Dec 09, 2005   | COMMENTS     

Gay intolerance on parade

Re “‘Ex-gays’ on parade?” (Action Alert, Nov. 25):

A word about the “stress balls” distributed by Focus on the Family at the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade. The balls were imprinted with the address of a website that offers faith-based advice aimed at, among others, homosexuals. I am saddened by the notable intolerance displayed by your article, and by many gay people. Is it actually true that people whose opinions differ from our own are invariably, or even usually, guilty of “hate”? Should opposing viewpoints be silenced just because we disagree with them? Is the problem of people expressing dissenting views so grave as to warrant an “alert”?

‘Little known’ Nipper doesn’t deserve doubts

Re “Mayor introduces new head of gay affairs office” (news, Dec. 2):

Twice now, the Blade has reported about “little-known” Darlene Nipper with a tone of doubt, questioning her capabilities and status in the community. Clearly, you haven’t done your homework. Nearly 100 people were present at the news conference, two-thirds of whom were there to support Nipper and state by their presence that she is well known in the community. She is a strong and capable leader, with a wide breadth of experience and accolades. Our community cannot afford such divisiveness. Let’s stand behind her.

To disclose HIV or not disclose?

Re “The Q” (Forum, Dec. 2):

To the question of whether to criminalize the failure to disclose that you are HIV-positive before having sex, the only answer is, “Of course not.” Are we going to make it criminal for not disclosing that you have Hepatitis C, which is just as deadly? It’s time that people took responsibility for their own behavior. We all know that having sex puts us at some level of risk, so don’t ask others to protect you for you. If you treat everyone as though were HIV infected, then you never have to worry about getting the virus. Maybe we should make it unlawful to have unprotected sex period.

The onus is on the HIV-positive individual to disclose their status regardless of how risky the sexual activity may be. Less risky is not the same as non-risky or safe. The odds of 1 in 10,000 are still way too high. By not disclosing, they make a decision that is really only their sex partners’ to make, which was to assume the risk or not.

Che’s revolution was product of the times

Re “Don’t cry for Che” (op-ed by Constantino Diaz-Duran, Nov. 25):

Constantino Diaz-Duran doesn’t cite a single, specific example of anti-gay animus by Che Guevara in his ranting op-ed about the Cuban revolutionary. No doubt homophobia did exist in 1960s Cuba, as it did in virtually every corner of the globe at that time. Those prejudices, which existed before the revolution, did not disappear overnight when the revolution was won. But today in Cuba, gays enjoy free healthcare and education, subsidized housing and food. Just recently, Castro’s government sponsored an LGBT film festival.

Gay men shouldn’t be Catholic priests

Re “Vatican bars gays from priesthood” (news, Nov. 25):

I don’t think that gays should be Catholic priests, either. Why should we dedicate our lives to an institution that has oppressed us, and others, for two millennia? Also, if homosexuality is “a situation that presents a grave obstacle to a correct relationship with men and women,” as the Vatican claims, then so is Rome’s unscriptural mandate for priestly celibacy.

Gay priests don’t sexually abuse boys, priests who have no matured sexuality do. It’s a power trip for them to rape someone. All the Vatican policy means is that they are scapegoating gays.

What about Pope Benedict’s “gorgeous” male personal secretary or his $300 red Prada shoes? What’s really behind this new policy? There is no theological or scientific proof of a relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia.

Assimilating isn’t really progress

Re “Progress through assimilation” (op-ed by Jeff Gannon, Nov. 25):

According to Jeff Gannon, gay conservatives think if they keep their heads down and their mouths shut, the status quo suits them just fine. He must believe, then, that gay conservatives’ families or enduring relationships don’t deserve equality in visitation or custody after break-ups, insurance rates, benefits or family discounts. Gay conservatives must not mind paying higher taxes — usually their biggest gripe — because they can’t ...