This Post is Rated NC-17 (Dad, Don't Read This)

I'm a little upset that I missed this yesterday. Dana Milbank, columnist and publicity whore for The Washington Post, wrote about everyone's favorite proposed Constitutional Amendment, the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Let me just say, right now, how I feel about this piece of legislation. (I know most of you hate political rants, so I'll try to keep this short.) I consider myself pretty nuanced. More importantly, I accept the nuanced beliefs of others. I like a good political debate. I don't care if someone is anti-choice, pro-capital punishment, pro-invading other countries, etc. Almost every single opinion I disagree with has valid points that should be taken into consideration.

Except for writing hatred into the Constitution.

If you think heterosexual marriages are weakened by homosexual marriage, you are an idiot. If you think homosexuality threatens the very fabric of our society, you are an idiot. If you are a homophobe, you are an idiot. Basically, anyone who is pro-FMA should just go away immediately. I don't want to meet you, I don't want you reading my blog, and I don't want your poisonous idiocy anywhere near me.

Well, that brings me to Sandra Rodrigues. Sandra brought her family down to Washington, DC to convince Senators to vote for the hate amendment. She knew the odds of this amendment passing were slim, but, "If we didn't believe in miracles, we wouldn't have spent our vacation money to come here."

Man, how much would it suck to be her child? Sorry, Junior, no Disneyland this year, the queers are gettin' hitched!

And, this insanity wouldn't be complete without the family values argument going full circle. The Rodrigues clan signs said the following:

Stop Same Sex Marriage: It Endorses Masturbation.

Here's her wacky reasoning: "If same-sex marriage is endorsed, then you're going to have children think it's just another option to have pleasure."

That makes so little sense that I can't even poke fun at it. It's always fun when family values conservatives argue that gay marriage will somehow weaken their relationship with their wives. Now people think that gay marriage will somehow increase masturbation rates in minors? What? How? Huh?

Incidentally, "another option to have pleasure" would include, for me, dropkicking Rodrigues in the back of her stupid head.

So, here's my plan. Since dropkicking her in the head would make me as bad as her, let's just dropkick her warped world view. First, I'd like to warn you that my plan is gross, so, sorry. If the FMA passes in the next ten years (and I know it's a long shot, but just in case), let's organize the biggest circle jerk in the history of the United States. We can directly refute Sandra Rodrigues's wacky beliefs by really turning the masturbation up a notch. Then won't she feel stupid for spending all the Rodrigues vacation money to go to Washington.

Phase 2 of the disgusting plan is to mail all of the, um byproducts of this increased activity right to Sandra Rodrigues of Utah. Something tells me that this God-fearing Christian warrior wasn't smart enough to use a pseudonym. We have her name and home state (Utah), surely I can find her address. (God bless the Internet.) Men, mail her your semen*! Evangelicals hate any semen that is not directly deposited into a subordinate woman's vagina. Women, throw your old, used vibrators into a UPS package and send them on 2nd Day delivery**! Let's make her realize the follies of her ways by systematically harassing her with the things she finds so very disgusting

If we have to fight a culture war, let's fight dirty.

*Probably illegal.
** Ditto


  1. AnonymousJune 08, 2006

    I think we can fing Rodrigues' address in the yellow pages between "Ignorant Bigot" and "Misrepresenting Christianity."

  2. AnonymousJune 08, 2006

    I don't even see why this ammendment is even necessary--don't all of the fruitcakes live in Massachusetts? How does this affect the rest of us?

    And I WONDER, my goodness, how many of the these illegal aliens are also GAY? I mean, what in tarnation...

  3. AnonymousJune 08, 2006

    "Except for writing hatred into the Constitution."

    You're right, that's already been done.

    Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

    I like how you say you're open to other people's views, but then instantly refuse to even use the standard "pro-life" to characterize people that think abortion is wrong. "Anti-choice" does have a nice orwellian ring to it, don't it?

  4. AnonymousJune 08, 2006

    To Krystal,

    And doesn't the term "pro-life" insinuate that all others are "anti-life"? What a wonderful world...

  5. Krystal, I actually had pro-life in my first draft. But I am not anti-life. In fact, I consider abortion to be immoral.

    Pro-choice and anti-choice are better terms for debating abortion's legality as opposed to its morality.

  6. AnonymousJune 08, 2006

    Your "first draft"?

    What is this, English class?

  7. Um, I write a draft and then save it. I wait an hour or two and then make necessary changes. I don't do this for the short posts, but anything over 250 words deserves a thorough go-over to make sure it makes sense.

    It's not English class. It's taking pride in what you write.

  8. AnonymousJune 08, 2006

    if you think its new to have hatred in the constitution you clearly haven't been reading it

  9. I have no idea what you're talking about.

  10. AnonymousJune 09, 2006


    So now you’re "nuanced." LMAO. It’s blatantly clear from your posts that you embody every stereotype of the liberal pussy. Almost every post you make bashes White people, Christians (BTW I’m Jewish), or ppl from the suburbs while somehow loosely tying it to DC (any criticism that applies to the DC suburbs applies to the rest of the country). As retarded as he was, at least James’ posts usually dealt with something that directly related to DC. But that isn’t my point, what I’m saying is that there is no “nuance” in your political views. There aren’t any subtleties in what you think. You just spout the same bullshit that every early-20s asshole does. Saying that you’re “nuanced” would imply that you have an array of political views, both liberal and conservative, that vary from issue to issue. It seems to me that you side with liberals 99% of the time. (Yea I know your supposedly pro-life now)

    Just to let you know I have no problem with gay marriage but I understand the concerns some ppl have about it and I don’t think that anyone against same sex marriage is an idiot. They might be misguided but I would still at least have a conversation before I said “I don't want to meet you, I don't want you reading my blog, and I don't want your poisonous idiocy anywhere near me.” You really need to grow up a bit Rusty.

  11. AnonymousJune 09, 2006

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  12. AnonymousJune 09, 2006

    Rusty, will you PLEASE rename your blog. I think James would be very disappointed at what his blog has turned into.

  13. AnonymousJune 09, 2006

    Joking aside (and the ridiculous post name), I agree with heywood. Rusty, I have no problem with you blogging. Everybody and their grandma blogs.

    But this site is no longer what it used to be. It's not about DC anymore, it's about whatever you want it to be, whatever mood you're in, whether or not that has to do with hating DC or not. Do you really think that's fair to readers who have been around longer than you have?

    At least end the charade and rename it to something like dclush or something like that. Then you can blog away to your hearts content about gay marriage, Madhatter, Massachusetts and your pathetic existence and your pathetic friends, who you shamelessly link to over and over and over again. I don't give a fuck who Toby is so quit linking to him.

    Sure you may have your moments like earlier this week with your photo post, but everyone knows they're few and far between.

    Seriously, you spend more time taking "pride" in your grammar and punctuation than in writing for your audience. Here's a word of advice, Rusty: NOTHING YOU WRITE MAKES SENSE. At least not within the context of what why.i.hate.dc used to be about.

    You're a pathetic loser. Get a life. And a new blog name.

    (typical Rusty responses to come:

    "I'm not a loser, I'm a winner."

    "You keep coming back, don't you?"

    "It's my blog and I'll destroy it if I want to."

    "I have no idea what you're talking about."

    "You just wait till all my friends come to my defense. Irina? Toby? Nadia? Come suck my dick, please."

  14. Anon,

    I am not a knee-jerk liberal. I would consider myself conservative on issues such as gun control, immigration, marijuana decriminalization, and Israel. It's not much, but it was enough for the College Democrats to think I was an asshole.

    However, you're right in that calling myself nuanced when I have only presented myself as a knee-jerk liberal was stupid.

    Heywood and Formerly,

    James wrote about national politics all the time. Go back through the archives. He did it more than I did. So, shut up.

    As for my personal blog. Yeah. It is my blog, I can do what I want with it. And since I'm posting four times a week instead of James's once every Blue Moon, you're going to get personal anecdotes and stories. Sorry. And remember, James wrote a 2,000 word homage to someone making fun of his cell phone, so let's not act like he was never guilty of the same thing.

    Also, I am way past James's ghost now. I've had this blog for four months, and my readership has increased significantly. I took a blog that was dead and helped resurrect it. Everyone who has decided that they hate me have had ample opportunity to stop visiting. Furthermore, I have had the opportunity to develop my own readership.

    You talk about my audience. My audience is different now. And I'm sorry that you don't want to be a part of it.

  15. Which is not to say that I am somehow a better writer than James. That's obviously not the case.

  16. AnonymousJune 09, 2006


  17. AnonymousJune 09, 2006

    The people that complain about this blog sound no different than the people who go around complaining about Janet Jackson's boob and Howard Stern. One side of thier mouth professes "taste," "values," "small government" while they want to regulate and control EVERYTHING they personally don't like. People: if you don't enjoy the blog, don't view it. Maybe if daddy loved them more (especially between the ages 3 and 10), they wouldnt be so out to "control" what everyone else likes.

  18. AnonymousJune 09, 2006

    I love when Rusty gets on and posts under "anonymous."

  19. AnonymousJune 09, 2006

    Relax turdnecks.

    Rusty, the blog is good.

  20. AnonymousJune 09, 2006

    "The people that complain about this blog sound no different than the people who go around complaining about Janet Jackson's boob and Howard Stern. One side of thier mouth professes "taste," "values," "small government" while they want to regulate and control EVERYTHING they personally don't like. People: if you don't enjoy the blog, don't view it. Maybe if daddy loved them more (especially between the ages 3 and 10), they wouldnt be so out to "control" what everyone else likes."

    I seriously dont know what your talking about.

  21. AnonymousJune 09, 2006

    These comments about why.i.hate.dc wondering off-topic, i.e. DC, absolutely amaze me. Let's not even raise the ghost of James. All I have to do is point to other "DC blogs" (such as Metroblogging DC or DCist) that very frequently wander off-topic too. Yet I don't see comments over there blasting them for the same "sin".

    The fact of the matter is that this is Rusty's site now. It doesn't matter who was here or what shape or feel it had before Rusty.

    Certainly it's fair to debate (or berate) Rusty for his views on any particular post, but you are out of line to whine about what direction he takes his blog.

    If you don't like it, leave it.

    Rusty, I don't always like the subject matters you address. I rarely ever agree with your opinion. But I always enjoy reading your posts. Keep it up.

  22. AnonymousJune 09, 2006

    rusty, why did my post get deleated? I admit my language was a bit colorful but I stand by what I said. I think you just deleated it because what I had to say made you nervous. FUCK YOU AND YOUR CRAPPY FASCIST BLOG!!!

  23. AnonymousJune 09, 2006

    I second Robbie.

    And anonymous, there's no a in delete. At first I thought maybe it was a typo, but no, you put it in there twice, thereby doubly annoying me.

  24. I delete anything that includes hate speech. Try again without referring to gay people as "fags."

  25. Anyone who thinks that Washington D.C. has nothing to do with Politics and a Womans Right to Choose is a God-Damned itiot.

  26. idiot. Im so pissed I cant type.

  27. AnonymousJune 09, 2006

    Ok Rusty, I wasn't aware that saying "fag" was considered "hate speech" but whatever. Let me try again. I don't support gay marriage but as a compromise I would be ok with it if gays would agree to take an AIDS test before they got hitched. Preventing the spread of AIDS would not only benifit the gay community but the public as a whole. Billions of tax dollars could be saved and given back to the public through tax cuts.

  28. Let me go on record by saying that's ridiculous.

  29. AnonymousJune 09, 2006

    why is that ridiculous?

  30. AnonymousJune 09, 2006

    Nadia, please shut up you ignorant hole.

  31. Again I made you pissed. Again that made my day.

    Listen. Anonymous. Associating gay people with HIV is THE single most ignorant thing I have heard of in the past decade, if you want to get down to what is ignorant.

    Everyone with half a brain cell knows that HIV is as prevalent and in some cases more prevalent in the heterosexual community. So now you can shut your hole.

  32. AnonymousJune 09, 2006

    So typical of liberals.


    Get a grip folks. I never said I didn't like Rusty's blog. What the fuck is a "turdneck"? I never said I "don't want to be part of your audience". No, I won't "shut up." I did not "blast" Rusty for wandering off topic. I did not "whine about what direction he takes his blog."

    Fucking hell. You people are so typical of the liberal argument -- blow things out of proportion, put words in people's mouths, and generally lying because you have no leg to stand on.

    Wake the fuck up, people. All I said is that Rusty needs to change the name of the blog. And I stand by that statement. I will continue to read it because I find it entertaining, and I like Rusty's writing style. But it has little to do with how much this miserable cesspool we call our nation's capital sucks.

    Do we have to be so defensive and testy? Oh wait -- I forgot you are liberal. You do.

  33. AnonymousJune 09, 2006

    Nadia, nadia, nadia.......

    We went over this a few weeks ago. The FACTS are that HIV is more prevalent in homosexuals than heterosexuals. If you want to argue, argue with Newsweek. They did an article on it a few weeks ago, and it was loaded with facts and figures. Unless, of course you feel that Newsweek was flat out lying........

  34. AnonymousJune 09, 2006

    Nadia, how am I "pissed"? I just get tired of the stupid crap you constantly post on here. Your posts are paper thin in terms of content and usually revolve around Boston or some type of cliched bullshit. The only reason Rusty acts like you add something to his blog is because he's hard up for chicks.

    Speaking of "pissed" didn't you admit a few posts ago "Im so pissed I cant type." So obviously you're the one with the anger issues. And if making someone angry online makes your day then you really need to go out and get laid or something.

    As far as the AIDS thing you said "Associating gay people with HIV is THE single most ignorant thing I have heard of in the past decade..." HAHAHA. Get a history book you fucking moron. The U.S. AIDS epidemic began in the gay community and then spread to the general population. Thats an undisputable fact. So yes I very much associate the gay people with HIV as does anyone with a brain.

  35. Wrong.
    NIH is a better authority than Newsweek.


  36. AnonymousJune 09, 2006

    Do you have any evidence to back up your argument that is less than 8 years old?

  37. AnonymousJune 09, 2006

    I don't understand. Your saying a Gay person is more likely to have AIDS than a non-Gay? I've never seen statistic showing the proportion of gay people with AIDS to gay people as a whole is grater than the proportion of "straight" people with AIDS to "straight" people as a whole. Moreover, a statistic like that be never accurate for numerous reasons. Not least of which is the number of people with AIDS who don't know they have AIDS as well as the number of gay people who reamain closed because of biggots who espouse ideas like those above.
    Moreover, there are many statistics to support that AIDS is a prevelant and growing problem in the African-American community. Are you going to ask that all black people get tested before they get married as well?

  38. AnonymousJune 09, 2006

    Plus the data is based on 1993 statistics. That article is completly useless.

  39. AnonymousJune 09, 2006


    "NIH is a better authority than Newsweek."

    Not when the article is eight years old. C'mon Nadia - you can do better than that. Or can you?

    Another typical liberal argument here. Anytime someone cites facts that are politically incorrect, they are automatically branded a bigot or a racist. (louise)

    I won't have this dumbass argument. I'm the first to admit when I'm wrong or when I lose an argument. But gimme a fucking break. If you want to dispute the facts, that's fine. But you are either fucking idiots, or you are living in a dreamworld.

  40. AnonymousJune 09, 2006


    The fact that you've never seen any statistics suggesting that AIDS is more wide spread in the gay community doesn't prove anything. There are dozens of studies which show that AIDS is more prevelent amongst homosexuals. I'm at work right now but tonight I'll provide some links.

    As far as asking black people to get tested before they get married, last time I checked it was already legal for them to get married. Gay marriage is not legal and I was simply proposing a compromise on the issue that would benifit everyone.

  41. OK According to recent stats released by the White House, 75% of HIV positive women contracted AIDS through heterosexual contact. 75%. It is much less for men, but still a very viable way for men to contract AIDS. Therefore your stereotypical comment that gays should be tested for AIDS before making a commitment to one another as a tax incentive is still utterly prejudiced and ridiculous.



  42. AnonymousJune 09, 2006

    Isn't it funny how one becomes more conservative, generally, as he (and she!) ages? Usually, I'm the a-hole on this site so I'm sure glad to see others dispelling the notion that any of these opinions is nuanced.

    And, Kommander Krystal Koons, you couldn't be more correct about the original Constitution being racist (couldn't resist the pun, buddy). I sometimes wonder if the Constitution would have been more "descriminatory" had the founding fathers any idea of whay lay ahead.

    I can just imagine them looking on modern American and saying, "You've got to be f-cking kidding me."

    Okay, now was that one of you people with the envelope of dog sh-t on Capitol Hill? Really.

  43. AnonymousJune 09, 2006

    Anonymous, Why would making gays take an HIV test before they got married help stop the spread of the disease? Wouldn't tradition (and logic) say that if two gay people wanted to get married that they are committing themselves to having sex only with each other for the rest of their lives, so therefore they really wouldn't be spreading the disease. Just not sure how your logic works.

  44. Wow. These comments are really entertaining. When I read about the AIDS test compromise I had the exact same reaction as Rusty. If anonymous--and to their belief, the rest of America--believes that the spread of AIDS would be prevalent in gay marriages, consider the definition of marriage first. Those who want to get married are already in long-term relationships and/or believe in a stable relationship between two people. In that case, there would be no spread of AIDS between the adults in the relationship and adults outside of the relationship. As for children, (marriage cannot be interchanged with procreation), then yes, AIDS could spread but if the parents had souls they would know not to have biologically related children.

    Furthermore, the forcing of AIDS test results in order to get married is no more ludicrous than Jews having to provide family history documents in order to get married to Christians in the Third Reich (and you see how Germany turned out with that one).

    The whole "oh my god, this is just another piece of liberal bullshit" game needs to stop. It doesn't solve anything but fuel more hatred and a split between the people of America. There needs to be no compromise for gay marriage. On the other hand, I'm not suprised by those who are against it. The same arguments sprung about when people wanted interracial marriage.

    Let's go back to the good ol' days where white people were fined or jailed for having "black blood" in them.

    a 16 year old.

  45. Oh, I take it back when I said there'd be no tranmission of AIDS between the partners in the marriage. One could have AIDS and the other could not. In that case, it's possible. But then again, that's a risk the other partner's willing to take.

  46. AnonymousJune 09, 2006

    Uh, wouldn't marriage between any people (man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman) lessen the spread of HIV/AIDS and STDs? (assuming most married people are monogamous...)

    Also, if AIDS is only prevalent among the gay community, as you say, how would you explain Africa? Many cultures in Africa are not accepting of gay people, and yet AIDS is rampant.

  47. AnonymousJune 09, 2006

    First of all, I completely agree with everything in this post. People who support this ammendment are the absolute scum of the earth. If George Bush wants to prevent "depriving any child of a father or mother," than why not make divorce illegal?
    But anyway, the real reason I'm commenting is to ask why you are conservative on marijuana legalization? Not only have I smoked pot with you repeatedly, Rusty, making you a hypocrite, but there's also no logical reason why it should be illegal when alcohol is legal. All scientific evidence shows that alcohol is far worse for almost all parts of your body than pot is, in addition to being far less addictive. I don't support legalization of cocaine or other drugs because they are very dangerous and addictive, but pot is essentially harmless, and there are very, very, very few instances of violence caused as a result of being on marijuana. If you wanted to make an argument for making all drugs illegal, including alcohol (which is a drug by any definition of the word) then I would engage in that discussion, but I know you love your booze, so I don't think that's the road you'd take. Finally, take into account all tax money that is wasted on jailing marijuana users and dealers whose biggest crime against society is the perpetuation of the whole jam-band scene, and I just fail to see any reason to be against the legalization of pot.

  48. Mike, I disagree, but don't feel like getting into it over the Internets.

    Perhaps we can discuss while while taking bong-rips and watching VH-1 Classic.

  49. Um, being "conservative" on marijuana SHOULD mean thinking the government has no right to dictate what you can and can't put in your body. It's a huge misconception that "conservative" means "let's restrict bodily autonomy even more than it already is." A true conservative, not some self-righteous neo-con, favors legalization of all drugs because there is nothing more sacred and deserving of absolute freedom from government intrusion than what goes into your body.

    Oh, and the war on marijuana costs US taxpayers some $8 billion a year. The last time I checked it was easier for a 14 year old to get pot than booze b/c drug dealers don't ask for ID. Throwing money down a rathole does not a true conservative make.

  50. AnonymousJune 09, 2006

    Goddamnit Jonny, can't we go one fucking post around here without comparing something to the Nazis? Just once?

  51. AnonymousJune 09, 2006

    Nadia, you pretty much proved my point for me. According to the White House statistics that you cited in 2000 47% of all AIDS infected men contracted the virus through gay sex. According to more recent numbers from the CDC 65% of all males diagnosed in 2004 contracted AIDS through gay sex. 65%!!! I don’t know what percentage of the U.S. male population is gay but it’s not even close to 65%. Maybe it’s 5% at most. So clearly the AIDS rate is proportionately much higher amongst men in the gay community.

    As far as woman, of course the vast majority contract AIDS through heterosexual sex. There isn’t any penetration involved in female-to-female sex. The CDC doesn’t even keep statistics on women contracting AIDS through gay sex. So while you were completely wrong I will slightly revise my proposal. Only gay MEN would be required to get tested for AIDS before getting married.

    For the people asking if I really think requiring AIDS test before marriage would slow the spread of the virus, the answer is yes. I think that by requiring homosexuals be AIDS-free in order to get married, there would be a strong incentive for gays to practice safer sex and live monogamous lifestyles. Gay men need to be careful. STDs are spread much more easily with anal sex then with heterosexual sex due to the bleeding involved. I’ve already proven that AIDS is much more prevalent in the gay community than in the general population so if gays were enticed to practice safer sex in order to get married I think it would greatly help to slow the spread of the virus. I also think that this requirement would benefit the gay community by speeding along the process of making gay marriage legal. This compromise might satisfy some of the people who object to the idea of gay marriage on moral grounds.


  52. "there would be a strong incentive for gays to practice safer sex and live monogamous lifestyles"

    those silly gays. they're always shoving their dicks into every hole that walks by.

    also, as for the nazi comparison, it's still a good point whether or not you think that it's cliche to link back american controversies to that time period. the thing is, history is repeating itself here and there shouldn't be a compromise that morally benefits the heterosexual community--hetereosexuals just need to learn to deal, plain and simple.

    the controversy about gay marriage also revolves around equality. forcing an aids test on just one group of people takes away that equality that all gays are searching for. in that case, aids tests would have to be placed on everyone. and then, maybe other disease tests because there are plenty more viruses that can be passed down and transmitted through people.

    your idea just doesn't seem realistic. sorry.

  53. AnonymousJune 09, 2006

    I don't agree with anonymous on the gay marriage thing, but he/she hit the nail right on the head about the HIV statistics. If you take the FACTS, and then add to that the fact that gay men are a huge minority, it proves beyond any doubt that homosexual sex is riskier than hetero.

    Wanna argue that one, Nadia?

  54. Some people are so jaded they want to control the very fabric of free will in society, for the fucking sake of they're "Jewdeo Christian" heritage whatever the fuck that is! Plus I wouldn't waste my semen on a bitch like that since she'd probably end up feeding it to her family and lasting another 5 years. Also anyone who's a punk ass enough to post anonymous shouldn't talk shit!

    Keep up the good work Rusty!

  55. AnonymousJune 09, 2006

    Hey JTW, I post under anonymous because I havn't gotten around to/dont feel like registering with blogger. If your that interested in my personal life I'd be happy to tell you whatever you want to know. And after looking at your blog you might as well be anonymous. I didnt notice you giving up any personal info.

  56. AnonymousJune 10, 2006


    The blog is good, don't listen to them

    others, what the hell? it is Rusty's blog, he can do what he wants with it.

  57. AnonymousJune 11, 2006

    First off, AIDS affects minority and poor populations more than any other in this country, so if TIME Magazine has something other than that to say (which I highly doubt) then I will strongly disagree. Also new infections among women are greatly outpacing those among men. So, please stop making up facts in order to defend your hateful uneducated agenda.

    Also, to you anonymous out there, please use a name under "other" and stick with it so these debates aren't so fucking confusing. You don't have to use your real name, but at least give us something besides anonymous.

    And Heywood...
    After I read your posts, I find it quite hilarious and hypocritical that you wrote:

    "Do we have to be so defensive and testy? Oh wait -- I forgot you are liberal. You do."

    I also agree that this blog belongs to Rusty now and he has the right to blog whatever he wants. I'm hoping he read your suggestion of changing the name and then threw it out, because that would be ridiculous.

  58. AnonymousJune 11, 2006

    DC sucks, you are a complete jackass. please look at the following link.


    The CDC completely flushes your argument down the toilet (unless the CDC is making things up as you claim I was). New infections amongst men are triple that of women. Also man-to-man sex is still by far the leading method of spreading AIDS. The facts back up what I said. Where is your evidence? As far as I can telll you just didnt like what I said and starting making shit up. Go fuck yourself

  59. AnonymousJune 11, 2006

    but I will start using a name since it is confusing.

  60. AnonymousJune 11, 2006


    Brilliant---are you 12?

    Of course you bring that overly flawed CDC report into this debate. READ THE FINE PRINT. That report only deals with "data from 35 areas with long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting." The gay community is the biggest supplier of "name-based HIV reporting," so of course they are going to show up as the majority on that poll. The truth would really scare you.

    People don't have to report that they have HIV or AIDS and the majority of the diagnosed don't, and even more are never diagnosed until their death -- and you won't find any of them in that report. Not to mention the hundreds of under-the-table clinics that treat the poor and undocumented people living in inner-cities.

    I was a social worker for a large non-profit health organization for over 10 years and can tell you first hand that if you want real statistics you need to look outside the realm of homophobic societies.

    I've had a friend who has passed away from AIDS due to drug use and a cousin who is living with HIV that he contracted from his ex-fiance. My friend's parents didn't find out until he'd passed away, my cousin's immediate family and I are the only ones that know about him, and you'll never see either one of them on any report due to their fear of being labeled gay.

    And, I can guarantee that you, being the homophobe that you are, would definitely not show up on this report if you found out you had HIV.

    The reality is that the real US statistics will be closer to Global Health's statistics.

    Regardless of this debate, which could go on forever, your point is that "gays" should have to take an AIDS test before they got married. Are you saying that it's okay for heterosexuals to transmit HIV/AIDS to their spouse? You're debate is very ignorant and homophobic, and you obviously got your "facts" from Google and Bill O'Reilly.

    And, just to head off your next ignorant reply I will go ahead and say, "no, I'm straight."

  61. AnonymousJune 11, 2006

    dc sucks,

    Yeah, whatever......

  62. AnonymousJune 11, 2006

    nova blows,

    good one......

  63. AnonymousJune 11, 2006

    DC sucks,

    Well, you wrote a lot of words, called me a lot of names, and yet you failed to refute a single word I’ve said and proved absolutely nothing. First of all, if you hadn’t noticed, we’re discussing AIDS in AMERICA. Rusty’s post was about a U.S. constitutional ban on gay marriage. Therefore only statistics on the AIDS rate in the U.S. apply to this discussion. The link you gave about the international AIDS rate is irrelevant. Secondly, my arguments were backed up by FACTS from the CDC, an authority on the subject. You provided nothing in the way of evidence to support your ramblings. Your claim that the CDC numbers are inaccurate because of a flawed information gathering process and homophobic bias is laughable. If you don’t trust the CDC than whom do you trust? If there is a study you feel is more accurate than please provide a link. Statistics on AIDS will never be 100% accurate but these are about as good as it gets. If "the gay community is the biggest supplier of "name-based HIV reporting," than prove it. I’m not just taking your word for it. Hopefully your reply will have some factual evidence to back it up but I get the feeling it’ll be more of the same; meaningless bullshit interspersed with words like “ignorant” and “bigot.”

  64. AnonymousJune 11, 2006

    First off, the CDC has been wrong so many times about so many things that it's ridiculous. The flaw in CDC is that it is run by the government by politically elected officials. Such is the flaw in most Government run organizations. The Democrats are just as guilty as the Republicans when it comes to this.

    The FACT is that you don't have to report HIV/AIDS and you can get this fact from any Health Department in any city in the U.S. You can download DC's Confidential Testing Form (PDF) and see that for yourself. The form states, "this form gives consent to confidential testing. I understand that I can
    decide to be tested, or I may go elsewhere and be tested without giving my name. (Remember the part in the CDC report that says, "...long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting?) The form also states, "Absent a court order, information concerning this test will not be released to anyone else, including an insurance company, without my written consent."

    If you investigate further you WILL find out that the CDC doesn't even have stats from Washington, DC. Furthermore, name-based reporting is voluntary, and nobody has the right to require an HIV/AIDS patient to give up any of their sexual information. Any scientist knows that tests results can never be accurate if all the subjects information is on a voluntary basis. It's sad to say, but how many straight people that you know would volunteer for such reporting, where as the majority of the gay community would gladly volunteer.

    With these FACTS, how could you buy into the slightest accuracy of this test? No real scientist that I know, including myself, would believe this.

    When any organizations releases a poll, the american media runs with it --- that's how it becomes your "FACTS." (Are eggs good for you or not? Wheat? Carbs?)

    I'm sure you'll find a way to rebut and we can go on forever about this so please, let's stop going back to this and let's talk about your original statements that you so elegantly ignored last time around.




    Please answer THOSE questions!!!

    For the record, the only name I've called you is a "homophobe" which you haven't actually denied, and at this point you'd have a hard time denying. I only called your debate ignorant---I don't think you're ignorant, I think you're just spreading your homophobic propaganda. And, I never used the word, "bigot." YOU have, however, called me a "complete jackass" and told me to "go fuck [myself]." So, who's debating, and who's throwing around expletives? Which leads me to once again ask, "are you 12?"

    P.S. SERIOUSLY: if you, as you say, "associate the gay people with HIV," what are you worried about? That means you're safe, right?

    ... right?

  65. Oh for the love of God.

    1. Gay marriage has nothing to do with AIDS.

    2. If you want to test all gay couples for AIDS before marriage (which would accomplish what?), would you also be ok testing every hetrosexual for the syph, warts, herpes, AIDS, or the clap?

    DC Heat, this is the second time you've gone on and on about AIDS and homosexuals even though it's been completely off topic. I don't want a third.

  66. AnonymousJune 11, 2006

    Sorry for egging that on, Rusty. It's my field, so I felt that I had to put in my thoughts before my head exploded.

    Wait... Who Won? :-)

    Kidding, I'm done!

    Btw, I haven't said it yet, but GREAT BLOG!!

  67. AnonymousJune 12, 2006

    Let's have the anti-gay marraige people tested for STUPID.

  68. AnonymousJune 12, 2006

    OK dipshits.

    1) Yes, the HIV virus passes VERY EASILY via homosexual sex. Any fucking doctor with half a brain would tell you that. Those who cloud the issue by claiming, on their politically correct high horse, that this is not true are in fact endangering gay men.

    2) What this fact has to do with forcing two men to get AIDS tests prior to marriage, I have no idea. This is pure lunacy.

    3) I love the capitalized "Womans Right to Choose." Why don't we just engrave It On the Fucking Capitol?

  69. AnonymousJune 12, 2006

    pimp daddy:

    Its not so much that HIV is transmitted more easily via homosexual sex - rather it is transmitted more easily via ANAL sex. So unless you believe the dumbass who posted earlier on this board that heterosexuals have as much anal sex as homosexuals, it's pretty much a no-brainer.

    C'mon folks. This is that difficult of a concept. Do you politically correct morons now want to insist that HIV isn't transmitted more via anal than vaginal sex? Or you do you want to stand by the idiot who claims that straights do it up the poop chute as much as gays?

    This is fucking ridiculous.

  70. AnonymousJune 12, 2006

    What percentage of heterosexual Americans having anal sex would be high enough to make heteros apart of testing before marriage?

  71. AnonymousJune 13, 2006


    I don't share the opinion that gays should be tested before they get married, so I cannot answer your question.

  72. AnonymousJune 13, 2006

    "Liberal Pussy" Being liberal doesn't make one a wimp. I can think of no better way to prove the point than kicking your biggoted teeth down your throat in an alley. Does that make me as bad as you? Perhaps it does. I'm working for a better world, not living in it.

  73. AnonymousJune 13, 2006

    After all this fighting about marriage requirements, not one of you mentioned states rights?

    Don't you think the state should determine whether or not you need a blood test to get married (and some states DO require it)? Don't you think the states should decide who's allowed to get married and who is it?

    I don't care if you think gays shouldn't get married (I don't agree with you, and it's a hot-button issue for me, but I really don't care). I do care when the federal government starts trying to pre-empt the function of the states.

    and frankly, I also care when wing-nuts from Utah try to attack my (pick-your-deity)-given right to touch myself.

    You guys should focus on the real issues... states rights and getting off.

    : )

  74. AnonymousJune 13, 2006

    danielle said:
    "(pick-your-deity)-given right"

    Now that's funny! : )

  75. AnonymousJune 16, 2006

    "Anonymous" (i.e., "coward") said: I don't support gay marriage but as a compromise I would be OK with it if gays would agree to take an AIDS test before they got hitched.

    So in other words, you are willing to substitute one form of discrimination for another and call it "compromise." Lovely.

    I'm ardently pro-gay marriage, but because the opponents seem to get hung up on a purely semantic argument, I honestly don't care for now whether we call it "marriage," "civil unions" or "Fred."

    It is a matter of rights. Specifically, the 1,000+ rights that are denied to gay people, unless they choose to marry someone of the opposite gender and live a loveless life that might result in children but will likely result in infidelity and heartbreak. Is that honestly the choice the opponents would foist on the rest of us?

    Is it right that a straight spouse can leave their (improper use of pronoun for convenience) Social Security to their spouse when they die, but I cannot? Is it right that a straight spouse automatically becomes next of kin to their spouse, but I will not? Is it right that my straight married friends get a bonus on their taxes (and, in the case of my employer, other spousal benefits worth approximately $15,000 a year), while I get none of that? If your answer to any of those questions is "yes," then I can see no other motive within you than hate.

    I'm not pushing any agenda outside of fairness. I live a more honorable and more upstanding life than the vast majority of straight people I know. I pay more taxes than probably 90 to 95 percent of the population. All I ask is to be treated like the decent human being I am.

    Anonymous, your comment about requiring an AIDS test is idiotic and bigoted, so much so that I feel like an idiot myself for even having to respond to such nonsense. Perhaps they should test you for an extra chromosome before you get married.

  76. AnonymousJune 16, 2006

    how am I a coward?

  77. AnonymousJune 23, 2006

    Now you give a name other than "anonymous."

    I'll happily answer your question if you answer at least a few of mine. Unless you're too, you know, "cowardly."

  78. AnonymousJuly 14, 2006

    I am too much of a coward.