Re: Reagan, AIDS and expressing opinions as queer officer -- Sexuality Issues Discussion Forum

Monday, November 09, 06:50:32pm [ VoyUser Login optional ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time ]

Subject: Re: Reagan, AIDS and expressing opinions as queer officer

Author:
No name
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: Saturday, June 12, 02:32:53am
In reply to: Perry 's message, "Reagan, AIDS and expressing opinions as queer officer" on Friday, June 11, 04:12:57am

Perry, it's great that you took such time to explain everything.

Just one thing: adultery is usually defined at sexual intercourse with someone other than one's wedded spouse. Since gay people were not able to marry in the US in the 1980s (and are still explicitly banned from doing so in the constitutions of 38 states), any male-to-male sex would constitute adultery. Therefore, I think that it's reasonable to say that Reagan's statement was grounded on homophobic views.

A person who says that homosexaulity is okay, provided that homosexauls don't have sex (i.e. there should be no outward manifestations of homosexuality), cannot reasonably be said to be tolerant of gays.

In my opinion, you are overly and inexplicably defensive of Reagan.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date

Re: Reagan, AIDS and expressing opinions as queer officer Perry Saturday, June 12, 11:04:29pm

[ VoyUser Login ] Not required to post.
Post a public reply to this message | Go post a new public message
* Notice: Posting problems? [ Click here ]
* HTML allowed in marked fields.
Message subject (required):

Name (optional):

Expression ^{(Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)}

E-mail address (optional):

* Type your message here:
>Perry, it's great that you took such time to explain >everything. > >Just one thing: adultery is usually defined at sexual >intercourse with someone other than one's wedded >spouse. Since gay people were not able to marry in >the US in the 1980s (and are still explicitly banned >from doing so in the constitutions of 38 states), any >male-to-male sex would constitute adultery. >Therefore, I think that it's reasonable to say that >Reagan's statement was grounded on homophobic views. > >A person who says that homosexaulity is okay, provided >that homosexauls don't have sex (i.e. there should be >no outward manifestations of homosexuality), cannot >reasonably be said to be tolerant of gays. > >In my opinion, you are overly and inexplicably >defensive of Reagan.

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 2.94, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums^(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2008 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.