Nickolas James
-
Posts
67 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Nickolas James
-
-
Saying that AIDS will end if people practiced abstinence is like saying there would be peace on earth if people would just stop fighting.
Actually, I never said that AIDS would end if people practiced abstinence. Please don't mis-characterize my statements. What I said was, the spread of AIDS could be better controlled if those who are infected would practice abstinence.
What is your response to the claim that abstinence is impractical and cannot work? If you can show me evidence that abstinence can be put into practice in a large scale, I would kiss your boots.I think I've made my response very clear already, but I'll say it again...it's a foolish claim. How can the one sure way not to spread AIDS be impractical when we're discussing a solution to that very problem? I don't want everyone to be abstinent, but I do want those who have been diagnosed with HIV or AIDS to stop screwing around. Having sex with anyone once you've been diagnosed is a very selfish act and people who have done so have contributed to the spread of this disease.
Most likely, though, you'll have to admit that abstinence is a waste of money and the billions that Bush is pouring into abstinence programs in Africa because of his ideology is wasted. It could actually do some good if it were focused on preventative measures that were more practical.I don't think it's the place of the US government to spend any tax dollars in Africa, or anywhere else in the world except for the US, to fight AIDS. So in my opinion, any money spent over there is wasted, especially if those who are infected continue to pretend that they can have sex with no consequences for others.
I have to ask... HIV devastated the US gay community in the late eighties. Today, AIDS is ever present but its not 'the gay plague' in the US anymore. Is that because gays learned abstinence or because their sex got safer?I would like to think that anyone, gay or straight, who was infected with the disease was smart enough and had the moral compass to stop having sex once they were diagnosed. Unfortunately, that's not the case. I'm sure that in the beginning, when AIDS was widely reported to be a "gay" disease, there were more cases of AIDS among heterosexual men and women than were being reported. I can't say for sure though because I haven't researched it, and I wasn't alive in the 80's to witness it for myself.
The bottom line is this.... anyone who thinks that there's such a thing as safe sex with someone who's HIV+ or with full blown AIDS is fooling themselves. If they choose to have sex with someone they love who's been diagnosed, that's a personal choice, but not one I can respect. Once they've made that commitment, they should abstain from sex with anyone else but their partner. If they don't, they're playing with other people's lives, condom or no condom.
-------
-
Perhaps you should consider why you wrote this phrase and why you are compartmentalizing the AIDS epidemic by...hemisphere? continent? colour?
Africa is many countries. America is one. We are in no position to dictate solutions while we have none.
The statement about poz people shouldn't have sex and the 'death sentence' thing make me sad. You can have sex with a partner who is poz and do it safely if you wish. Humans have sex, that's all there is to it.
Abstinence is a concept without content. An individual may end up spending a lifetime abstaining from sex but he or she is a rarity, surely you see that?
You seem to have some misconceptions about PLWAs, human sexuality and the mechanics of HIV infection...
Just a thought.
TR
The idea that you can safey have sex with someone who's HIV positive is a romantic ideal, but that's as far as it goes. We'll simply have to agree to disagree. As far as advocating abstinence for people who know that they're positive, it's not a misconception, it's principle. And that principle does not just apply in Sub-Saharan Africa, either.
-
Well thats a shame because in that region of the world, until they do, sex is an almost certain death sentence. And sex with a condom when you know your partner has AIDS is like putting your seatbelt on and driving head on at 70 MPH into oncoming traffic. Im not saying that they will do it, I'm saying that if they want to control the disease, they need to do it. Because it's obvious that nothing else is working.
-
People who are infected with AIDS and know they are infected with AIDS should absolutely practice abstinence. I'm sorry, but there's no way to have safe sex with someone who's HIV positive or who has full blown AIDS. Should there be safe sex prior to a diagnosis? Hell yes, but a lot of the problem in Africa is with men who continue to have sex after they've been diagnosed. I'm not dismissing anything as an option for fighting AIDS, but abstinence is the only sure way that these people have of not becoming infected until people have been tested and they can at least have some idea what the risk is of engaging in sexual activity.
-
But, but, but the US govt has poured billions into fighting AIDS in Africa. It's in the lead in trying to change behavior that would spread the disease. It has-
Oh what's that? The US is spending most of its money on absolutely useless and unproven 'abstinence' and other faith-based efforts? Almost nothing on programs that use condoms?
Well, I guess Africa just has to suck it up and pay the price so the religious extremists can use it as a guinea pig to showcase their style of AIDS fighting. The kind they could never impose at home.
I hate to break this to you, but abstinence is the ONLY way to get the AIDS epidemic under control in Africa, barring the discovery of a cure. I don't know what faith based efforts our government is funding in Africa, and if it is, it should stop. But I 100% agree with the abstinence effort.
I also say that any nation that doesn't like the terms of our aid to the continent of Africa for fighting AIDS is free to make their own commitment for funding and can decide what programs their money will go to. The bottom line is this....
If Africans want to get the AIDS epidemic in their continent under control, then they have to practice common sense. Going around having unprotected sex and sticking used needles in their arms isn't exactly an AIDS vaccine. They have to make the effort, and along with the funding for treatment and abstinence programs, they might find that they can overcome this awful disease.
-
Hey James -
I noticed that you included WA on your list of states that have no protections around gay relationships. This is actually no longer the case. WA now recognizes Domestic Partnerships, and extends many - though not all - of the same rights and responsibilities to people in those relationships that people in heterosexual marriages enjoy. My housemates, Robert and Anthony, are preparing to register as domestic partners, and it's a very good thing.
I think Another has a good point: in the rush to assimilate into the mainstream culture, much of the qualities that make us unique as a subculture are being lost. Much of our history is undocumented, and therefore is also being lost as our elder brothers and sisters die in obscurity. I think one of the projects that needs to be undertaken is to create an archive of the personal histories of the gay elderly, so that those stories aren't lost, because that is where the history of our subculture lies.
My hackles rose when someone mentioned deforestization to build larger factories to manufacture more products, and building more nuclear power plants...apparently whoever that was doesn't live anywhere close to the Hanford Nuclear Reserve, where much of the waste product from the existing nuclear powerplants is/has been shipped for 'storage'...oddly enough, there is a very high concentration of cases of cancer among humans downwind of that area, and the wetlands near that area is home to a large population of three-eyed frogs...I kid you not. Let's figure out what to do with the waste from our existing plants before we start building more, shall we?
cheers!
aj
Just send it to Nevada. They'll never notice the difference, and we still get the nuclear power we need. Your state should give it a try
-
1. Gay teen runs away or is kicked out, finds older gay man to live with who has no interest in sex with the boy, but only wants to be supportive and caring.
2. Gay kid runs away or is kicked out, moves in with bf's family and there's no objection from the parents whatsoever
3. Gay protagonist is always the hero, never the villian.
4. Everyone in the story has protection free sex and no one catches any diseases, even though they all have a belly full of cum that's entered them from both ends by at least 10 different people.
-
*
I am disappointed that no one seems to have pointed out that this thread has chosen to fire acrimoniously at a single party and individuals, while totally not seeing the larger problem, and not seeing that it is destructive of the larger community and of AwesomeDude's community.
Well I don't know, Blue. I think I've taken aim at both parties, and God knows that there's plenty of blame to go around. But I agree with your view that this thread was initially started as a way to bash Bush. In a way, though, hasn't he earned it? He spent through a surplus, then he helped us dig a 10 trillion dollar hole. Of course, there were republicans and democrats there who were more than happy to help him blow the money, but in the end, he presides over the nation and the buck stops with him until he leaves office.
I think if anything, this thread should be way for people to post their thoughts, read what others are saying, and think about what they're reading. There's nothing wrong with an opposing viewpoint. I think I said somewhere else that arguments and honest debates bring improvements. So instead of dissention, this thread can be an opportunity for us to come together as a community or writers and readers and talk about what's wrong, what's good and what we can do to make the right changes in this nation, or in other nations.
-
I'll get right on that as soon as the breeders offer me equal protection and oppertunities under the law. Otherwise they are on their own.
If you're going to stand around and wait for them to offer it to you, I'm afraid you'll be waiting for a long time. I understand that you live in a backwards state, but you have to remember that at one time in Mississippi, Alabama, Virginia and throughout the south blacks were considered less than zero. Here in VA, up until 1970, it was illegal for a black man to marry a white woman. The commonwealth carried out illegal sterilizations of black men and women up until the early 1980's, and they're still settling with families they wronged.
So just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it isn't coming. And sometimes the best thing to do when you want something is to walk up to the person who has what you want and take it for yourself. Also, just for the record, refering to people as breeders isn't very helpful, and it only encourages name calling on both sides (words like faggot and fairy, for instance).
The point of my original post was that yes, we have a lot of headway to make in the social issues that affect us directly, but if we make more of a contribution to the issues that affect everyone, it gives our side as a whole more legitimacy. Personally, I think we focus too much on what's good for us only, and not enough on what everyone needs. I mean, don't you pay the same price for gas as straight people? Or is there some gay gas club that offers discounts that I haven't discovered? Wouldn't job creation make it less likely that another gay man turns to prostitution? Don't tax cuts give gay and lesbians the same advantages that they give straight folks?
In other words, things that affect the nation affect us too. So again, I think all of those issues (and more) should be a major part of the gay agenda.
-
With the recent gay marriage developments in NY and California, the dominoes have started tumbling and there's no going back. Gay Marriage *will* be the norm in the not too distant future.
Gays are winning an important battle.
What more is left to be done in other areas? Should there even be talk of a collective agenda for gays?
As for what remains to be done, there are a few issues that come to mind.,
-------------------------------
Teen suicide: Gays are an overly large proportion of these. However, as gay marriage becomes normalised and homophobia ebbs, I see this problem taking care of itself, because the root of the problem will go away.
Gay bashing: Again, the root of this is homophobia and that battle is being won.
HIV and AIDS: How big a problem is this? I've been on gay hookup/ dating sites and there are lots of guys who state that they don't always use safer sex. I understand that there are circumstances where you can relax the rules, like if you're in a stable committed relationship, but I'm worried that young gays don't take this problem seriously enough.
Sexual Assault and Domestic abuse: I've heard anti-gay activists bring up statistics to show that gays are more likely to be involved in abusive relationships. I know that some gays get raped/ date-raped and shrug it off as part of the scene.
The anti-gay activists are dumb to think that a higher domesticv abuse rate mean that there's something inherently wrong with being gay, but I do think that if the numbers they tout are true, then the gay community *does* have a problem. Where does it stem from and what can be done about it by gays?
----------------------------------------------
Like I said at the top, the larger question remains as to whether the gay community should be acting as a unified body on any of this. I certainly think that those who are engaged in 'activism' should take a look at these and other issues, even if it's not the whole community.
Any other issues/ concerns that I missed?
I think that the gay community should make it their business to be on the forefront of solving major issues that affect society as a whole, like the energy crisis and job creation. We have a lot of hurdles to jump when it comes to gay rights, but I truly believe that we can play a pivitol role in bringing the US to energy independence within the next ten years by laying out plans for building nuclear energy sites and refineries. We can also encourage job creation in the private sector by proposing our own plan to give tax incentives to small and large businesses that are willing to train Americans to do jobs they might not otherwise be qualified for.
We should also be advocating that America drills for her own oil right here at home. We can offer designs for a light rail system that connects commuters in New York to Commuters in South Carolina, and it can be powered using nuclear energy. We can talk about the need for deforestization of more wilderness to make room for larger factories, and we can address the imigration debate with common sense solutions, not a far left or far right reaction that so far hasn't been popular among most Americans.
In other words, we can become a major part of the solution to this nation's largest dilemas, and at the same time, we can champion our own causes. Namely, more gays need to be adoption children, and not just kids that are runaways from homophobic families. If there's room in your household, agree to foster and adopt older children who have no hope otherwise of ever being adopted.
Of course, these problems don't just stop with us. The rest of the US has to take an active role in providing solutions, too. But who says we shouldn't set the precedent?
-
I agree with most of the statements nick has put here, Olberman is doing things which I despise which both sides of the political spectrum does.
Olberman is just doing the same rhetoric that others are doing, if you really want to be shocking then agree with bush. bush bashing is nothing new.
there is other things that olberman has done which is done that has only had his interest at best which I don't care for at all. Wish we had a real news achor like walter cronkite.
So are you saying that Ben and Jerry's Everything 2wisted isn't a rich and creamy treat with big hunks of white and dark chocolate and peanutbutter cups??
Actually, the statement you made about agreeing with Bush if you really want to shock people is exactly right.
-
I don't know if I'd go so far as to call anyone a liar, but I will say that Keith Olberman is a manipulator. He plays on the emotions of people who don't want to see through his distortions, but that's his job. Rush limbaugh and Shawn Hannity do it too. Is it wrong? Maybe, but that's what they get paid to do.
What makes it so sickening to me in Olberman's case is the fact that he invokes the memories of the lost troops to get his point across, but at the same time, he takes a shot at them by indirectly calling them murderers. Rush Limbaugh and Shawn Hannity call for the war to continue for whatever reason, but neither of them have ever served in the armed services. That puts them on the same level as that lowlife Olberman, as far as I'm concered. Instead of taking what they say so seriously, why not examine all of the facts and come to logical conclusions?
Fact: Olberman is employed by MSNBC, an ultra left wing network that is dedicated to socialist causes such as national health care, gun control, welfare dependence and income redistribution.
Fact: Hannity is employed by Fox, an ultra right wing network that is dedicated to draconian causes such as restriction of reproductive rights, the prohibition of gay rights, the Patriot Act, Patriot Act II and powerful anti drug laws.
Fact: Ben and Jerry's Everything 2wisted is a rich and creamy treat with big hunks of white chocolate, dark chocolate and peanutbutter cups.
Fact: We all have our own positions and convictions. We're a community, though, and should strive to respect everyone's opinion, regardless of how misguided we might think it is.
Fact: I should really take my own advice sometimes
-
Damn, Nicholas, you're one of the youngest ones here, and I'm one of the oldest, and you make more sense that most of these guys. I have trouble finding fault with almost anything you're saying. Right on!
Thanks Cole! I really got interested in politics when the 2004 election was going on and George Bush and John Kerry both said that they were against gay marriage. I'm sure there are a lot of people who have to live with me and don't exactly hold all of my political views (my dad for one) who wish I had never found that out. Somtimes I can come on too strong, though, so if you ever feel the need to slap me around, don't hesitate. I won't get mad
No one's brought it up, so I'll throw my oar in on an issue that's part and parcel of this. It was absolutely nuts to go into Iraq with the stated purpose of forming a democracy there. You cannot force a goverment on a people, or a governing plhilosophy. They have to elect it for themselves. Iraq is still, like Afganistan, basically a tribal nation. That's what they understand and support. They are a bit advanced beyond Afganistan in how they treat Iraqi women, but are still far behind where much of the modern world is even on that issue. We cannot foist a democracy on such a nation. It isn't ready for it.Exactly! Iraq is a nation of muslims, and even those who aren't muslim have a different culture that we don't understand. It's inconcievable here in the US and in other Western nations that we would ever force our women to wear burkas, or to follow sharia law. But just because we don't want it for ourselves doesn't mean we have the right to force our ideals on others. Because in the end, aren't we doing the same thing over there that Osama Bin Laden wants to do here?
So fighting a war there for that purpose is senseless. And we should have known that going in. My view is that Bush's main objective was to take Sadaam our because he had the temerity to insult his father. Not oil, not balance of power in the region, not WMDs, family insult. And he's reduced this nation dramatically because of that hubris.I believe that Saddam tried to assasinate the old President Bush. At least that's what I've heard. Either way, I'll repeat the statement that he was carrying forward the policies of the Clinton administration, but he was foolish to do so.
Just to add my two cents: I'll never understand why we have people running the U.S. who feel they have to be "the policemen of the world." My feeling is, we have no right to interfere in another country's affairs. More imporantly, we have far bigger problems here in the U.S. that we should solve first -- cleaning up New Orleans, improving education, helping the poor, lowering income taxes, keeping down gas prices, etc. Tons of stuff we should be doing instead of fighting a war in a place that doesn't really want us.I think it all started after World War 2, when we went to Korea to fight communism. Then it was Viet Nam. Then it was Grenada. Then it was something down in South America. Then it was Iraq the first time, and now it's Iraq all over again. We were drawn into WW2 by the Japanese, and I'll concede that we were drawn into Afganistan by the attacks of 9/11. I think people were just so emotional after 9/11 (for a good reason) that they were willing to let our government do whatever, whenever to whomever. Now everyone regrets it.
I could totally see supporting Iraq with aid, sending them supplies, money, Red Cross medicine, and so on. But not thousands of soliders. That area has had wars for at least two thousand years that we know of, and you can't force the people in those countries to settle their differences like this. It's a no-win situation.I could see it up to a point, but we should also set a limit on that aid, and in return, they can repay the US with oil.
Edit:
I did some research. It costs between 2 and 4 billion dollars to build a new refinery and get it online. With all of the money we've spent in Iraq, we could have built several hundred new refineries in the US, which would go a long way in reducing gas prices.
-
I do. And in fact I propose that very thing. The sooner, the better. High Treason IS a capital crime.
Again, there has to be irrefutable evidence that such a crime took place. Do you know where to find it? If so, let Obama's people know, because he's already said that as soon as he's sworn in, he plans to investigate what criminal activity the Bush administration may or may not have taken part in.
I only partially object to our first stated mission which was to remove Saddam Poopyhead from power. When that was done, we should have organized an ORDERLY withdrawal over time. (No sane person advocates a quick, hasty withdrawal. That will create a worse mess than we already have.)I completely disagree with it, mainly because life was better in Iraq, and in the entire middle east, before we removed Saddam. He kept the warring factions in check.
While I don't object to Israel having the right to do this it's better if they didn't. Too many Arab nations would gang up on them. Much better for the US to do it. In theory.Theory is one thing, practice is quite another. In theory, removing Saddam was a good idea and everyone was behind it, but in practice, it was a pretty retarded thing for the Bush Administration to do.
Off topic, certainly. True? Absolutely. The UN is not what it should be. UNICEF a good idea, most of the rest, not so much.I personally don't see why the UN is allowed to meet in NYC, and why the US continues to be a part of that rogue organization. I mean, how in the hell did they come to the conclusion that China should be on the human rights commission??
In a planned, orderly exit over about six months.With all due respect, it won't matter if it's 6 months, a year or three weeks. Once we leave, all hell's going to break loose. We've barely got a handle on the situation as it is, and I don't think it's fair for our troops to be stuck there, dealing with the chaos. At some point, the Iraqi people are going to have to decide how they want to live...either in a warzone, or in a prosperous nation that's a respectable member of the world community. We can't do it for them for the next hundred years, no matter how badly McCain and Hillary want us to stay.
-
I don't think that could be broadcast in the UK though Blair and Brown are just as culpable as Bush. For British ears I think it is too ott and might cause people (like Nikolas James) to react against it.
There is little doubt that the war was wrong;
that Bush and Blair manipulated the intelligence to secure the go-ahead; that before the war there were no terrorists in Iraq (Saddam Hussein was himself at war with the religious Al Quaeda);
that the war was carried on with little attempt to avoid harming the civilian population;
that neither government has ever been brought to admit these true statements.
In the UK this government, which was elected as 'the left' and is supported by the unions, has pursued the most right wing social policies, putting more people in prison and doing less to rehabilitate them; has taken away the laws that used to protect our freedom; has increased taxes on the poor and reduced taxes on the rich so that the gap between rich and poor is greater than it was fifty years ago; is now targeting to reduce the proportion of children brought up in poverty by 2012 (NB they have been in power for eleven years so does anyone think this is their top priority).
I could go on but what's the point. During Thatcher's rule I despaired but she was a true Tory. During Blair and Brown's rule I felt and feel betrayed because they continue to act like Thatcher.
How can the government of a prosperous country like ours tolerate 30% of children being brought up in poverty - by the government's own standards of poverty?
Love,
Anthony
Personally, I'm against the war. I think it was stupid and reckless of not just George Bush, but of the Senators, who happen to include John McCain and Hillary Clinton, who authorized George Bush to take us into Iraq. All of them should be arrested for treason at the most, and at the very least, should be removed from office forcibly and forced to repay their salaries from the years 2002-present.
However, I'm disputing the statements highlighted in red. Unless you're able to provide some irrefutable, documented proof by a credible source or agency, I don't believe that George Bush or Tony Blair willfully manipulated intellegence to take us to war. What you're accusing them of is an international war crime, and punishable by death.
The fact is, if you do some research, you'll see that Bill Clinton and Al Gore were on the same trail Bush was on. They openly stated that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and the policy of the Clinton administration was regime change in Iraq. Right or wrong, that was the policy. Bush just adopted that policy and then carried it out.
As far as Saddam goes, he was a sponser of terrorism. Look it up....he was paying cash rewards to the families of any suicide bomber that would go to Israel and act as martyrs. That fact alone makes him a terrorist. Does that mean we should have gone into Iraq? No. If anything, Israel should have been given the authorization to take care of the problem themselves, but the UN is an anti-sematic organization and they blamed Israel indirectly for the terror attacks that they were enduring. Of course, later it was discovered that the UN was taking bribes from Saddam in the Oil for Food scandal, but that's getting off topic.
Anyway, sorry to disagree (again), but the facts are what they are. We shouldn't have gone into Iraq, but the evidence was what it was. Now that we know it was wrong, we should leave.
-
I agree with the principle you state - no state run faith schools, but I'm not sure that the reality of UK vs US is as you say it is. Even without official sanction, I have heard that there can be enormous religious pressure brought to bear on students in US schools. Of course, I was lucky - I was in the French system. ;-).
Well, I live in what's considered to be the bible belt, and in the same city where Pat Robertson broadcasts the 700 club, and I can say that I've never dealt with religious pressure. On the other hand, I was given detention in the 7th grade for telling my english teacher that Christianity was not "Christian Mythology," which is what she wanted us to call it in her classroom.
You want to apply a religious qualification for teachers in state schools? I think I'm opposed to that! I don't believe in regulating people's thought. The standard shouldn't be what people believe but how they behave! Who would you trust to conduct the inquisition into prospective teachers' beliefs? The *government*? I wouldn't!Yak
I agree 100% with you on that statement.
-
Sorry if this offends anyone, but Keith Olberman's comments were nothing more than an attempt to grandstand against the President. He doesn't stand for anything but his own ratings, and I'm not impressed by him or his empty words. If anything, he disgusts me with his leftist, anti-republican all the time rhetoric. I personally can't stand republicans either, but Olberman lacks the integrity to call his own pathetic party out onto the carpet on a number of issues. He's nothing more than a left wing version of Rush Limbaugh, but with a much smaller audience.
-
Personally, I think that a viable alternative to legalizing gay marriage is to stop recognizing straight marriage. Then equality can reign throughout the fruited plain
-
Because any candidate who openly supported gay marriage would never stand a chance of winning a primary, much less a general election.
There's a limit to how far idealistic stances will get you in politics.
Real progress doesn't come from politicians, anyways, so they're irrelevant. If Martin Luther King had been an office holder he'd never have been as successful as he was. Queer activists, advancing education through things like the gay pride events and anti-bullying programs are where the battle for queer equality will truly be won.
And, of course, by the gallant, iron-willed souls who dare to live openly in oppressive communities and strike a blow for progress by their mere presence.
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you. I think we live in a day and age where people are sick and tired of social conservatives, and a lot of republicans are ready to give them the boot. Personally, I despise both parties, because there's no real difference. I doubt very much that gay marriage is a pressing issue for either Obama or Clinton. Her husband signed DOMA during his second term, and I can't find anything on the internet about her coming out against it at the time. If she really felt that strongly about equality and gay rights, she should have opposed it and said so before he signed the bill.
As for Obama, he's spent years as a member of a church that openly condemns homosexuality. Kinda like John McCain and George Bush. If he was that passionate about our rights, even if he planned to keep it quiet, he should have left that church and found one that's more diverse.
-
Presidential Candidates On Same-Sex Marriage
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
(Washington) When it comes to same-sex marriage there are few differences in the positions of John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. All three are opposed but would grant varying rights to gay and lesbian couples.
And people are planning to vote for these people monsters because.........????
-
It's taken me a while to come to what I think is a logical conclusion in this matter. Reading this thread has been facinating, and it's easy to sympathize with all of the viewpoints expressed. Some of the opinions expressed, I believe, have been seeded in sadness and anger, but again, it's easy to see why. This is a tragedy for everyone involved that won't just go away for the familes of both parties involved, or from the classmates who witnessed the murder.
I'd venture to say that the killer's friends, who possibly sided with him unconditionally before he pulled a gun and committed the murder, probably have a whole new view on tolerance and bullying. I think the real question is, are the killers parents culpable in this? Did they use words like "fag" and "fairy" in their home? Did they teach him that homosexuality is a disease? That it's a choice?
The killer's life is ruined. He'll never get over what he did. What happens from here depends on what the justice system does with him. Will he be locked in a cage and fed three times a day? Will he be placed in a prison cell when he's 18, where he'll likely be raped and beaten a number of times until he snaps again, deepening his hatred of gays and furthering whatever notions he has about us? Or will he recieve couseling and be given a chance to be rehabilitated? He may never be fit to come back out into society, but I'd like to think that he can recover from his own predudicial handicap if he gets the help he needs. Wouldn't we want that for ourselves?
-
Sorry for the long chapter draught. Chapter seventeen of If By Chance is now up. Thanks as always to Talonrider for editing, and to all of you, my readers.
Will Gerald take a job serving tables at Red Lobster? Does Dennis have what it takes to bring an out of control 767 out of a nose dive? Can Peter make the conversion from Islam to Devil Worship? Where's Waldo?
-
Children's hospitals take DVD's too....at least the one in my area does. They sell them at their thrift shops.
![:applause[1]:](https://forums.awesomedude.com/uploads/emoticons/default_applause%5B1%5D.gif)
-
TalonRider was the editor for this story. I would recommend her to my closest friends. Shewas thorough and detailed. I am very, very pleased.
P.S.
Oh yeah. . . . She said it was less gory than she thought it would be.
Um.......
Either you're mistaken, or I've spent the last two years under the impression that my editor was a boy
Scan to donate
more from South Carolina
in News & Views
Posted
I have no problem with what he's doing, as long as he also includes all other groups and extra curricular clubs while he's at it. That should include telling the boy scouts that they cannot wear their uniforms at school.