I have sometimes encountered people on Facebook who claim that gay rights have been achieved, and question why anyone is still talking about them. Why are people still being whiney when their rights were achieved? Isn\u2019t this what they wanted?\u00a0There, are, of course, many legal areas where gay rights have not<\/em> been achieved\u2014in much of the country it is still perfectly legal to fire one for being gay, for example.<\/p>\n Still, I don\u2019t think it\u2019s worth getting hung up on what is legally protected, when a large portion of our culture is still, well \u2026 here. Don Boys, a former Indiana lawmaker is upset about press coverage<\/a> of Buttigieg. Why? Because Buttigieg is gay, of course! Boys argues that reporters should ask every gay candidate some important questions, by nature of their being gay\u2014and that reporters are currently not doing this.<\/p>\n Since a \u201cgay\u201d Indiana mayor is running for president, journalists should ask him some questions that bear on that office; however, their cowardice and fear of being politically incorrect will keep them from asking these very legitimate questions of Pete Buttigieg.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n What are these questions? We\u2019ll get to that. They\u2019re really horrific. Anyone who thinks gay rights have been \u201cachieved\u201d needs to remember that this country is still full of people who think like Boys. We can\u2019t ban this kind of thinking\u2014and we shouldn\u2019t. But until and unless minds are changed (or new generations replace older generations), even full legal equality would not mean true<\/em> equality. There will still be prejudice and bigotry, the effects of which are not mundane or easy to set aside.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s look at some of Boys\u2019 questions for Buttigieg. If you\u2019d rather not read them, I\u2019d encourage you not to. My goal here is simply to highlight the absolute depths of hate that still exist in this country. We can pat our backs for the progress we as a country has made, but we need to not lose sight of how far we still have to go.<\/p>\n Boys starts as follows:<\/p>\n Pete needs to say if it is possible to believe that homosexuality is a diseased, dangerous, even deadly lifestyle without being a hater? If it is true, as experts have concluded, that homosexuality is dangerous, then is it not true that Pete\u2019s critics are showing love not hate?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Boys thinks he is showing love<\/em> when he argues that the \u201chomosexual lifestyle\u201d is depraved and dangerous and that sodomy should be punished with twelve years in prison. Yes, you read that right<\/a>. Boys has sponsored legislation to create 12-year sentences for sodomy.<\/p>\n The argument here is that homosexual behavior is dangerous and unhealthy, and that by jailing people for sodomy we can cut down on the incidence of this dangerous behavior. Anti-gay enthusiasts like Boys frequently misuse and twist data to say things it never said\u2014and there are a lot of things we don\u2019t ban even if they\u2019re dangerous. I am curious, though\u2014would his proposed bill include straight couples who engage in non-vaginal intercourse? Sexual experimentation isn\u2019t just a gay thing.<\/p>\n Pete has boasted that he is very \u201cgay\u201d and voters have a right to know what that means. Just how extreme is that since it could reflect on or impact the office of president? However, it is very interesting that the LGBTQ crowd complains that Pete is not \u201cgay\u201d enough.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n What does Boys even mean by this? What exactly is it he wants to know? He\u2019s absolutely right that some people police the boundaries of gay identity. What I want to know, though, is what specific details he is after with regards to Buttigieg. What does he\u2014Boys\u2014think being \u201cgay\u201d means, anyway? Does he think there are degrees?<\/p>\n Will Pete assure the voters that there is no possibility of blackmail i.e., pictures of him in a very compromising position?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Jerry Falwell just got dinged over his alleged dash to buy out compromising pictures of himself\u2014and I\u2019m pretty sure he\u2019s straight<\/em>. This idea that only gay<\/em> men have compromising photos is just weird<\/em>. Anyone who has ever been around a camera<\/em> could be asked this question, if anyone is to be asked it at all. (Actually, I think that at some point candidates have to be interviewed by the secret service to determine just this sort of thing.)<\/p>\n Since homosexuals are seven times more likely to use illegal drugs, will Pete repudiate their illegal drug use to heighten sexual pleasure, and will he demand prosecution for those who use illegal drugs?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Say what now?<\/p>\n First, the leap from using drugs to using drugs to heighten sexual pleasure<\/em> strikes me as an odd one. Second, overall percentages\u2014even if these percentages are correct, of which I am skeptical\u2014do not determine the habits of the individual.<\/p>\n There is a larger conversation about the war on drugs to be had here. Prosecuting people for using illegal drugs, when what they usually need is treatment, isn\u2019t working out so swell. This assumption that Buttigieg might be less likely to demand prosecution for drug use because he\u2019s gay is strange, given that\u00a0most Democratic candidates today are critical of the war on drugs.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n As an aside, in my googling I came upon a list of state and national politicians who have been convicted of criminal charge. And guess what? Almost every single one who was convicted of drug use or dealing was a Republican<\/a>. This may be a complete coincidence, and I don\u2019t think the list claims to be complete. Still, I found it interesting.<\/p>\n But then we get this:<\/p>\n Since many homosexuals have a urine and feces fetish bringing them into contact with numerous lethal bugs, will Pete repudiate that unhealthy practice to save lives? And possibly save the health care system from bankruptcy?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u2026<\/p>\n No, really.<\/p>\n Actually, I think I know where this is coming from. Not the healthcare system bit\u2014Republicans haven\u2019t been all that well known for caring terribly about fixing our healthcare system\u2014the urine and feces bit. Some years ago, I came upon an anti-gay pamphlet from the 1980s that alleges that essentially all gay people engaged in a whole range of really kinky practices\u2014there were drawings of urine play.<\/p>\n I just did some general googling, and it turns out that conservatives are not only\u00a0really<\/em> interested in gay people\u2019s sex practices, but also\u00a0completely<\/em> convinced that gay people are totally kinky about urine and feces<\/a>. I don\u2019t trust them to interpret research correctly\u2014conservatives aren\u2019t great at things like understanding survey design\u2014but honestly, who the heck cares? Should doctors provide accurate information about specific sex acts? Yes. But you don\u2019t see me interrogating straight<\/em> couples about their sex practices.<\/p>\n So, Boys wants Buttigieg to \u201crepudiate\u201d a list of kinky sex practices. Does Boys ask that of all candidates? No, he does not. Straight candidates aren\u2019t expected to speak for all straight people. Gay candidates, apparently, are<\/em>.<\/p>\n Pete Buttigieg is not the King of the Gays. It doesn\u2019t work that way.<\/p>\n Advocates for perversion refuse to accept the current stats that refute their narrative but they can hardly say homosexuality is normal. It is abnormal to get pleasure from contact with body waste and in spades when that involves another person.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Who is to say what is normal?<\/em>\u00a0And frankly, who cares what<\/em> is normal? What does \u201cnormal\u201d even mean? I\u2019d point Boys to the Kinsey Institute to read several generations worth of sex research, but then, I\u2019m pretty sure Boys probably considers Kinsey the devil. (Coincidentally, this was the point of Kinsey\u2019s research\u2014to show that many sexual practices that people think are \u201cabnormal\u201d are really pretty common.)<\/p>\n Homosexuals use human organs in an abnormal way so no one should be surprised when the results are tragic. They insist on trying to get out of life what God never intended to be there, thus contracting many more diseases. Usually, the taxpayers are expected to pay their medical bills.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This guy writes like we already have universal healthcare. We don\u2019t<\/em>. Don\u2019t get me wrong, I\u2019d love for the U.S. to have universal healthcare, and I know<\/em> it will come with lots of statements like this\u2014i.e. that people who have unhealthy practices (smokers or addicts) run our taxes up. But I\u2019d far rather have that annoying conversation than our current situation where\u00a0people who can\u2019t pay die.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n Also, I\u2019m confused by this conversation about the \u201cnormal\u201d way to use human organs. When I first learned the mechanics of sex, I thought it was the most disgusting thing I\u2019d ever heard. Today, I wish to heck the clitoris weren\u2019t placed right by the urethra. I am way<\/em> too susceptible to UTIs. So susceptible in fact that I sometimes give a moment\u2019s pause before jumping into sex even when I\u2019m horny, because I\u2019m worried I\u2019ll get another one.<\/p>\n I\u2019ve talked to my primary care provider about this, and I\u2019ve ended up with a list of things to do. In addition to urinating after sex (in the bathroom, just so we\u2019re clear), I take regular probiotics. I also drink a full glass of water after having sex to ensure that I\u2019ll need to pee again in the night, clearing any possible infection. Having to do all of this is a drag, and if there were<\/em> a God, I\u2019d have a lot of questions about their choices in the area of female anatomy.<\/p>\n My point is, bodies and the things we do with them are<\/em> weird<\/em>.<\/p>\n Homosexuality is a public health issue and not simply what two same sex individuals do in the privacy of their bedroom. One has to pay when he plays but why should I pay when you play?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Again,\u00a0we do not\u00a0currently have universal healthcare.\u00a0<\/i><\/p>\n Besides, this logic leads all sorts of bad places\u2014should we ban hang gliding and rock climbing? We require bikers to wear helmets, but maybe we should ban motorcycles altogether<\/a>? We put warnings on cigarettes, but we haven\u2019t banned<\/em> them\u2014and so forth. How far do we go in regulating people\u2019s personal decisions?<\/p>\n If Pete is elected president of the USA, will he respond the way many homosexuals do by giving priority to homosexuals in his appointments? Any chance of any Fundamentalists like me getting a top cabinet position? I would be willing to accept Secretary of Education or Secretary of Energy and would have either one totally disbanded in 60 days. Would sure help reduce the deficit.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n What kind of question even is this? Homosexuality is not a religion. Did people ask Barack Obama if all of his cabinet appointees would be black? Is every minority asked this? If they are\u2014and people who aren\u2019t minorities aren\u2019t\u2014this is a problem<\/em>.<\/p>\n As for fundamentalists in top cabinet positions\u2014Boys illustrates perfectly why fundamentalists\u00a0aren\u2019t qualified for these positions.\u00a0<\/em>He doesn\u2019t actually want to do either. He just wants to get rid of them. And he\u2019s suggesting he should be appointed despite having zero<\/em> expertise. And this is supposed to be some sort of gotcha?<\/p>\n Since homosexuals live shorter lives because of illegal drugs, abusive sexual practices, etc., will Pete assure the voters that he will not participate in any sexual practice that might limit his ability to serve his term if elected?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Do we ask every<\/em> candidate these questions? No. No, we do not. We do sometimes ask candidates to release their medical records\u2014like we ask them to release their tax returns. That\u2019s fine. This? This isn\u2019t.<\/p>\n However, no journalist is willing to ask Pete these very important questions since journalism is dead and truth lies in the street gasping for breath.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n