"Nope, matters little weither [sic] if they are "true" or not--they are STILL emotional pleas and "scare" stories."
Ok, it is your opinion that all arguments should be conducted without any appeal to emotion. Opinion noted. I think its a dumb opinion, but you're welcome to it. I have no further interest in your thoughts on this matter unless you can demonstrate some reason why your personal preference ought to alter this common practice. Of course, there are reasons why we HAVE this common practice in the first place*, perhaps the most obvious in this case being that of course an emotional response to the separation of life partners is appropriate and we ought to be scared of a legal system that promotes such events.
"Pretty sure that the "other" side could tell equally scary stories about gays abuseing the legal system--I could tell you some myself."
Go right ahead. I'm all ears.
"Nope, YOUR [sic] the guy claming to "speak" for millions of folks you don't know, never met and you certainly can't read their minds--I'M the guy that says make [sic] such blanket statements are untenable."
You know what? You're right. Subtle racial tensions in America are GONE. I submit. All gone. Totally nonexistant.
If you want to discuss it more, put it in another thread.
"You think your [sic] bashing conservatives--but what your [sic] really doing is presenting another scary gay "story" to people."
I'm thrilled to know you can read my mind. Actually, I presented that story to show that appeals to fears about black people are still making national news, just like I said. But since subtle racism is completely nonexistant in America, I'll address your other assertion: that I was bashing conservatives. If you want my thoughts on the litany of conservatives who've been found to be indulging in what they profess to oppose, the posts are still on the other thread back at Bill's (WRT Haggard, this guy, a teen activist, Roy Cohn, Rep Foley, and many others--not all gay, there was the recent conservative caught up with the DC madam). Basically, I called the behavior "reaction formation," and its attributed to the conflict between internal urges and external pressure to conform to social rules. There's self hate and guilt and the person tries to become the opposite of the tension causing urge by opposing it publicly. I think its partly a commentary on ongoing homophobic social mores, and partly on the individuals who end up hurting their own in the way they manage their own internal struggle. My response is part sympathy and part disgust. As for "bashing conservatives," there are a lot of conservatives who aren't hypocrites that I respect and engage in polite enchange of ideas with. This story wouldn't "bash" them--it would bash no more than the hypocritical conservative.
As for this being a scary gay story, yeah, sure, they're out there. By my own criteria, it would be fair to tell the story of... oh, gay men who knowing get and spread HIV by having anonymous sex with a bunch of partners. That is a real subculture and a story illustrative of its problems is certainly fair game. Thats why *I,* as a doctor, and also a person who thinks that behavior is destructive, costly and cruel, is happy to share and discuss those stories to point those problems out. To me its not a scary "gay" story because straight men have done exactly the same. To me that would be a story about base irresponsibility. If people wanted to tell the story of that guy as an example of what's wrong about meeting people for sex at public places, that'd be fair game too. There's a reason to be upset about it. It could be an "honest" anecdote. Just because it illustrates more than one thing doesn't mean it didn't illustrate what I said it did.
*NB: the reason why these stories are used is because they work, and if you're using them properly (to promote civil rights; to prevent family tragedy; to, in medicine, ensure that someone retains an important clinical lesson by linking it to a memorable tale), then they can be great tools for good.