Is homosexuality the biggest con job of the 21st century?

In response to my post on sexually active gay men no longer being able to donate organs in Canada, a reader by the name of whocares had this to say in the comment section:

“who cares? homosexuality is the biggest con job of the 21st century. why not just and shut up? (they) r not ethnic minorites — they r the MAJORITY (disproportionately white and stingy). reminds one of another old white male dominated party from the 30s-40s … hmmmm”

Wow. Amazing. I didn’t know that the only social demographics that count are those along the racial and ethnic spectrum. And while I’ve heard homosexuals compared to a number of things before, Nazis is a new one!

Message to readers: If you come to The Frame Problem for humour, this is as good as it will ever get. I will never be able to outdo this comment when it comes to humour. So basically, this blog is about 24 days old and it has already hit its humour peak. It’s all downhill from here…

Advertisements
Comments
34 Responses to “Is homosexuality the biggest con job of the 21st century?”
  1. tiaraisageek says:

    This comment really isn’t all that funny. In fact, to me, it’s incredibly disturbing. The fact that people think like that makes me fear for this country. I don’t think this person realizes that homosexuals are NOT just white.

    Also, as someone who is deeply involved in the GLBT community, it hurts my heart to think that anyone could believe that civil rights of any sort are a con job.

    I’m not even going to touch the Nazi part of this. It just begs to be ripped to shreds.

    Great blog, by the way. 🙂

  2. ronbrown says:

    Tiaraisageek:

    I found it funny because it’s just so ignorant and indicative of a mind that doesn’t question its premises.

    I didn’t find it disturbing because I live in the Toronto area so this sort of statement is something that I very rarely hear, and so it didn’t remind me of a broader cultural issue. But living where I live I guess I’m spoiled in terms of open-mindedness to other lifestyles in a way that the majority of the rest of the continent is not. Hence, I can fully understand you feeling disturbed. It really is quite ridiculous and unfortunate.

    Many thanks for the kudos on the blog and much support to your GLBT community and civil rights activities.

  3. tiaraisageek says:

    Would that we all lived in Canada. LOL

    Here in the US gay men haven’t been able to donate blood for so long that hearing about Canada’s current donor issue hardly fazed me…which is really sad.

  4. ronbrown says:

    To all Americans disgusted by the ridiculousness of half of your citizens and leaders: Come to Canada! We’ll all sit back, smoke some pot, munch on some stem cells, and have a good laugh!

  5. who cares is a moron says:

    ever heard of the ancient Greeks?

  6. ronbrown says:

    who cares is a moron:

    Do you have any idea what you may have just started?

    First there was “who cares”. Now there is “who cares is a moron”. All we need now is one person who comes in and agrees with “who cares” and disagrees with you to name themselves “”who cares is a moron” is a moron” and all chaos could break lose! LANGUAGE IS RECURSIVE! We have to be careful! I only have so much memory storage on this site. I can’t afford to spend half of it on the names of commentors.

    Wait, okay, I think we’ll be okay. There seems to be a cap on the length of names. Thank goodness for that.

  7. Dr. Jim says:

    The real con artists are the religious (self)righteous who think they can “cure” homosexuality with the power of God. I suspect all they are doing is forcing people to repress what otherwise would seem natural to them.

  8. ronbrown says:

    Dr. Jim:

    I agree. But I take it a step further. I think that many religions as a entireties are con jobs.

  9. Mary says:

    I think I see what whocares meant, although I don’t think s/he phrased it properly. It seems what s/he was trying to say is that since white men are so often charged with oppressing other people, some white men are trying to escape this charge by pretending that they are being oppressed too, for being gay, when in fact they aren’t truly gay. I don’t mean to offend anyone. I’m just trying to rephrase whocares’ point, if that is even what whocares meant. By the way, tiaraisageek, please dont take your US citizenship for granted. There are millions of people who would love to have what you have. Try to remember that next time you start bashing the US. Also, ronbrown, for someone who claims to support, as you wrote at 1:04, “open-mindedness to other lifestyles”, your disrespectful comments about religion make you look pretty “ridiculous and unfortunate” yourself.

  10. frodo441 says:

    Considering the reactionary entity of mis-information, the uninformed opinion was just a was of bits and bytes…the Greeks owe no special corner on the market of sexuality…the German gay thing’ got started over the movie “Cabaret” (popularly of course) and the fact of the matter is plain and simply…gay partners are a minority in the country…it’s only in certain areas of the country and the world where 1 in 3 may be considered gay…the rest of the mis-information is purely a felonious misnomer and characterization…

  11. frodo441 says:

    I seriously think (if not believe) that the characterization as opposed to ethnicity is a character of centroversion as experienced by a vast conglomerate of people’s throughout historic times…the ameliorating factor being “such and such was done to me, there fore” etc. etc. …One denial does not make another’s presumption correct…

  12. Ashton says:

    somebody’s been watching too much Dharma & Greg.
    wait… somebody’s been watching too much tv in general, and thus has developed this stereotype based on the predominance of whites on television.

  13. frodo441 says:

    also…considerably in the spirit of being “open minded” the presumption should not be laid that “such and such” was being hostile…for that blog response may have been an attempt to appear diplomatic…in the sense that most people know that HIV infection rates among gay men peaked in the very early nineties at the latest after which in this country and the epidemic was considerably an introvenous drug users melee…and also until the pandemic hit HIV was a regular reality in some areas of the world…to have contracted HIV after the datum was in and life styles had been altered popularly and with style changes…it’s no fault of any reasonably informed person to contract HIV…as far as medical facilitation and processes there should be no one who doesn’t already for the last 12 years known that you should have your own blood waiting for you at the hospital for routine surgeries to be safe and sure…

  14. Bhupesh says:

    That comment by ‘who cares’ is inciteful drivel; it is intentionally designed to get exactly the responses it has and to begin, in essence, a flame war. It is purposely senseless as even an idiot would be aware of the pure lack of logic involved in the statement. That gay men cannot give blood is a form of discrimination according the Charter of Rights and Freedoms so really opinions on this matter are meaningless – the law clearly states that such restrictions can only be made in specific circumstances and the government will be hard-pressed to defend this decision in the Supreme Court – this country has legal institutions that protect any and all minorities even if they don’t always work in practice. In this case however it is fairly cut and dry whether you love or hate homosexuality, homosexuals, god or whoever.

  15. ronbrown says:

    Mary: There is a difference between my lack of respect for organized religion and the statement of whocares.

    In my opinion, religious belief deserves absolutely no respect. That’s not to say that there aren’t good ideas in religious texts and communities, there are. The Golden Rule, for instance, is a good idea. But it’s not a good idea because it’s in the Bible. It’d be just as good if it were on a fortune cookie. When I say that religious belief deserves no respect, I mean that it deserves no respect because there is no evidence for the truth of godly claims, from which the great authority of the organized religions derive. Religious beliefs, in my opinion, deserve no more respect than belief in astrology, alchemy, the flying spaghetti monster, UFOs, the evil intergallactic overlord xeno of Scientology, and so on. Merely being believed by millions or billions of people does not make an idea any more valid than if it were only believed by a few people or none at all.

    Now, while I do not respect these beliefs, at the same time I am not trying to make it illegal to have them, nor am I trying to unreasonably infringe upon any rights of believers. Furthermore, I would stand up and defend religious communities from anyone that did try to do such things. But, I also reserve my right to apply the same scrutiny to religious beliefs as I do to any other, and to call a spade a spade rather than “respecting people’s beliefs” (and by the way, it’s not about respect, it’s coercion, fear, submission and sometimes charity far more than it is about respecting). In an open civilized and enlightened society being able to engage in rational discourse is something that I would hope I’d be allowed to do. I wouldn’t expect to be bullied into by a majority that cannot rational justify their beliefs but is nevertheless deadset on keeping them.

  16. Matt K. says:

    I have two words, “Hail Hitler”

    Ok, I’m too lazy to read all of these comments, but seriously guys. You’re taking this guy’s opinion with a little more than a grain of salt. He can’t even spell out the word “are”. He didn’t quite explain how we’re a “con job”. And he makes little to no sense.

    As for the religion section, When you’re trying to force your religious views on someone who lives a lifestyle that you condemn, it just seems like a bit of hypocrisy. Join us, but you can’t be you anymore. Religious Cult, Anyone?

    As Long as you don’t push your views on me, I’m totally fine with you practicing how you want to (so long no one is seriously injured).

  17. ronbrown says:

    I believe the expression is actually “heil Hitler”, but I digress.

    I posted this comment because of its hilarity. If the person really does think what they wrote, then it’s hilarious and concerning that they could believe something so amazingly ridiculous and thoughtless. And if they were just trying to get a reaction, well it worked. And I can’t say I’m displeased as I welcome having more people visit the blog.

    I’m actually also curious to see if anyone comes out and agrees with him or defends him.

  18. Matt K. says:

    Thanks for the correction =]
    And thanks for posting that comment, it definitely brightened my day a little.

  19. some guy says:

    The reason that they are not accepting blood or organ donations from homosexuals is that they don’t want diseased blood or organs. Would you want blood transfusions from IV drug users? It’s just common sense.

  20. some guy says:

    Not all IV drug users are diseased or bad people who are out to donate tainted blood either, but do you want their blood in you?

  21. Bhupesh says:

    While the comment doesn’t disturb me as it did one of the other bloggers, the only reason I don’t find it humourous is because it further degrades my dimishing faith in humanity. But I get why you think its funny.

  22. ronbrown says:

    Some guy: Surely no one would want to receive blood or an organ from someone with a communicable disease. My line of thinking, here, though was that if we can test donors then shouldn’t we go with the more precise test results than a generalized statistical heuristic? However, another commentor in the initial post comment section has argued that many diseases are not detected by tests and that this makes taking organs from high-risk groups risky still. I would imagine that it might still be better to not bar high-risk groups but to perhaps go with the probabilities. Are they more likely to be better off with or without receiving the organ? Would they be likely to present a risk to others if they received a diseased organ? Though, that these probabilities may be difficult to estimate could obviously muddle things substantially.

  23. Joshua Eisen says:

    I think that everyone needs to do a bit more research and look into this issue further. First off, this is not a new policy. Canada has not allowed sexually active gay men and heterosexual men who admit to having intercourse with gay men to donate organs since 1996. HIV and HepC are higher among the gay male community; this is backed by scientific research. As a gay man I feel it is simply unfair not discriminatory or homophobic. By blowing this issue out of proportion we are instilling a negative image on the entire program, which in the end saves lives. This is in turn affecting donor rates. So we are basically destroying something that has taken so long for many people to build and are risking the lives of people that are in desperate need of organs. I think that we are all very lucky to live in a country with so many rights and freedoms that we should be happy for what we have and not continue to dwell on this issue. The government is not going to change its stance.

  24. Patrick Reno says:

    Last I checked, heterosexuals were just as susceptible to “communicable diseases” as homosexuals. This means they pose a sizable risk as well in having diseased blood and organs. So the way I see it, we should stop accepting donations from heteros and homos and let the person who needs blood and/or organs to just take their chances with pig and baboon organs.

    What this boils down to me, is simply discrimination. I actually expect it from people. But for a governmental body to discriminate is an entirely other debate.

  25. Roger Roger says:

    Patrick: Of course everyone is susceptible to “communicable diseases”. If you are living in isolation in Nunavut and don’t have contact with any other human for 10 years, you are still “susceptible to communicable diseases”, because you are human. But you certainly have a damn low probability of having caught anything in these last 10 years.

    ronbrown: You continually point to the fact that we’re currently testing organs and would prefer that we rely on this method in order to filter out higher risk organs. The flaw in this argument is the exact reason that this ban has been put into place. Since many communicable diseases don’t show up until 3, 4, or 5 years, these tests will return negative results on organs that could in fact be positively infected. Consequently, we can’t rely solely on these tests and must come up with an additional layer to filter out risky organs. One method of such filtering is lifestyle. Up to this point, I don’t think you can argue with anything the government has done. Now after this, the government decided that practicing gay sexual acts puts you at higher risk (based on statistics). If you have a problem with this, you should try to fight the stats, but it is completely futile to retort with “this is homophobic and we should resort back to unreliable testing methods”.

    The law DOES NOT discriminate against gay people. It discriminates against people that participate in higher risk activities, using statistics to back up this label. If you want to fight it, bring up your own stats.

  26. ronbrown says:

    Roger:

    Fair point. I wasn’t aware of this at the time of the initial article writing. I will make an addendum to the original article pointing this out.

    Thanks for making the point.

    Ron

  27. ronbrown says:

    Roger: However, there is still the counterargument that the issue is sexual behaviour rather than orientation. So they should be asking about promiscuity, anal sex, etc. Do they do this already? I’m not sure. While I figure a gay male would be more at risk than an equally promiscuous straight male who engages in anal, I would imagine that a sexually active gay male that is not overly promiscuous would be at less risk than a straight guy that is constantly getting action with different girls.

  28. Xander Legere says:

    What a weird comment eh. Some people have no factual basis to back up asinine comments, yet these comments spew nonetheless. Since homosexuality has existed as a sexual choice/preference/orientation – what have you – before the 21st century, it seems like a ludicrous thing to say. Now I’d only be putting words into this guys mouth but I assume he’s the same type that before the mid to late 90’s would have advocated the asinine theory that AIDS wasn’t a real disease, and in fact only limited to homosexual behaviour.

  29. Roger Roger says:

    Ron: Thanks for understanding my point of view. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a pretty big hippy and disagree with a lot of things that are done these days (hell, it’s sexy to fight the man and save the world), but at the end of the day, the VAST majority of people that stand up for a cause do so without really knowing the facts or what’s really going on. I think the only way protesting will be taken seriously is if everyone on board is doing so based on solid grounds.

    I 100% agree with you that this decision has been based on “sexual behaviour and not orientation”. They most certainly do ask about promiscuity, anal sex, unsafe practices, etc. When someone is near death or has died, the first thing doctors and nurses do is question family members and those close to the person about their lifestyle to try to get a sense of the state of the organs. Aside from this, doctors and nurses usually have a pretty good idea of what kind of lifestyle the person has led from frequent contact (unless it was a freak accident). All of this goes into consideration. Because hey, at the end of the day, if a gay man says they haven’t engaged in anal sex for 5+ years, they pass the government’s “test” anyway. So really, it’s just a filtering process that says if the person is willing to admit they’re practicing something that may make their organs that much riskier to use, they won’t take the risk.

    Xander: You sound passionate, but I’m not sure which comment you’re responding to. I’d be interested to find out.

  30. silver18 says:

    Wow. Nazi’s. Never, ever been compared to them.

    As to the organ and blood donation issue: It hacks me off. But wait, before I get blamed for not looking at all the stats, it only makes me mad because they don’t ask straight people if they have engaged in risky sexual practices, partner numbers, etc. At least I’m fairly sure that they don’t. By they I mean the disparate organizations that collect blood and organs. It just pisses me off, because I am a gay man who has engaged in intercourse with another gay man within the last 30 years or whatever it is, but I’m clean. I know that for a fact. Consequently, I think that they should go based on an individual basis. However, I know that the logistics are intractable.

  31. steVe says:

    Getting back to the original topic about race and homosexuality:

    I was on a small panel on anti-homophobia describing my experiences, etc. A number of people were making not-so-subtle attempts to imply that racism was worse than homophobia.

    I don’t think they realised that two thirds of the panel was made up of people of colour (myself included).

  32. Dan says:

    Silver18 said, “[Blood/organ collectors] don’t ask straight people if they have engaged in risky sexual practices, partner numbers, etc. At least I’m fairly sure that they don’t.”

    I don’t know about organs in Canada, but I’m from the US and I’ve donated blood here via the red cross and I found their guidelines for blood donors at this site:

    http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html

    And here’s the link directly to the portion of the page on AIDS/HIV:

    http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#hiv

    As you can see there, only one item on the list refers to homosexuality, and it’s not just referring to gays but rather ANY men who have had sex with another man EVEN ONCE since 1977 (when HIV was first contracted by humans). This includes straight men who even just experimented once and didn’t like it! It also has other sex-related items listed which are not exclusive to any sexual orientation but which greatly increase your risk for carrying HIV or other STDs that could be transferred by a blood transfusion.

    I support the GLBT community and I find it VERY unfortunate that men who have had sex with other men are at greater risk for this horrible disease and thus can’t be allowed to directly support the blood supply, but there are other ways they can support the cause. For example, a gay friend of mine has helped organize a few blood drives, allowing eligible donors more opportunities to donate. Thus, this gay friend of mine has indirectly brought in far more blood than I ever have!

  33. Dan says:

    Ron, you said, “I’m actually also curious to see if anyone comes out and agrees with him or defends him.”

    …I’m always up for a good game of devil’s advocate! I strongly believe that a belief that can’t be rationally defended shouldn’t be believed, so playing devil’s advocate can only either help reinforce the original belief if found rational, or help weed out illogical beliefs, right? And both of those outcomes are good, right? Ok.

    Ready? GO!

    “Ethnic Minority”: Gays are in fact NOT an ethnic minority because they are not actually an ethnicity. To say that homosexuals have a unifying culture is a false stereotype, and beyond that there is nothing to connect them as an ethnicity. Further, as WhoCares claims, they are the majority in the same way women are considered a minority: they have social and political power.

    “Con Job”: The claim that banning homosexual marriage would be unequal treatment to homosexuals is twisted logic. ALL individuals, regardless of sexual orientation, would be allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex, and NOT someone of the same sex. To make an exception for a particular sexual orientation would be unequal treatment. I’m not saying there’s a Great Gay Conspiracy between all gays in the world, but the leaders of the gay rights movement have constructed this logical fallacy. Whether their intentions were malicious or not is irrelevant, the situation is what it is.

    “Nazis”: I can’t pretend to defend this one. It’s just too funny!!! I mean, NAZIS!!! LOL

  34. thisbusymonster says:

    Well Dan,

    By your logic, it would be just as acceptable to ban hetero marriage, because everyone would be treated exactly equally. They could marry and screw any same sex individual they wanted. Are you up for it?

    TBM

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: