BootmanLA

For general information: You can bet that, sooner or later, one of these cases will percolate up to the Supreme Court. We can no longer assume "stare decisis" (the legal principle that once a question has been legally answered, that answer stands except under extraordinary circumstances) - as we saw with the overturning of Roe v. Wade last year. But this Court does seem to be taking First Amendment issues very, very seriously, and that gives some hope that these laws will be struck down. Because it's well-established in law (for now, at least) that the government can't make you provide identification in order to exercise your First Amendment rights. It's why newspapers can protect their sources, and it's why PACs (at least, some of them) don't have to disclose their donors: you have a First Amendment right to speak anonymously. And protecting children - the phrase that ALWAYS rears its incongruous little head - is no excuse. The government, the Supreme Court has held, cannot deprive me of MY right to read something simply because it's inappropriate for children to read it. And even "inappropriate for children to" is a bad phrasing, because even children have some First Amendment rights, and while it's legal to criminalize giving them material that is legally obscene (very little "porn" is), there's no really clear line as to what else, if anything, government can forbid them from seeing (and punish those who provide it). At some point, someone with deeper pockets than RawTop (and I don't mean that as a diss) will sue. And he's likely to win. It's just going to take a while and it won't be a pretty fight.

And that's fine if you're choosing that path and know (and accept) the risks involved! But this is the HEALTH forum, and I think it behooves us to acknowledge those choices here, instead of playing them up as some inevitable consequence about which we can do nothing.

I'm not sure such a federal law would be constitutional, at least not with this Supreme Court. It's true that Congress has the power to regulate commerce on an interstate level, but you might have a hard time convincing two (or more) of the conservative justices that Congress can go THAT far, especially with respect to doctors treating people within their state. Add in that the practice of medicine has, historically speaking, been the exclusive province of the states, and you've got a problem: which Clause of the Constitution gives that power to Congress?

The only things I'd add: the rules on HRT (including how many medical professionals, and what kind of professionals, must sign off) are generally state-level, not national.

Oh, granted. But people can be transgressive online while being discreet elsewhere. Hell, there are probably people who post incessantly about how much dick or ass they're getting that actually haven't been laid but a handful of times since the end of the Trump administration. And in any event, one can be the loudmouth braggart talking about how hot it is to be with a cheater, without actually being the one doing the cheating - they're the ones being cheated WITH. The "other man". A good bit of the bragging is third parties like that who like fucking guys in relationships and sending them home to their partners.

It's fine if that's what you want to do (assuming you know the risks). But please don't assume "there is no way you can stop" - of course you can fucking stop. I certainly can.

Just a couple of thoughts to add to this. First, it's not just hiding the meds themselves that is an issue for some married/partnered men whose wives don't know. There's also the question of insurance; while most people's insurance covers PrEP (assuming the courts eventually uphold the preventative care mandate), itemized insurance paperwork can and does come to people's houses, and in some families the wife's in charge of all that paperwork stuff. Even if the husband's in charge, there's no guarantee she won't see the records at some point. Second, while it's technically true that taking a load from an undetectable guy is just as safe, statistically, as being on PrEP, there is a difference. When you're on PrEP, you're taking charge of your sexual health. When you rely on your partners to be undetectable, you're putting THEM in charge of your sexual health. And over the long haul, in my experience, something that personal really needs to be something YOU are in charge of, because sooner or later you may end up putting the wrong person in charge of it. So, sorry to say, there's no perfect answer for how a man who's married to a woman can (A) have receptive unprotected sex (B) with a range of guys you don't know (C) while remaining healthy yourself and (D) protecting your wife while (E) she never finds out about it. It's not that you CAN'T have all five things happen in your life at once; it's just that it's very hard to find all of them at once and increasing the odds for one may decrease the odds for another. For instance, going on PrEP protects your health and your wife's health (ensuring C and D), but decreases the odds that you can keep it 100% secret (decreasing the odds of E). Restricting yourself to U+ guys lowers the amount of sex you may have (lowering A and B) but boosts (C) and (D), though not as high as PrEP, but you have a greater shot of keeping (E) in place. And so on. It's a balancing act, and one I don't envy married guys who like dick for. But ultimately, life is a series of choices, and these choices all stem from the initial choice to marry a woman and not disclose that you're getting fucked by men on the side. You pays your money and you takes your chances, as the saying goes.

It's not common to see the kits being distributed for free, but it does happen - generally, it means some group got funding for a supply of them and is able to share them that way. But many groups offer free testing on a regular basis (though you do have to "go there" to get tested).

And without quoting/replying to piece-by-piece of subsequent post about drag personas and stage performances - again, those aren't the same thing as DQSH. Try this experiment: google "Drag Queen Story Hour" and then click on the "Images" tab to see associated images, and tell me if that's the kind of drag your nephew does. I'm willing to bet it's not even in the same universe of drag. And yes, I realize that news media like to use shocking pictures to grab attention for a story. But I couldn't find a single image - not even among the promotional material for DQSH events - that showed what I would call the "true female impersonation" type of drag. And I don't think that sort of drag would work for what DQSH sets out to do - and I suspect that's why you don't see it illustrated.

True. But the children who are present for Drag Queen Story Hour (DQSH) don't grasp "drag" in that way, and so we can't decide that because WE as ADULTS see things that way, children do too. True speaking historically - the role of the fool in history (both in literature and in political dynamics. But again, not necessarily true in the last, oh, 100+ years. Circus clowns seldom have any "message" to impart, other than deflating pompous egos (belonging to performers who themselves are clowns without the makeup), and nobody invites a birthday clown to serve as a social justice emblem. I don't mean to insult your nephew's drag performances or talent in the slightest, no matter which form they take. But as someone who's closely watched account after account of DQSH flare-ups, the drag queens in question were, invariably, the "skag drag" type that Hntnhole mentions - wild hair, vastly exaggerated makeup, flamboyant clothes. As a matter of fact, I haven't read to children much in a while, but when I did, I did my absolute best to grab the kids' attention with sound effects, broad gestures, and all sorts of other things designed to have them focus on me - because then, they were also focused on what I SAID. Nothing, in my experiences, causes kids to tune out faster than a person in normal, everyday clothes reading something to them in normal, boring tones just like they could hear in any classroom. The same reason kids will gather round a clown at a birthday party and pay close attention when he does tricks, or pranks, or tells jokes - because he focuses their attention - is the reason kids go to DQSH. They aren't going to develop an appreciation of linguistics or fine literature; they're going because their parents want their minds stimulated by stories, and the way to stimulate their minds is to grab and focus their attention. Because bear in mind: any damned fool can read a book to a child. Parents come to these things because they know the kids enjoy it, and they WORK. And not a single kid is ever coerced to attend one of these events without his parent or guardian's assent - which suggests the parents find some value in it, too. As I've said: sometimes the kids don't even know it's a man in a dress. For those that do, you're making a HUGE assumption that they "don't get it" - or even that they're TRYING to get it. Kids accept an awful lot that just "is" - if it's entertaining. Projecting your own concerns about men in dresses back onto little kids says a lot, but not about the kids. 1. You assume that this is an "overt pitch" for anything, because you can't imagine that it could just be harmless fun. Like a clown at a birthday party. Again, that says more about you than it says about them. 2. You say it's a cynical ploy, but again, I think this shows your own cynicism. The "added value", as I've said, is like the costumes at Disney. They grab attention. They focus attention. Kids are oblivious to the notion that this gender-bending or whatever - to them, it's just funny. And no, that doesn't mean I think your nephew's drag performances are "just funny" - they are, presumably, a different kind of performance marketed to a different kind of person for a different reason. I simply reject the notion that the only drag outfit suitable for reading Mary Poppins is a Mary Poppins costume. The performer/reader/artist isn't merely there to illustrate the text and bring it to life. And as for children being used as pawns: again, no parent is forced to bring their kids to a DQSH. The fact that DQSH's exist, and are popular enough for venues to book them, suggests there's a place for them. I would presume any parent who's comfortable enough around drag to bring their child to a DQSH is probably going to be bringing up that kid in an enlightened manner, culturally speaking. The people waging the "culture war" are those who want to control what those parents - the open-minded ones - can allow their children to see, when there's literally nothing age-inappropriate about the events (and in saying that, I'm assuming that the performances are age-appropriate insofar as exposed flesh and language and so forth - if not, by all means, ban those not because it's DQSH, but because it's inappropriate for children like an R-rated movie). I see zero reason to cede that ground to those "culture warriors" - because it's unnecessary, and because this is just one more way they're trying to get to their real goal (which involves suppression/criminalization of the entire LGBTQ spectrum). They've ALWAYS been the ones to use children as pawns - "We can't have THOSE people teaching our kids! It's not safe!".

It's the transgressive "Look at MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm such a trashy SLUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What a WHORE I ammmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" mentality, aka, I'm hot shit because I'm so transgressive and I'm not bound by stultifying cishet moral standards. Of course, they only feel that way about CERTAIN moral standards. Steal most of the balance of their checking account right after payday and watch a meltdown about how dare someone do something so fucked up and hurtful. Some people just feel the need to be not just "more than" but "excessively and entirely more than".

You asked this of @Shotsfired but if you'll allow another perspective: I'd look at what he wrote regarding saying what you're looking for up front, in your profile. If you only get onto an app or site to find a hookup that afternoon or evening, say that! If you don't want to engage in conversations that aren't going to lead to a hookup (now OR later), then say that too. After that, it's on the other guy to read and comprehend, and if he doesn't, there's no reason you can't be blunt: "My profile says I'm looking for now/today/tonight. If that's not you, thanks, but I really don't want to get into a long discussion." Polite, to the point, but firm. If you do already have that restriction in your profile, I would ask by about the third question he asks: "Not that I mind answering questions about myself, but let's be clear: I'm looking for [name activity] [timeframe: now/today/tonight]. If you're interested in that, great; if not, get back with me when you're ready."

Let me say up front I understand what people are saying about how cheating is "hot". And let me say I draw a distinction between two situations. Let's posit there's a couple who either are supposed to be monogamous (by mutual agreement) or who have specific rules about third parties (as in my previous post, above). You're a third party, and you meet one of the guys in the couple. If you don't know about the situation with the couple, or you don't know he's coupled at all, or he tells you it's fine because he's in an open relationship, then morally, I think, you're in the clear. If you do know, but you have sex with him anyway, and you don't feel bad about it - well, congratulations, you're adding to the misery in the world. Sure, the cheating partner is more responsible for relationship than any outside person ever could be, but you're aiding and abetting someone who is deliberately acting in a way that hurts his partner. If you feel "hot" about that, you're a sociopath, in my book. And while I won't say I hope your dick falls off (which would be a truly karmic response from the universe), I will say karma has a way of evening things out in the long run.

Not necessarily. Cheating is, by definition, the breaking of a rule or rules. One can have an open (ie non-monogamous) relationship that nonetheless has rules, and breaking those rules is just as much cheating. For instance: a couple might be open but agree to one or more of the following: --Never with someone we're already friends with; --Never in our own bed, which is just for us; --Never here in our hometown, but only when traveling; --Never with the same guy more than once [or twice, or whatever limit]; and so on. For that matter, one could have a closed polyamorous relationship, which by definition isn't "monogamy" [which means one sexual partner]. In such a closed polyamorous relationship, sex with an outside party (beyond those in the relationship) would be cheating because it violates the "closed" rule of the relationship.

That's not exactly accurate. HIPAA applies to more than just doctors; it applies to anyone who has professional (that is, through his work) access to covered medical information. That means it includes nurses, any other allied health profession (audiologists, pharmacists, lab technicians), and insurance employees, among others. Second, even a subpoena can't necessarily force disclosure of HIPAA-protected information. If health care information is subpoenaed, then the custodian of that information (the doctor, insurance company, or whomever) must make reasonable attempts to notify the patient that the information has been subpoenaed, and the patient has to then be given a reasonable opportunity to object to the disclosure or to seek a protective order from the court overseeing the subpoena. (Remember that a subpoena is a request for information from a party to a legal action, not a demand from the court, so compliance with a subpoena has to allow for time to handle objections.) That's different from a court order to supply the information (and for the purposes of HIPAA, that includes administrative tribunals, such as an SSI disability hearing panel. But such an order must specify the exact information requested, and the custodian of that information can ONLY supply that information, not anything else. But in general: yes. Not only can person A ask person B about his health information, but A is under no obligation to keep that information confidential if B does tell him. Lastly: One of the drawbacks to HIPAA is that there is no "private cause of action" under it - which in layman's terms means, if your doctor (or nurse, or whomever) violates HIPAA by disclosing some of your health information, you can't sue them yourself. What you can do is file a complaint with whatever regulatory body covers the offending person. That might be the state medical board, for instance, or the state nursing board. Or the state department of insurance (or its equivalent) if an insurer leaks your information. It's then generally up to the regulatory board to punish a violation, as they see fit. You may also have a state cause of action (in state court) if your state recognizes this as a valid claim (some do, some do not). Where such claims are recognized, it's usually as some sort of variant on "breach of contract" or something similar. The state law may incorporate HIPAA by reference, saying in essence that if a provider or his business associates within your state violate HIPAA, you can sue them in state court for damages.

One could make the same argument about any costume, including clowns. Yet we not only tolerate people in clown costumes interacting with children; we (or, at least, some parents) pay good money for them to entertain children at events like birthday parties. We take and send kids to Disney parks by the millions, where they see adults dressed up like: talking mice, fairy godmothers, princesses, talking dogs, talking dogs that belong to the other talking dogs, talking ducks.... the list goes on and on. Yet nobody says a word about kids getting confused by these characters. Children are naturally drawn to the bold and colorful. You don't see drag queen story hour being produced by drag queens who look like the Church Lady from SNL; they're deliberately bold, colorful, with extravagant makeup and hair, because that grabs' kids attention and they listen to the fabulous person telling them a story. I keep trying to understand this but I can't even figure out what you mean - are you saying that at some level, drag is *always* sexual? Why is drag - the cross-dressing kind, at any rate - "sexual" but dressing up like a talking dog who owns another talking dog is just clean fun? If what one wears conveys "sexuality" then cis-dressing people are also conveying sexuality - just of the "approved variety." See that woman in that skirt? That's SEXUAL! But as I say - that purpose may simply be (like the makeup on a clown) to grab the kids' attention and focus it on the speaker. They can listen to a cis-dressing person drone on and on reading a story to them, but their attention is likely to flag, just as it may in school. Having a hook to draw the kids' attention makes a difference. There may be an agenda, but I think it's mostly just to enhance the experience. But: even if the purpose WAS to point out to the adults that see, we're safe around kids - what's wrong with that? As I said above, I don't buy for one second the notion that drag is inherently sexual. I think that says a lot more about the people who think that, than it does about the people wearing drag. And that's just the same argument that was used for decades about us - that as gay people, we were *inherently* sexual, that our very existence was *sexual* and moreover, a sexual *threat* - and that was used to justify all sorts of horrible treatment. It's appalling that we would treat drag the same way. Again: this is the same argument used about us for much of the 20th century. We can't be around children because we might "influence" them. It was bullshit then and it's bullshit now.

This says pretty much all of it. I get that monogamy isn't easy (and moreover, doesn't even appeal to a lot of guys). That's fine. Acknowledge that, and figure out how you're going to make things work, to whatever degree of openness, and go have fun. And that openness can be anything from "we share a third partner together" to "we each have whatever fun we want on our own"; it can be "we don't talk about who we fuck outside the relationship" or "we tell each other everything and enjoy hearing each others' exploits" - or anything in between, such as acknowledging an outside partner if it comes up, but not mentioning him otherwise. Open can take a plethora of forms, and only the couple in question can decide what form is right for them. What makes no sense to me is either or both parties pretending to be monogamous but not actually doing so - and lying about it. I just can't wrap my head around a relationship which has that level of dishonesty so close to the core. It's not the fact of the other partners - sexual exclusivity isn't necessary in a relationship, in my view. But honesty is. For the guys on here who've gushed about how "hot" cheating is: I suspect you wouldn't say that if you were the one cheated on. And I suspect you wouldn't feel that way if the "cheating" were something other than sexual. Like, for instance, let's say you found out your partner was skimming $200 a week out of your joint finances to give to a boyfriend on the side. Or to pay off a gambling debt. Or whatever - would you still think it's "hot" that your partner is violating the terms of your relationship?

And I should add: Never forget that George HW Bush gave us Clarence Thomas, replacing the nation's then-only black Supreme Court Justice, with a stellar record as a defender of the downtrodden, with a sexually harassing bureaucrat with a chip on his shoulder about having benefitted from affirmative action his entire life - who has voted against gay rights in EVERY SINGLE CASE brought in his more than 30 years on the Court. He has not once - NEVER - voted that any civil rights law, whatsoever, protects gay people; he has never voted once - NEVER - that any law targeting gay people is unconstitutional. Justices sometimes surprise us with how they end up voting on our issues. Gorsuch wrote the Bostock opinion that laws that bar discrimination on the basis of sex include gay people, for instance, and Chief Justice Roberts joined him that opinion. But Thomas never has, and, I'd wager, never will.

That depends, in large measure, how you define "weren't pro LGBT". For instance, when Hillary Clinton ran for president in 2008, she wholeheartedly endorsed civil unions for LGBT people with all of the rights and privileges of same-sex marriage. That was only four years after the massive push by Republicans (in 2004) to get states to enact state-level DOMA laws, barring recognition of same-sex marriages from states where it was already legal. Sure, you can that civil unions (even ones legally equivalent to marriage) aren't enough, but that was still light years beyond what the Republicans were doing at the time. Remember, too, that from 2009 to 2013 she was Secretary of State, during which time she had to be circumspect about getting out in front of the president she served on domestic policy issues; she came out fully in favor of same-sex marriage shortly after she stepped down from the State Department. Her husband is largely remembered for signing DOMA and Don't Ask/Don't Tell into law, But DOMA passed both chambers of Congress by a wide, veto-proof majority, and as an incumbent up for re-election, vetoing the bill would have not only been swiftly overridden, but it would have handed the Republicans another issue to beat up Democrats across the board with. As for DADT, remember that was what Clinton was able to negotiate out of Congress from the Republicans' preferred position, which was codifying the outright ban on gay servicemen and women that had been effect as a policy (rather than by law). DADT was progress - slow progress, not enough progress, but better than the regression that threatened LGBT people at the time. Clinton had gone into office intending to simply lift that policy ban, but the threat from Congress to codify it into law led to the compromise of DADT. And which president ended DADT? Another Democratic president, Barack Obama. Bill Clinton was also the first presidential nominee to have an openly gay speaker at his convention, the first to say “gay” in an acceptance speech, and the first to appear at a fundraiser expressly targeted at cultivating support from sexual minorities. And he got ENDA - the Employment Non-Discrimination Act - within one vote of passage in the Senate, despite having nowhere near a majority in the Senate. Let's contrast that with what recent Republican presidents have done. Ronald Reagan famously did next to nothing for gay people as HIV began to ravage our community - despite his wife's close friendship with any number of openly and closeted gay celebrities. GHW Bush refused direct requests to remove the ban on gay people having security clearances or the ban on gay servicemembers, both of which Bill Clinton addressed. (In fairness, I should note that much, much later in life, he served as witness at the wedding of two female friends of his family, in Maine, and around the time of the Obergefell decision he said that gay couples have "a right to be happy".) GW Bush, aka Shrub, not only pushed states across the country to constitutionally bar same-sex marriage, but announced support for a federal constitutional amendment to bar it nationwide (even in states that wanted to legalize it). As for Mango Mussolini, he opposed the Equality Act (barring discrimination against LGBT people in employment, housing, public accommodations, etc.); his administration filed amicus briefs in the Supreme Court defending employers' rights to discriminate against LGBT people; he banned transgender people from serving in the military; instituted a policy to remove all HIV+ persons from the military; he proposed cutting nearly 1/3 of US spending on HIV/AIDS abroad; and a long, long, LONG list of other steps, all targeted at making an unwelcoming and/or unsafe environment for LGBT people. His famous claim to be the "most pro-gay president ever" stems from a single instance of appointing a right-wing gay proto-fascist, Richard Grenell, to a series of high-level positions for which he was utterly unqualified, solely because he was a solid Trumpanzee and gave Trump's hard-core fascist crew, like Santa Monica Goebels, "cover". Are all Democrats pro-gay? Of course not. Are those who are, perfect across the board in their support? Of course not. But are Democrats - at all levels - as a group far, far more supportive of us than Republicans? It isn't even close.

I think there's a question to be asked here. Are you talking about something to wear or do in an area that's mostly gay-friendly and/or gay-oriented, like Boystown in Chicago or the Castro or the Village? That would be simple - a t-shirt with an arrow pointing toward your back and a sign "Enter at the rear". Outside of such an area, which is what I suppose you mean? It doesn't exist, and I'm not sure it can or should. I'm not anti-sex by any means, and I'm all in favor of equal treatment of gay and straight sexual messaging. But you seem to want something invisible to the public at large, yet visible to "those in the know" as you say. Hanky codes, at their actual useful peak, only conveyed a modicum of useful information. The hanky position indicated top or bottom preference, and the basic colors (navy, light blue, red, gray, yellow) covered the basics and the major kinks. Contrary to some people's beliefs, those extravagant charts listing gold lame and peacock blue as signifying this or that were really more in-jokes than anything else. And bear in mind: the hanky codes weren't used to signal to other gays while among outsiders - nobody assumed a blue hanky in the left pocket of your jeans out on a city street at noon meant anything. They were meant to cut down on wasting time in gay-specific (or at least, gay-friendly) settings, so that two bottoms looking to get fucked didn't spent half an hour chatting each other up before finding out they both wanted the same thing. Or so that a guy looking to be tied up could scan for a left-pocket gray hanky and know he wouldn't get "ewww, gross" as a response for suggesting it. Even if such a symbolic item could be identified, there's a huge problem in teaching everyone what it meant. Back in the hanky code days, word could spread through the bar community (people talk to bartenders, and people used to - imagine - gather in public places and interact instead of going onto apps and websites to connect. Generally speaking only other gay people were ever there, so information about things like the hanky code could spread like the Underground Railroad, without letting the wider public in on the secret. You can't do that any more, because both the bars are significantly reduced in number and anyone and everyone can find something when it's posted online. Because of that, nothing stays "in the community" any more, and even if a bunch of gay people began to, say, wear a cockring on their right belt loop as a sign of being a cumdump bottom, what that means would quickly become widespread knowledge in the community at large - such that most people would avoid that sign because it was no longer discreet.

Here's the thing, though. We can say "Not all Republicans..." until we're blue in the face, but that doesn't change the fact that (a) a lot of Republicans are, in fact, whatever negative characteristic we're trying to absolve the rest from (pick one or more: racist, religiously bigoted, anti-immigrant, whatever), and (b) that batch of (racist, bigoted, anti-immigrant, whatever) Republicans are not only the base of the party, but its heart and soul. They write the party platform, which - to this day - still opposes same-sex marriage. Despite decades of proof that abstinence programs result in more unplanned pregnancies, more sexually transmitted infections, and more abortions (until the Dobbs decision), they are stalwartly in favor of eliminating any form of sex education that actually teaches kids things like contraception and disease prevention. We can say "Not all Republicans..." until we're blue in the face, but the party governance is in the grip of extremists, especially on the notion of Christian dominance. Even their would-be leaders whose family origins clearly mark them as "those people" feel compelled to Americanize their names to appeal to a bigoted primary electorate - hence we don't have former governors known as Nimarata Haley and Piyush Jindal, we have "Nikki" and "Bobby". We can say "Not all Republicans..." but the man who is essentially its leader - a twice-impeached, twice-indicted grifter - brooks no dissent and despite ample evidence of his criminality is the frontrunner for his party's nomination. No one else is even close in any poll. If "not all Republicans" meant anything, he wouldn't have 76% favorable ratings among Republicans. And that's despite virtually every single one of his former top people - cabinet secretaries, chiefs of staff, whomever - coming forward to confirm that yes, he's just as ignorant and ill-informed as everyone says. Sure, there are individual Republicans out there who don't want Trump in office again, who aren't anti-gay bigots, who aren't racist, who aren't anti-immigrants. The question I have is, "Why?" There was once a principled economic reason possible, that Republicans were better stewards of the economy, but since half our total debt was run up in just two Republican administrations, since the Republicans proved under both Shrub and Hair Furor that they had no principles other than spend the fuck out of the Treasury, that reasoning rings hollow. What, exactly, does the Republican party stand for today - not some faded tintype image from 1952, but today - that any self-respecting, non-racist gay person could support?

Are you suggesting that gay people are pushing for sex ed and refusing to hide being gay so that we can recruit children to a gay lifestyle or something? Surely that's not what I'm reading. If not, please clarify; if it is, well, you'd fit right in with the right-wing assholes who've been trying to harm our community since forever. I'm not sure how you reach people who think homosexuality is a sickness or a sin and "compromise" with them. It's like trying to compromise with people who think the earth is flat or the moon is made of green cheese. Sooner or later, reality has to intrude and responsible people have to ignore idiocy. That said, I don't know any gay people whose goal in life is to promote sexual freedom and drugs to minors. Yes, of course they exist. They're not part of any governing or want-to-be-governing organization I know of. On the other hand, there's a (small but vocal) portion of people on the far right that want to make it legal for adult men to marry young girls of almost any age - and unlike the handful of gay people who might be promoting sexual freedom for older youth, there's a measurable number of right-wing politicians, IN OFFICE, who support allowing adult men to marry girls - in some cases, as young as 12 or 13. But sure, tell me how it's the gays who are promoting sexualizing children.

I'm not saying pedophiles are all right-wingers. I'm saying that most of the ones publicly identified are affiliated with right-leaning groups - churches, the Boy Scouts, Republican elected officials, etc. They're also the ones most loudly insisting that all gay people are pedophiles-in-waiting, just looking to lure in other people's kids. It's projection.

Sure, if the GOP would stop banning what some of us are perfectly happy to let our children attend (like Drag Queen Story Hour). NOBODY on the left is demanding that all kids be rounded up and forced to listen to Verandah Gazebo read Snow White. But lots of people on the RIGHT are demanding that such events be banned - that public venues be closed to them - that people who allow children to attend such things be charged with child endangerment. It's pretty clear who's forcing whose values onto whom.

I assume what you mean is "I've found out I caught something every other visit to the clinic...". If you're catching something every other time you go to the clinic, something's going on at that clinic. Yes, I'm kidding.