home

Misleading Website

By TChris, Section Other Politics
Posted on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 05:31:15 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

More than 100 organizations have asked the Dept. of Health and Human Services to take down a new website that dispenses helpful advice like this:

"If you believe your adolescent may be gay, or is experiencing difficulties with gender identity or sexual orientation issues, consider seeing a family therapist who shares your values to clarify and work through these issues."

In addition to describing sexual orientation as a "lifestyle," the website promotes abstinence while downplaying the effectiveness of condoms. The organizations are asking the Department to provide accurate information, including the need to use effective contraception if (or rather, when) kids decide to have sex.

< Jail Report | Anti-Drug Soldiers Busted For Drug Smuggling >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Misleading Website | 39 comments (39 topical)
    Re: Misleading Website (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 07:03:17 AM EST
    This is yet another piece of the new "Political Correctness": real science and real public health must bow to the most important issue for the Bush2 Administration, namely not offending social conservatives. Never mind that people will die, and that more will be screwed up by anti-gay propoganda and a strikingly unChristian biblicist hatefulness. Let me say that as someone with an HIV+ partner, Condoms Save Lives.

    Re: Misleading Website (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 07:14:33 AM EST
    What?

    Re: Misleading Website (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 07:22:30 AM EST
    They should rename it the Department of Faith-Based Health and Fact-Free Pseudo Sciences.

    Re: Misleading Website (none / 0) (#4)
    by Lora on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 08:23:47 AM EST
    Not only is the website misleading, so is the linked news article! The sub heading is: "Government Web Site Telling Parents to Promote Teen Abstinence Draws Protest" This sets the tone for readers to think that the protesting groups are against promoting teen abstinence. NOT TRUE! The article itself reports that the groups state that "emphasizing abstinence is fine," in direct contradiction to its heading. The groups want misinformation removed, and the reality presented fairly that teens who do have sex and are educated accurately about contraception will be safer that those who are not educated. (To think that teens won't have sex is sheer fantasy.) This is a far cry from being against abstinence, as HHS spokesman Bill Pierce suggests in the article. The fact that he doesn't actually come out and SAY that the groups are against abstinence is a fine point that many if not most readers of the article will not pick up. The spin is such that those opposing certain aspects of the website appear to be against the whole website, against abstinence, and morally deficient.

    Re: Misleading Website (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 08:37:09 AM EST
    I am not saying that I agree with the motivation of the statements on that website, but seeing a therapist of some kind may not be a bad idea for gay kids and their parents. First, many parents need to learn to accept that there is nothing wrong with their kid. Second, many gay children can use therapy to learn that (A) they are not the only ones who experience what they are feeling/going through, and (B) that they, too, are normal. Third, many gay children go through ridicule, repress their feelings to "pretend to be straight" etc. so that they can "go along to get along", etc. I don't have stats, but I suspect that some number of suicides and attempted suicides among children have in some part to do with homosexuality, and either difficulty adjusting, accepting, or getting along with in society. The sad reality is that when it comes to gay kids, its society that really needs the help (and often not the kids, but for the idiots that are in our society), but since that's not going to happen fast enough, the next best thing is for these kids to understand that they are ok and that there is nothing wrong with them. Now we know that the motivation by the website is totally different, but... Sadly, in the year 2005, there are still a LOT of issues that need to be worked through in families with gay children. Its not the child's fault, but that doesn't mean that the issues do not exist. Russ Legal Memo-Random

    Re: Misleading Website (none / 0) (#6)
    by unbill on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 08:40:32 AM EST
    Check this campaign out from the organization NARAL Pro-Choice America.

    Re: Misleading Website (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 08:41:45 AM EST
    Abstinence is for when you've been married 30 years and forgot what all the fuss was about.

    Re: Misleading Website (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 08:49:54 AM EST
    Am I the only one that is terrified with the though of our government shutting down web sites? Can you spell censorship?

    Re: Misleading Website (none / 0) (#9)
    by unbill on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 08:57:05 AM EST
    Soldier, it is a government website.

    Re: Misleading Website (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 10:21:15 AM EST
    I don't see that the fact it is a government website, has anything to do with it. What if the CDC put up a website that described the precautions a woman should take the first few days after she has had an abortion? If the Bush administration tried to shut down that site, you'd hear all sorts of cries of "censorship." And relying on “facts” doesn’t work, either. Facts are ALWAYS in dispute. We even call people who ignore this, “close-minded.” The government is going to be shutting down a lot of government web sites, if all of us need to agree on the “facts” that go on them.

    Re: Misleading Website (none / 0) (#11)
    by karen on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 10:50:29 AM EST
    "find a counselor that shares your values" That means, a counselor who will tell your child that God hates gays. The only consolation is...who actually uses governement websites to get advice on anything but maybe proper crop rotation?

    Re: Misleading Website (none / 0) (#12)
    by nolo on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 11:51:25 AM EST
    And relying on “facts” doesn’t work, either. Facts are ALWAYS in dispute. We even call people who ignore this, “close-minded.” The government is going to be shutting down a lot of government web sites, if all of us need to agree on the “facts” that go on them.
    I love it when conservatives get all relativistic about things like "facts." It makes me feel all warm and tingly.

    Re: Misleading Website (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 12:40:16 PM EST
    Soldier, Facts are NEVER in dispute, that is what makes them "facts", as opposed to "suppositions", or "assumptions", or "lies"

    Re: Misleading Website (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 12:46:22 PM EST
    Like when you use a 14 year old quote from a doctor to support "It may actually be easier to delay the onset of sexual intercourse than to increase contraceptive use." Fact: People, Even young people, like sex alot. Fact: Abstinance-only sex-ed has been linked to decreased condom usage. Fact: Condoms do prevent more STDs than prayer does.

    Re: Misleading Website (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 01:00:00 PM EST
    V2Marty, in a perfect world, that would be true. I don't live in a perfect world. I believe that 2 + 2 = 4. Someone who only used base 4, would call that a "lie."

    Re: Misleading Website (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 01:03:20 PM EST
    actually, in base 4, 2+2 still equals 10 in base 4; which is 4 in decimal notation

    Re: Misleading Website (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 01:08:19 PM EST
    (To think that teens won't have sex is sheer fantasy.)
    - "Lora" Um, as a married adult who abstained from sex until my wedding night (age 23), I resent this idiotic claim. And guess what? Most of my friends did too. And guess what else? None of us have STD's. Badda bing. Badda boom.

    Re: Misleading Website (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 01:15:05 PM EST
    graduate student: I applaud your fantastic efforts, but remind you that there are many people who choose not to wait. Many of them also do not have STDs because they wore condoms. And we get to do what pleases us without fear! Badda bing. Badda boom.

    Re: Misleading Website (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 01:18:42 PM EST
    Fact: People, Even young people, like sex alot. Good example! With all do respect, I assume that you would consider two day old babies, young people. Do you think that two day old babies like sex a lot? Of course I know that, for purpose of your statement, you didn't want to include babies in "young people." But, I don't know where you see the dividing line. For us to be in agreement on any conclusions based on this fact, we first must agree on the boundaries for this fact. Do you see where I am coming from?

    Re: Misleading Website (none / 0) (#20)
    by Al on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 01:20:48 PM EST
    One thing we do know about abstinence is that if you practice it, you will not have an unintended pregnancy or risk catching a sexually transmitted disease. Here's how this works: You preach abstinence; then if a kid gets pregnant, or gets AIDS, well! It's not your fault. You did what you could, you gave them good advice. It's not your fault the horny little punk lacks the self-discipline to avoid those problems. And if you have a problem with that, go to a therapist who "shares your values". He will reassure you and tell you that you're doing the right thing. aThe site describes condoms as imperfect, saying they can break or be used incorrectly It is a well established fact that condoms can be ineffective. Research has shown, for example, that if you put a condom on your nose, you are just as likely to breed another idiot like you as if you didn't wear a condom at all.

    Re: Misleading Website (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 01:28:23 PM EST
    Research has shown, for example, that if you put a condom on your nose, you are just as likely to breed another idiot like you as if you didn't wear a condom at all. Al, you left yourself wide open with that comment.

    Re: Misleading Website (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 01:45:40 PM EST
    I believe that 2 + 2 = 4. Someone who only used base 4, would call that a "lie." Education in America - the reason GWB got re-elected. Didn't I hear just recently that teenagers who signed abstinence pledges were just as likely to get STDs and pregnant as those who didn't?

    Re: Misleading Website (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 01:59:04 PM EST
    Facts are ALWAYS in dispute. No--just the ones 'wingers find inconvenient. The earth isn't flat, evolution is a fact, so is global warming, and gay men don't "choose" to be oriented towards men, any more than I do. Religion, in the other hand, is a life-style choice. Being a right-wing reactionary is a life-style choice. Obsessing over other people's sex lives, as the Right does continuously, is a life-style choice.

    Re: Misleading Website (none / 0) (#24)
    by unbill on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 02:11:56 PM EST
    Soldier writes:
    I don't see that the fact it is a government website, has anything to do with it. What if the CDC put up a website that described the precautions a woman should take the first few days after she has had an abortion? If the Bush administration tried to shut down that site, you'd hear all sorts of cries of "censorship."
    Soldier, this has nothing to do with 'censorship'. If the government spews propaganda or misleading information on its sites, which it is clearly doing here, then the public has a clear-cut right to demand that the government remove the ideology and correct its statements.

    Re: Misleading Website (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 03:44:46 PM EST
    For the 23 year old virgin 'til married, your refusal to be sexually active until such a late date in your life is no more moral or immoral than any other kind of deviant sexual behavior. That's right: you're a deviant, assuming "normal sexual behavior" is defined by what the majority of people do, a standard GOP strategy. On the other hand, if being differently sexed like yourself is not ipso facto deviant, then I see no reason why your friends on the right are so eager to call gays deviant. Soldier: I have no idea whether 2 day old babies think about sex a lot, but I can recognize the fallacy of a reductio ad absurdum when I see it. Obviously, the writer meant adolescents. But for your information, 8 years old think about sex a lot, if my daughter and her wide circle of friends are any indication. So I suspect that 2 day old babies do, in their own way, obsess about sex. The so-called latency period is a myth.

    Re: Misleading Website (none / 0) (#26)
    by Avedon on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 03:56:25 PM EST
    Soldier, this government has been taking down websites since it came into office. They've removed a considerable amount of the historical material from the Clinton administration and have deleted helpful advice that the government is required to provide for citizens about how to use government services. So if you want to start worrying about government censoring websites, you're coming in a bit late.

    Re: Misleading Website (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 04:43:29 PM EST
    unbill, I don’t have a problem with people demanding that the government shut down the site. I have a problem with the government giving in to that demand. And, in this case, it will be one portion of the government, ordering another to take down the site. That is censorship. I felt there was propaganda on the Clinton White House website. I’m sure many people feel the same way about the Bush White House website. But I would be equally appalled if either administration had taken down legitimate portions of their websites, because of public demand. The proper way to handle it, is for those groups to put up their own website. Let people choose which site to visit. Avedon, yes they did. And some of that, in my opinion, was censorship, and I said so at the time (although, obviously not at this site.) Again, the solution is for interested parties to put up their own websites. And when the Democrats regain power and make their changes, it is the responsibility of right-wing groups to take up the slack. And, just to head off complaints that private citizens don’t have the influence of government, I can remember one recent President whining that Rush Limbaugh had more influence than he did. Sheesh…. I though you guys were suppose to be MORE tolerant than me.

    Re: Misleading Website (none / 0) (#28)
    by scarshapedstar on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 06:03:29 PM EST
    Yeah, Soldier, kids may not think about actual sex, but if you wish us to believe that children are in no way fixated upon human genitalia... wow.

    Re: Misleading Website (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 06:40:10 PM EST
    Tristero For the 23 year old virgin 'til married, your refusal to be sexually active until such a late date in your life is no more moral or immoral than any other kind of deviant sexual behavior. Tristero, sweet Tristero. Do you have any idea how stupid that statement is? Why, in your world, a pedophile is no more immoral than a virgin who waits until marriage. Given the two, who would you allow to babysit your daughter? Which one would you marry? Why? Are you not making a moral judgement?

    Re: Misleading Website (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 02, 2005 at 12:34:51 AM EST
    Abstinence saves lives. Condoms and condom awareness has been around 4ever! but the number of HIV/AIDS cases keep going up. I'm not a social conservative. But seriously, people need to quit screwing multiple partners all the time. Homosexuality may not be a life style choice but its not genetic either. That is a fact. There is no gay gene. I'm not here to dog homosexuals, but seriously, homosexuals have some serious issues facing their demographic when it comes to management of sexual intercourse. Your demographic is more likely to not use condoms and is also more likely to have multiple sexual encounters with more partners on average. I'm not here to condemn or judge. I truely have love and compassion for all people most of the time. What can I say? I'm no different then any of you...I am a sinner too. But I'm also not here to pull punches either. I'm here to give some advice to help save peoples lives. That goes for hard core right wing christians too. Stop screwing people all the time and practice what your preach. Homosexuality may be a sin but so is fornication !!! There is absolutely no difference between the two. Lets take responsibility for our own actions and quit blaming the government and everyone else for our problems. PS. Propaganda isn't limited to the government. Do you think maybe some of the reason that you want to screw all the time might have something to do with modern day business advertising and a multi-billion dollar porn industry that seeks to market to a natural human weakness. SEX ISN'T EVERYTHING IN LIFE LIKE YOU'VE BEEN LED TO BELIEVE... PSS. Don't buy beauty magazines, they will only make you feel ugly

    Re: Misleading Website (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 02, 2005 at 09:11:44 AM EST
    Horse, Answer my questions. Doctor Ace: You're exactly right. A 23 year old virgin is "pure" nonsense. Or, as a great wag once put it: the pure- they are always with us. What a strange, bleak planet you come from, Doc. Here on planet Earth, most humans are happily having sex long before 23. To refrain from sex until you're that old is objectively deviant (as mentioned, ever since Instapundit decided I was "objectively pro-Saddam" for opposing the Iraq War, I always use the word "objectively" whenever possible; it really infuriates the right for some reason). Jonnie, " I'm not here to dog homosexuals," What IS it about holier-than-thou prigs and their fixation on dogs? It's a little bizarre, frankly.

    Re: Misleading Website (none / 0) (#32)
    by Adept Havelock on Sat Apr 02, 2005 at 09:53:24 AM EST
    “Do not be too moral, you may cheat yourself out of much life. Aim above morality.” -Henry David Thoreau

    Re: Misleading Website (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 02, 2005 at 11:52:03 AM EST
    Doctor Ace, Why, you said it was "pure nonsense." I agree. You're exactly right. I'll spell it out for you again: Most people on my planet (called Earth, Terra, and other names) enjoy playing the two-backed beast. Those who don't are objectively deviant. Most people on my planet have had the experience of carnal bliss before 23. Those who haven't are objectively deviant. And most of us wish to enjoy such delectable delights more than once before we're 23 and we act to realize such wishes. Those who don't are objectively deviant. Now these self-styled "virgins" often claim that by not making love like other people do, they are somehow being "pure. " That's nonsense. They can forgo the pleasures of sex all they like, that's their privilege, but that's not "purity." That's just deviance from the norms of human sexual activity and pure nonsense. Just like you said. Some people won't accept yes for an answer. I guess you're one of them, Doc. Strange planet you live on, dude. Now remind me again, why shouldn't people have sex before they're 23? Oh, yeah, that's right, disease and unwanted pregnancies. Well, that's why one should be careful and use condoms. And that's why teenagers, who are impulsive, should be taught all about condoms and other contraceptives. And let's not forget that teenagers are often not mature enough to deal with sex. So it's also a good idea to tell them not to have sex unless they know exactly what they're getting into. Some people would urge younger teens to be completely abstinent. Why not? It can't hurt to say so, not that most of them will listen. But we better tell 'em how to be safe about sex just in case. After all, who wants to get the clap from Neil Bush? You remember Neil Bush, right? He's the famously adulterous brother of your president. (By the way I call George Bush "your president" in homage to those Republican congresspeople whad the gall to to refer to Clinton that way on the floor of the Congress).

    Re: Misleading Website (none / 0) (#34)
    by Adept Havelock on Sat Apr 02, 2005 at 01:47:31 PM EST
    Ace, It looks like for your premise about morality to be true, we have to accept the fact there is something inherently immoral about sex. You may feel that way. Many of us do not.

    Re: Misleading Website (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 02, 2005 at 02:30:55 PM EST
    Evade what issue? The morality of sex? I would never evade that issue. It's too much fun. There is nothing particularly moral or immoral about not having sex before you get married at the age of 23. But it is objectively deviant behavior not to have sex by that advanced age. It's pure nonsense to think of yourself as somehow "pure" or "unsullied" or "innocent" all of which are value judgments which I think have no meaning when applied to sex, unles you buy into Puritan/Wahabbist morality, which I certainly do not. What is indisputably fact is that most people have sex before the age of 23. Therefore, those who don't, deviate from the norm. Y'think there's something immoral about sex before marriage, Doc? You crazy? Only religious nuts SAY they believe that, but even they hardly ever practice what they preach. A google search that includes a religious term and "sex scandal" would turn up, I'm sure, more than enough examples to prove my point.

    Re: Misleading Website (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 02, 2005 at 02:44:48 PM EST
    Tristero Your whole 'sex as deviant' argument is a strawman you keep propping up yourself and then knocking down. Talk about self-gratification; you've been mentally masturbating all over this thread! Here is the issue you keep dodging. I have copied it from above to bring it to your attention (since you, apparently, missed it last time). Posted by The Horse with no Name at April 1, 2005 07:40 PM Tristero For the 23 year old virgin 'til married, your refusal to be sexually active until such a late date in your life is no more moral or immoral than any other kind of deviant sexual behavior. Tristero, sweet Tristero. Do you have any idea how stupid that statement is? Why, in your world, a pedophile is no more immoral than a virgin who waits until marriage. Given the two, who would you allow to babysit your daughter? Which one would you marry? Why? Are you not making a moral judgement? Now answer my questions, Tristero! Or bugger off! ;-)

    Re: Misleading Website (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 02, 2005 at 02:46:04 PM EST
    Sorry for the crappy formatting above; it looked good in the preview pane (if anyone else has this problem then maybe Ditto should check it...)

    Re: Misleading Website (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 03, 2005 at 03:28:55 AM EST
    Answer my questions, Horse. Doctor Ace, It's never the sex, is it? Of course it's the sex, Doc. Wet, hot, intensely pleasurable, ecstatic sex. As performed by nubile young bodies 23 and younger. As for responsibility, tell it to the Bush administration, not some horny kid. They're the only people I know who actually look up to Sergeant Schultz from Hogan's Heroes as a role model.

    Re: Misleading Website (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 03, 2005 at 09:42:21 AM EST
    et al - Freedom of speech. It works for the Left.

    Misleading Website | 39 comments (39 topical)