I read that a little differently, Nico

[elfs]

Over on thinkprogress.org, Nico has an interesting article in which he illustrates the Department of Health and Human Services guidelines for the submission of grants, two of which state (a) that "abstinence is voluntarily choosing not to engage in sexual practices until marriage", and (b) "the term 'marriage' must be defined as 'only a legal union between one man and one woman as a husband and wife'".

Nico says that he believes this means that, according to the Bush administration, gays should never engage in sex. However, I read it that if one never intends to get married then one cannot be abstinent, since there is no period in one's life that can accurately described as "before marriage." The Bush Administration is teaching gay kids to not bother holding back at all since, after all, what they are is already forbidden.

Gods, I don't know if I can stand two more years of this crap.

Comments

[damiana-swan.livejournal.com]

The thing I'm finding interesting is the reaction of the left-wing blogosphere to the "you should only be having sex if you're married" concept. Rather than writing outraged, how-dare-they editorials, they're simply suggesting that any time an unmarried administration professional holds a press conference, they should be asked if they are practicing abstinence, and if not, why not?

After all, if our tax dollars are going to support this policy, the members of the administration whose policy it is should be following it, don't you think?

[leethomps.livejournal.com]

I can't see why homosexual marriage is so opposed.

I just kinda have the world mostly on /ignore until 2008 :P

[leethomps.livejournal.com]

Apparently they do P2P file sharing too...

[mothball-07.livejournal.com]

While I understand the approach, I don't support even more poking into personal activities of government folks. Sends the wrong overall message IMO, which ought to be "it's none of your frickin' business, bub." (Small exemption for those working for these issues when caught in hypocrisy.)

But asking all officials? No. I might well ask them "Would you like me to walk away from this press conference and dig into your personal sexual history, or do you think we should support individual privacy for personal matters?"

That's a question I could feel good about.

More and more I'm thinking the problem is that we're always on the defensive. I think we need to go on the offensive - maybe actually do some of that proselytizing, conversion work, and recruitement we're accused of. I think it might be time to actually go out and TELL all those kids why they might NOT want to choose abstinence, rather than politely leave the conservatives to their beliefs while they whack on us.

I dunno. I might just be frustrated.

[whipartist.livejournal.com]

Sometime after I moved to the west coast, I went back to my hometown (St. Louis) for a visit. I was driving around, running errands, and listening to the local talk radio station.

They had a couple of hours of call-ins on sex education. The topics of discussion were, "Should schools teach absinence?" or, "Should parents teach absinence?"

For over an hour, not one person questioned the premise of abstinence. I finally lost it, and picked up the phone. "Why is nobody questioning whether abstinence should be taught? I want my children to learn to make rational, intelligent choices about sexual activity, rather than pounding 'just say no' into their heads."

I caused a stir.

[elfs.livejournal.com]

I think that's the objective here. We're mostly addressing those officials who are advocating the involvement of the state into our private lives. Much like the young man who, after Scalia said the government had the right to prosecute people who committed sodomy, had the audacity to ask (http://www.poormojo.org/pmjadaily/archives/002909.php), "Judge Scalia, do you sodomize your wife?" He was immediately escorted from the room by security.

[mothball-07.livejournal.com]

Ah.. I support pointing out hypocrisy. I read any time an unmarried administration professional holds a press conference as suggesting a broader scope of doing this by default, rather than with precision.

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

>> until marriage

Since these poor lost souls will never be married, they should never engage in sex at all.

That's how I read it.

(Looks for a brain scrub brush . . .)

[sierra-nevada.livejournal.com]

Religious leaders need an enemy to demonize; otherwise they'd be spending all their time berating the flock for their faults, and exhorting the flock to behave better. Any bets on how long a church which did nothing but that would last?

Cynical? Me? What makes you say that ... ?

[kavri.livejournal.com]

Now when I read your post Elf, I had a whole other line of thinking. I had been exposed to the sometimes held belief that 'celibacy' and 'abstinence' were two similar but slightly different things, as explained ala Wikipedia:

"Some writers on sexuality draw a distinction between abstinence and celibacy, stating that celibacy means refraining from any sexual activity with a partner. They argue that this can be empowering, as it still allows that person to be "sexual" (through, for example, masturbation)."

So, my thought was they don't even want the poor bastards to masturbate.

*...thanks the god/dess/es, yet again, that I live in Canada, though, it's getting worse here too...*

[solarbird]

Since these poor lost souls will never be married, they should never engage in sex at all.
That's how I read it.
That is the fundamentalist viewpoint, and the Bush administration implements that as far as I can. They've been putting in all sorts of that kind of anti-gay crap, and removing Clinton-era anti-discrimination protection, and so on.

(One specific example is here: http://solarbird.livejournal.com/394108.html#cutid1 Search for the word "period" and you'll find Concerned Women for America's Robert Knight saying, "The ex-gay message is: you don't have to engage in sex. Period." )

[gromm.livejournal.com]

Any bets on how long a church which did nothing but that would last?

Oh, about 1600 years or so. And there's no end in sight either.

[gromm.livejournal.com]

Nico says that he believes this means that, according to the Bush administration, gays should never engage in sex.

Well, duh. If they stop having gay sex, then they stop being gay. Then the "problem" will be solved. *rolls eyes*

[omahas.livejournal.com]

If they stop having gay sex, then they stop being gay.

Does that mean if you stop having straight sex, you'll stop being straight? I think someone forgot to tell some of those Catholic priests out there.

[gromm.livejournal.com]

Yeah, you're right. I'm sorry. You know, the next time I express sarcasm on the Internet, I should put /BLINK tags on the disclaimer that says it's sarcasm, in like, a size 72 font. And in red. So everyone knows, that, you know, the eye roll at the end means I'm being sarcastic and shit.