Peter

Fri, Apr 5, 2013 : 1:34 p.m.

What similarities are there between Shirvell and Armstrong?

Colorado Sun

Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 11:33 p.m.

Same with Armstrong and the Democratic Party. Armstrong worked for Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi. Does the mainstream Democratic Party want to be associated with someone like Armstrong?

PattyinYpsi

Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 4:43 p.m.

Insult to weasels, fjord. I'd trust a weasel more any day than I'd trust either one of these hate-mongers.

UpperDecker

Mon, Apr 8, 2013 : 12:39 p.m.

What are you even trying to say Mpope? Give it up..you are a bigot.

Jaime Magiera

Sat, Apr 6, 2013 : 2:15 p.m.

mpope, this is about rights: The right to the same privileges as any other people in education, health, economic, etc. systems. You suggested "educating" people based on outdated, inconclusive and inaccurate information. The reason the information was posted on the FB page in the first place was to try to create a wedge to deny gay people rights. What Andrew Shirvel did was an attempt to deny gay people their rights. When homophobes attempt to spin nonsense into justification to deny people their rights, it's an issue. When government figures who are supposed to be working for the public good spout such nonsense, it shows they cannot be trusted to work for the rights of all citizens. People can spout homophobic nonsense all they want... unless they try to institutionalize that nonsense and/or they are in a position of public policy - which is meant to be for the public good. It's interesting to note that you haven't been able to provide any recent peer-reviewed information - which implies you have ulterior motives.

mpope

Sat, Apr 6, 2013 : 3:41 a.m.

jaime, i guess i should be honored to meet the spokesperson for A2.com readership. thank you for 'illuminating' me (to borrow a term) on what is and isn't relevant 'here.' why are you arguing civil rights with me? i never mentioned a single civil right, not real or imagined. not granted nor suppressed nor repealed, nor abused, nor ignored nor nothing. i mentioned (at this point, repeatedly, with less than satisfactory engagement returns ) is responsibility to consider potential. so, you've codified what's not relevant 'here' i.e., stats that oppose your pet studies. i'll offer a suggestion as to what is in very short supply 'here' i.e., a sampling of the usual suspects' ability to engage beyond their biases.

Jaime Magiera

Fri, Apr 5, 2013 : 9:40 p.m.

your*

Jaime Magiera

Fri, Apr 5, 2013 : 9:39 p.m.

1. Yes, findings that are 30 years later by large organizations of researchers and other professionals are more apt to be correct. That shouldn't surprise you. 2. Was I familiar with the findings? Yes, in fact if you read back on threads related to gay rights and homophobia here the past few years here you will see me referencing those things. Your point is not really relevant here because you have yet to provide any modern peer-reveiwed research. Anything in regards to dangers of education on the lifestyle, etc. would have to be based on current research. Note that when talking about civil rights, you have to prove a legitimate reason for a group to be separated from the rest in terms of enjoying those rights. If you can't find current research to back up your claims, you're argument is dead in the water. Like now.

mpope

Fri, Apr 5, 2013 : 2:21 p.m.

jaime, your refutation of the first statistics gives gives rise to several questions: 1. to your reading, how are the APA and AMA findings more credible? do these associations have no history of reversing findings? are these associations free of all bias? 2. were you familiar with these findings BEFORE you originally read the story of Ageman's facebook posting? my point is this: any/ all of the original findings have been denounced from the very first moments of A2.com first story on Ageman. that kind of reactive denial seems irresponsible when people's health and well-being are suggested to be so significantly impacted. you counter with different findings.. which can also be refuted. those rebuttals can then countered. and then refuted again. and this can go on and on... SO... *is the original set of statistics presented in an unloving tone? yes. *does the possibilityfor any semblance of truth suggest that LGBT persons might like to think of life-style changes and strategies to reduce some of the potential harm? yes. *should the potential for harm temper the public policy esp. in how homosexuality is taught in school? public educators would be entirely irresponsible to ignore the tension between presenting homosexuality as an equal alternative lifestyle and the task of tempering it with caution. this approach is nothing new.

Jaime Magiera

Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 10:01 p.m.

What exactly is the negative outcome mpope? Can you illuminate us using current research and information about the harm gay people bring to society? I have yet to see anything remotely related to current, valid research by non-biased professionals. I can name a few positives for you, as stated by longtime professional health organizations who support gay rights and gay parenting.... American Psychological Association, American Association of Pediatrics, American Medical Association. Do you need more? I can provide a boatload.

Jaime Magiera

Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 9:56 p.m.

Also, note that 1978 was over 35 years ago. Lets use some current numbers, shall we?

Jaime Magiera

Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 9:54 p.m.

trespas, be sure you understand what you quoted. The values given were for the enrolled members of SFCCC. "The San Francisco City Clinic Cohort (SFCCC) consists of approximately 6700 homosexual men recruited between 1978 and 1980 from a clinic for sexually transmitted diseases to participate in a hepatitis B study. Because of the selection procedures, these men were probably more sexually active than most homosexual men in SF ."

mpope

Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 8:09 p.m.

Peter, that's one action-packed response you made there. did you notice, though, your intolerance greatly detracts from the case you appear to be trying to make for tolerance?

Peter

Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 6:55 p.m.

How about 'mpopers'?

mpope

Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 4:21 p.m.

'mpope, none of that is credible, and it only looks credible to you because you want it to be true to justify your hatred of gay people.' so much judgment and presumption and even attempted mind-reading. so little substance. carry on, Houdini. Jaime, i've made it clear i'm not interested in the purported frequency (or hyper frequency as it's asserted) of any particular gay person. i'm concerned with the potential for the medical and mental health statistics to be true. i'm dismayed how so much potential (dare i say 'possible'?) negative outcome is denounced as homophobic. clownfish offered refuting statistics, but i read much of the verbage as explaining away the results. i suspect the problem with the Ageman link is this-- it opens with a lengthy acrimonious passage, which would entice many to disregard the whole thing. proving again, presentation accounts for much. still, i think reactive dismissal is unwise, unhelpful AND it demonstrates a serious bias on the parts of LBGT activists (as least the armchair activists who frequently post on A2.com). most of us have friends and loved ones who live a gay lifestyle. we should be sincerely concerned which of these health statistics might impact them. by the way, the vociferous charge, 'homophobe' has quickly become the new Godwin's law. and it's certainly the pendulum swing of gay slurs from the 70s and 80s. Can we come up with something new? a cogent argument, maybe? a respectful way to address people with whom you disagree, perhaps?

UpperDecker

Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 4:17 p.m.

Even if there was a greater risk of chronic disease is that going to make someone that is gay suddenly stop because of higher risk of disease?? Everyone is at risk for STI's just the same and everyone is still trying to have sex as much as possible. Cigarettes? Alcohol? All can cause a disease or kill you but people still do them because that is part of life if you so choose. Stop worrying about an entire community that you clearly are against anyways.

trespass

Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 3:14 p.m.

@Jaime- In a survey of 751 homosexual men in San Francisco (Darrow 1989) the number of sexual partners per year in the following percentiles, 10, 25,50,75,90,95, were 0, 12, 36, 84, 204, 329. Thus the average number of partners per year in that cohort was 36 per year and 10% had more than 204 partners per year. http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cphl/Models/aids/chapter5.pdf page 57

Jaime Magiera

Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 2:32 p.m.

mpope, nobody is defending a lifestyle - we don't have to. It really doesn't matter if someone sleeps with 1, 2, 20 or 120 people a year. It's not illegal to do so. That's part of the problem here. The "evidence" against gay people in that document is more about exaggerating and attacking perceived lifestyle for things that are not even legal/illegal - which shows how fallacious it is to deny gay people equal rights. Now, on to the topic of lack of concern for issue such as depression, drug abuse, etc... There is an ever increasing support network for LGBT people throughout the United States. I used to live with the director of the Wellness Network back in the early 1990s, which introduced me to that aspect. I've seen things continue to get better for the LGBT community in terms of addressing those issues. No one is shooting the messenger here. The issue is that the "messenger" is actually a homophobe trying to manipulate people through fear. A real "messenger" would link to current research AND current resources to help the LGBT community.

Jaime Magiera

Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 2:20 p.m.

trespass, it's supported by being familiar with the gay community since the mid-1980s (adopted by a gay couple in fact). In any population, there are outliers in terms of behavior. However, in this case, I know of no evidence that any significant portion of *any* population has 2.2 new partners a week aside from sex workers. I challenge you to actually provide such evidence.

Peter

Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 1:43 p.m.

mpope, none of that is credible, and it only looks credible to you because you want it to be true to justify your hatred of gay people.

mpope

Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 1:38 p.m.

'However, probably not for reasons that you realize.' So much presumption, so little time..... and you're sincerely worried about the judgment of others? ... ... oh. ok. Jaime, as i previously stated, my interest is not with the purported promiscuity of homosexual persons. my interest is with the seeming lack of concern for the chronic disease and the mental wellness statistics. clownfish, 2 things: the debunking of anti-gay myths don't adequately address many of the chronic disease and mental wellness issues. the rebuttal addresses general issues such as 'not a mental illness' and dismiss addictions etc as such: It is true that LGBT people suffer higher rates of anxiety, depression, and depression-related illnesses and behaviors like alcohol and drug abuse than the general population. But studies done during the past 15 years have determined that it is the stress of being a member of a minority group in an often-hostile society — and not LGBT identity itself — that accounts for the higher levels of mental illness and drug use. such a dismissal supported by little more than advocacy, high hopes and little more. finally, clownfish, if my doctor was right half the time i'd quit him.. but your retort is a misfire. i didn't propose that these stats are half right. my premise was 'what if even HALF of these statistics are correct?" seems to me that on this reply board, people are a whole lot more concerned with advocating for a LIFETSYLE than they are advocating for PERSONS who practice the lifestyle.

clownfish

Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 1:02 p.m.

If your physician was right 1/2 the time, would you continue as his/her patient? How about if your mechanic fixed your car correctly 1/2 the time you took it in?

clownfish

Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 12:46 p.m.

10 Anti-Gay Myths Debunked http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths Did you know that "straight" people make up the vast majority of felons, divorce's, adulterers and deadbeat parents? Does that mean we should outlaw heterosexuality because of the grave harm caused to society?

trespass

Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 10:46 a.m.

@Jaime- Whether or not that particular statistics is credible or not depends on the population and the time that the study was conducted. There was a time when the AIDS epidemic was starting that the San Francisco "bath houses" were part of the lifestyle for a segment of the gay population. In that lifestyle, men may have had many partners in one night. One of the main collections of blood samples that was used to study the AIDS epidemic was actually collected to study hepatitis in the San Francisco gay population because there was an epidemic of hepatitis in that population. So it is quite likely that there is a credible scientific source for the statistic but it is being stated out of context and that "lifestyle" for the most part no longer exists. There was also an era of "free love" in the heterosexual population of the 1960's after the birth control pill became available but that "lifestyle" has also gone out of fashion. Thus, your argument of logical fallacy is unsupported and would be better stated as an argument about context.

Jaime Magiera

Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 6:18 a.m.

How does "One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year (6)." appear to be credible? Do the math. 106 partners a year would be 8.8 partners a month, or 2.2 partners a week. Such numbers bare no resemblance to reality. Anyone with an academic background can see the fallacy in what was posted, including the antiquity, misrepresentation and bias of the sources. It's interesting to note that such a large portion of that document obsessively focus on sexual practices. In other words, I don't doubt that you read the link several times. However, probably not for reasons that you realize.

metrichead

Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 5:46 a.m.

The problem is there's no corroborating evidence to support the quackery Mr. Agema reposted. What is the rationale behind assuming a possibility of half the statistics being true? You're trying to promote discredited science in order to take the attention of Mr. Agema's intolerance. Yes, I used the word "quackery." On purpose, too.

PattyinYpsi

Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 4:39 p.m.

Thank you, BPinAA. I am really tired of being lumped in with every loony-toon right-wing nut job because I'm not 30 years old. There are all kinds of bigotry, Justin, and I think you just showed that you're pretty familiar with one of them: ageism.

BPinAA

Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 2:30 p.m.

Excuse me, but not everyone over the age of 55 is against rights for lesbians and gays! I'm 58 and I believe strongly that they should have the same rights as straight people do!

Jaime Magiera

Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 5:40 a.m.

The interesting thing about the Bible argument is that in recent surveys a majority of Catholics actually support gay rights, including gay marriage. Even amongst Christians, it's going to be painfully obvious in the next few years how outdated these homophobes are. I'm not particularly religious, though I was raised Catholic. It pains me to see a small minority of emotionally twisted people completely misrepresent the core messages attributed to Jesus (compassion, equality, service, etc)

Jack Gladney

Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 4:28 a.m.

You forgot to mention Barack Obama (until last summer).

David Briegel

Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 3:11 a.m.

Self Loathing!

fjord

Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 2:35 a.m.

Exactly. Shirvell's support for Agema is just his way of flirting.

Colorado Sun

Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 11:29 p.m.

@Upper Decker: Armstrong was a public figure and was asked by a police detective if he wanted the detective to report to Mr. Shirvell that his conduct was unwanted and Armstrong replied no. Should Andrew Shirvell be fired for misusing Attorney General resources. NO! I look forward to Mr. Shirvell's exoneration in the court system.

UpperDecker

Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 4:09 p.m.

Hey The Shirv can have his beliefs and what not (even though they are wrong) but he was harassing and practically stalking someone as a result of his beliefs. He is a bigot and should get zero media attention because he is a waste of time.

Ypsi.Support

Wed, Apr 3, 2013 : 11:04 p.m.

Homophobes need not apply.

rm1

Wed, Apr 3, 2013 : 10:36 p.m.

"Looks like Mr. Shirvell is not doing too badly." ??? "Mr. Shirvell's defense of the defamation case continues in the federal circuit court of appeals." That's a funny way of saying that he is appealing the $4.5 million verdict against him. "Mr. Shirvell is appealing his dismissal from the Department of Attorney General." That's a funny way of saying that he is out of a job, and (I think I infer correctly) no one will hire him.

Rick Stevens

Wed, Apr 3, 2013 : 10:32 p.m.

OK, if you say so... Is Mr. Shirvell employed as a lawyer anywhere?

clownfish

Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 12:39 p.m.

Why? Don't you want these guys out telling the world how to live? Would you feel better if the "liberal media" stopped covering GOP politics?

UpperDecker

Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 4:06 p.m.

^ A joke nobody would have understood 3 weeks ago.

John of Saline

Wed, Apr 3, 2013 : 10:26 p.m.

He went to Wichita State?

Rod Johnson

Wed, Apr 3, 2013 : 10:57 p.m.

Because it's hilarious?

Brad

Wed, Apr 3, 2013 : 9:48 p.m.

When I said just let him keep exposing himself, I of course meant exposing himself as anti-gay. I didn't mean literally exposing himself. But as long as it is OK with Mr. Agema for Mr. Shirvell to stand behind him while exposing himself like that who am I to judge?

Rod Johnson

Wed, Apr 3, 2013 : 10:56 p.m.

...based on Agema unerring political instincts?

beardown

Wed, Apr 3, 2013 : 9:21 p.m.

This seems to be self serving on Shirvell's part. I would Agema wants little or nothing to do with him.

John

Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 2:24 p.m.

@ Tim Hornton. You are wrong, marriage equality is the hot topic. Of course, straight people on the far right side of the spectrum can't seem to differentiate between sex and marriage. Nor are they able to separate homosexuality from pedophilia. Luckily, educated people in this country recognize the difference.

Tim Hornton

Wed, Apr 3, 2013 : 9:19 p.m.

Gay man sex is the hottest topic in the U.S. right now, so your answer is Yes!