Posted on 03/07/2003 7:35:36 AM PST by scripter
Actually, this is the position you started from. Avoid circular reasoning.
Again, you whine about JUSTICE, and you excuse lawbreaking and prevaricating political activists. I think your senses of priority and propriety are impaired.
You have to know that every American believes in civil disobedience (which has been alleged but not proven in this case) or we would not have a country.
You focus on the alleged breaking of the law because you and all SADs want to keep the knowledge of this particular recruitment technique limited until it has had its full effect.
Shalom.
To put it into perspective, using the data in post 169, "6.7 seroconversions per 100 person years" means that 10 years of having unprotected sex with mostly-HIV-positive partners (not unlikely in the gay community) means you will most likely wind up HIV positive (which means you will die)
"0.9 seroconversions per 100 person years" means that 10 years of having sex using condoms means you have a 9% chance of getting HIV. This is better, but still more like playing Russian Roulette than being a safe practice. Only compared to the most-likely-fatal result of unprotected sex would this seem reasonable
Any seminar that would give a minor boy the impression that anal sex can be made "safe" must be considered fraud and child abuse
The study measured infection rates among HETERO couples, where one partner was known to be HIV+. HIV is much harder to transmit thru vaginal sex than thru anal sex, so the gay risk would be much greater
If GLSEN receives taxpayer dollars then GLSEN used taxpayer dollars to run the conference. Money is fungable. You can't trace a particular dollar. If that taxpayer money were not available then GLSEN would have to prioritize their spending without that money and might not have been able to put on that conference. Unless GLSEN receives no taxpayer funding whatsoever then GLSEN is using taxpayer funding for everything they do.
The same is true, BTW, of faith based programs which is why the argument of "using federal funds for food but not for evangelism" does not work.
Wake up and smell the coffee. We object and we are going to continue to object to people inviting someone else's children into a "private place" and telling them that it's reasonable to have a penis inserted into their anuses. We object to that whether it is a private or public event, and we object to that whether it is privately or publicly funded. It is as fully objectionable as bringing children into a private location and telling them their parents are nuts and they should run away as soon as possible. You can not justify this behavior, whether "fisting" is discussed or not.
Shalom.
The conference would have been more educational if it had this NY Times article among its handouts:
If you are a teen engaging in gay sex, you have a significant probability of getting a fatal disease by your early 20's"Study Finds H.I.V. Infection Is High for Young Gay Men"
New York Times (02/16/99) P. C16; Richardson, LyndaA large-scale study conducted in New York City found that HIV infection rates among young gay men are high. The Young Men's Survey found that 12 percent of the 15- to 22-year-old men who have sex with men that they surveyed are infected with HIV. Young gay African-American men had an 18 percent infection rate, while young Hispanic men had a 9 percent rate and young white men had a 3 percent rate. Young gay men of mixed race had a 16 percent infection rate. The study, reported at the Sixth Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections in Chicago, was conducted by the New York City Health Department and the New York City Blood Center and financed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Men who had previously acquired a sexually transmitted disease had a 23 percent HIV infection rate, compared to 10 percent of men who had never had an STD. Forty-six percent of those surveyed said that they had participated in unprotected anal sex in the previous six months, although researchers do not know if high-risk behavior is rising in the city. They added that the racial and ethnic disparities were indicative of differences found nationwide. The survey also found that about one-third of 15- to 18-year-olds had a partner who was 30 years or older in the previous six months, while approximately 45 percent of 19- to 22-year-olds had a partner older than 30. Dr. Mary Ann Chiasson, of the New York City Health Department, noted that "it's more likely that older men are HIV infected than younger men so they may be at a higher risk of transmitting HIV. You see this pattern in sexually transmitted diseases, particularly in young women who are more likely to have older partners."
A Google search for "GLSEN" and "funding" seems to contradict your statement. Else why was the homosexual activist community asking the goobermint to restore the $500 thousand to make the total $1.25 million "for gay and lesbian youth programs", hmmm?
All they have to do to prove it is disclose the financial records for the conference showing that no taxpayer money was used and that charges for the rental of facilities were not reduced -- contracts and agreements signed, invoices paid, and other financial records would be acceptable documentation. Those were public facilities that GLSEN held their conference at.
GLSEN was a paid consultant to the state DOE. GLSEN was paid with taxpayer money to develop programs for the public schools, as documented here and here. Since they were paid by the state with taxpayer money, GLSEN's financial records for the period in question should be made available for public inspection.
One of the most disgusting aspects of taxes is that they are used to fund things that an overwhelming majority of taxpayers would oppose.
Shalom.
That's true, and I believe that their financial records should be open for public inspection. Do you agree?
Without a doubt. Along with about 8 gazillion other taxpayer funded advocacy groups.
Take the public nickel, you should take public scrutiny.
No, it's a lot more like the ladies who advertise $300 for an hour of their time, which is of course not a solicitation or agreement for sexual contact - wink, wink.
GSLEN takes taxpayer money. That makes them taxpayer funded. What's so hard to understand about that?
Were my company a goobermint contractor, we'd be subject to all kinds of rules that don't apply to us as private. GSLEN is no different. They can't be a private association and yet not be subject to the rules of those who sup at the public trough while taking tax monies.
I realize it's very common for leftists to fund advocacy groups with tax money, then pretend they're "private organizations". Sorry, you can't have it both ways.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.