there's a big difference between prisons and the Navy. You volunteer for the Navy; you are thrown in prison. You earn the right to be in Navy by merit and by character; you earn the right to be in prison by lack of character. The Navy is all about discipline and sacrifice for the country; prisons are all about punishment because these folks put themselves in front of the needs of others. So...I'd expect sexual activity on a Navy ship and in a prison to be a bit different.

FWIW.

Off of soap box, with my deepest appreciation for your indulgence.

- Bill

Lest anyone think otherwise... navy was only mentioned as a place / natural experiment where individuals of one sex are isolated, without much meaning implied. Certainly not that cahracters are comparable.

I'm not saying that I can prove that allowing gay marriage will not increase same sex activity; I'm just saying:

1) Proving that would be impossible

2) The burden of proof should be levied such that people don't have to prove the impossible to become equal citizens

3) No plausible reason for an increase has yet been mentioned, unless you factor in that some people who might repress their feelings wouldn't if they didn't feel the weight of prejudice

4) Just being afraid of something isn't a good reason to legislate against it. Maybe I'm afraid that some law might make it easier for black people to have more children. Would anyone honestly be sitting around wondering "Well, if you support this law, can you alleviate these people's fears by proving this law won't lead to more black people??"