Cathy -- you are so correct!

Pure, unadulterated hogwash.

Your opinion does not equal fact, Cathy.

For Randy's comment:
I never suggested it was fact. Representing an opinion as fact is your purview. It is my opinion (that is what I believe this forum is for). As well as the opinion of the other 9,300 people who signed the petitions in a 90 day period. Many other people told me they wanted to sign, but were afraid of retribution. The vote will be private.

Ha!

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." -Sigmund Freud

Hahahahahaha best comment EVER

I guess you're working under the assumption that any press is good press?

That's right. The only perfect one is Jesus, not Janice! I heard what she said; her own words. No one distorted that. It came out of her mouth in her voice.

Yes. All the hypocrites that do no wrong have prevented you from successfully keeping your messages within the Patch comment character limit and hitting enter. Got it.

Yeah!! You've never seen Audre get up at council meetings and repeatedly complain about issues that have long since been resolved. And, oh wait, yes you have. Never mind.

Really! Keep quit for a while. Maybe you should give that advise to our soon to be quarter term serving Mayor Daniels.

quiet. sorry for the typo.

Daniels is an idiot pushing her own agenda and ideals... she needs to get out of the way

Um, in addition to you wasting lots of our time, Janice Daniels the citizen spoke at virtually every city council meeting, sometimes twice. Here's an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtkpXKODdcI&feature=plcp http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-u5EivG8mA&feature=plcp

Wat da think ladies and gentlemen? With prose like this, I think Mayor Daniels' may have found her new press secretary!

Hi ElizabethG. The caps lock key is to your left.

Well said, ElizabethG, if a little "loud". (-:

ElizabethG, she is not being harrassed, she is being held accountable. While I think her use of the slur was disgraceful, she does have the right to use it. As do her fellow citizens have the right to speak against it. Under the 1st Amendment, we also have the right to "petition the Government" (the Mayor) "for a redress of grievances".

1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

We all have the right to say what we want, without fear of the Government punishing us. That doesn't mean people should say whatever they want, or won't be challenged by fellow citizens. In terms of political correctness, I don't know why people think it should be ok to use slurs and degrading language in any political or civil discussions. What is angering is that the Mayor wouldn't even admit that the word she used was a slur, especially in the context that she used it.

That said, this recall is happening for many reasons. From a policy standpoint, I found the budget sessions incredibly enlightening as to how unfit the Mayor is to serve. She sat through those meetings, after continuously attacking the city for budget mismanagement, and didn't offer one suggestion. I can't seem to come up with what she has done that's been good for Troy.

ElizabethG,

The First Amendment is a two-way street. Mayor Daniels has the right to say whatever she wants. Others have the right to respond and condemn.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure no "violence" has occurred in this continuing drama over the Mayor. You might want to dial down the rhetoric a little.

Yes, indeed. The major problem in this country is people fighting against mindless bigtotry. Oh the humanity!

The sole focus being the word "queer" and/or "gay" having come from the Mayor's lips...how is this NOT a PC issue?

Don't answer, the question was rhetorical.

If you think that is the SOLE focus of the recall effort, then you just aren't paying attention. Her inappropriate comments about homosexuals is what the media is going to latch on to because it gets the most headlines, but that is merely a fraction of reasons to recall her.

You forgot "frothing window-lickers" too. (my term)

^^^PC tripe^^^

Mayor Daniels' comments aren't even in the ballpark of the "shouting fire in a theater" situation.

Very bad comparison.

Gays are often bullied, Irv.

This is the first idea of yours that I can actually agree with. Go to the meetings or watch them on cable! Every resident should.

The Red Cross wants to lift the FDA's current lifetime ban. The issue is HIV exposure. Heterosexuals get a 12 month deferral. See:http://www.aabb.org/pressroom/statements/Pages/statement061510.aspx
"In 2006, AABB, Red Cross and ABC presented a joint position to the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Blood Products Advisory Committee (BPAC) stating our belief “that the current lifetime deferral for men who have had sex with other men is medically and scientifically unwarranted” and recommending that the deferral criteria “be modified and made comparable with criteria for other groups at increased risk for sexual transmission of transfusion-transmitted infections.” "

Dale, that policy does nothing to protect "the safety of our blood supply". It was enacted during the HIV panic in the 80s, when there were higher instances in the gay community because of the higher instances of unprotected sex and IV drug use during that time. We now know risky behavior is what puts people at a higher risk of contracting STDs, not their sexual orientation. HIV is not a gay man's disease and actually affects a greater number of heterosexuals worldwide than homosexuals. Africa suffers from a massive epidemic and the majority of the people are straight.
( http://www.avert.org/women-hiv-aids.htm#contentTable0 )
I'd suspect having little or no access to protection is how it spread to so many. If there needs to be a "lifetime ban" on anyone, it should be on anyone, gay or straight, who has had unprotected sex with multiple partners. Even then, you're hoping that the donors tell the truth. (I know gay people (who are HIV-) that give blood and all they have to do is not check the "yes" box.) Why should a straight man, who has had unprotected sex with several women be allowed to donate blood, but two gay men in a monogomous relationship are banned for life, even if they test negative year after year? It just doesn't make sense. In the end, all of the blood entering the blood supply is tested multiple times, for multiple diseases.

Mayor Daniels is not speaking the truth. The truth is that having unprotected sex is dangerous, not being gay or straight.

Dale:

It would have taken you literally one minute to go to the Red Cross website and actually find a factual answer to your question. John David and Dave W are 100% corrcect. Do you even care about accuracy? Will you say anything to support the mayor, not matter how incorrect?

Ahem. Although Ms. Daniels is now trying to change the story to tell us she said she would bring "a doctor" she actually said a panel of psychologists. So, she was talking mental illness, not medical illness. Need proof? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byTAIPpvPbY&feature=plcp

By the way, Dale, she said the line to a gay woman -- gay women have the lowest incidence of HIV, far lower than heterosexuals like you. So you and Janice may believe there is a "homosexual lifestyle" but it's a stereotype. You have a Hollywood Fax News idea of what gay people are like. Perhaps you should get to know some gay people instead of trying to convince us that they are evil. WWJD? Not what you are doing, sir.

Faith G- you have intrigued me with your paranoia. Please explain how this new school curriculum for increasing the number of homosexuals results in more pre-teen births. That is an amazing feat!!

faith G,
Congratulations on being able to compile one of the most factually incorrect pieces of propaganda that I've read in a while...
1. Homosexuals do NOT die younger than heterosexuals. The "study" done to spread that lie had some major flaws. http://www.christianpost.com/news/expert-blasts-study-on-gays-dying-younger-as-severely-flawed-26941/
2. Many, many studies have been done that show children of homosexual parents do as well, and in some cases better, than heterosexual parents. It depends on income and access to education. http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids
3. There is no homosexual curriculum, but there have been moves made in states like California to not hide the fact that historical figures were gay. No one is teaching children to be gay because it's not something you learn.
4. One of the biggest lies is this bit about pediophilia. Pediophilia is a disorder that exists in both straight and gay people. The notion that this applies only to gay men is propoganda spread by Paul Cameron and has been debunked. http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
5. Pre-teen births? You relealize that homosexuals don't reproduce, right? They are born to heterosexual parents...
6. Last I checked sex ed classes teach safe sex to prevent STDs and teen pregnancies.
Your post is just an example of the blind hatred and misinformation that religious groups have pushed for decades.

As a side note, since your comment seems to be derived from Paul Cameron and his Family Research Institute, I'll also note that the Southern Poverty Law Center has officially classified the Family Research Institute as a hate group. They also note that the founder "Cameron himself has been cast out of both the American Psychological Association and the American Sociological Association. The ASA declared that, 'Dr. Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism.' "

Burning witches was accepted for centuries. Should we go back to those times? Thank goodness human society evolves (for some people). And thank goodness in America we are not ruled by arbitrary religious interpretations.

Dale,
Here is the current listing on the Red Cross website:
"The top priorities of the American Red Cross are the safety of our volunteer blood donors and the ultimate recipients of blood. On June 11, 2010, the Department of Health and Human Services Secretary's Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability voted against recommending a change to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) policy of a lifetime deferral for men who have sex with other men. The FDA is responsible for determining donor eligibility requirements and the Red Cross is required to follow their decisions. However, the Red Cross does support the use of rational, scientifically-based deferral periods that are applied fairly and consistently among donors who engage in similar risk activities. We will continue to work through the AABB (American Association of Blood Banks) to press for donor deferral policies that are fair and consistent and based on scientific evidence, while still protecting patients from potential harm."
http://www.redcrossblood.org/donating-blood/eligibility-requirements/eligibility-criteria-topic#lifestyle

Dale,

I messed up the link to the AABB and Red Cross joint statement that is referred to in the paragraph that Dave W posted above from the Red Cross. Here's the correct link. Hopefully it works this time.

http://www.aabb.org/pressroom/statements/Pages/statement061510.aspx

Should we discriminate, then, against people who have been to Africa and walked through cow pastures in England throughout society because of those acts, or would that be unjust, Dale?

So you couldn't find verification, but you decided to post the misinformation anyway. Nice. So no, the mayor actually isn't speaking the truth. It has nothing to do with her views being out of fashion...they are based on ignorance.

Mat - Can you please post the links to the CDC and other websites that contain the facts you are referring to?

I have done some thinking on this topic. I'm particularly interested in your statement or question.
"Is two "partners" better than a man and a woman."
I don't think you can ask is something better or worse unless you bring in an emotional component to your response.

When I look at this question from a purely unemotional, fact based approach the only difference I can see between same sex partners and male/female partners is that the male/female partners MAY create a child through sexual union and the same sex partners can't. Many male/female partners never create offspring so in this case I can't see any difference at all between the two types of unions.

Now if I have the belief that creating offspring is BETTER than not creating offspring then I could make some sort of emotional judgement in favor of the fertile male/female partners. But where does that leave the non non-fertile male/female partners? They don't make the cut. If I think it is better to not create offspring then you can easily see that I would think that the same sex partners are BETTER because it is guaranteed that they will never create offspring.

So any judgements of which are better have to be based on my personal emontional based beliefs.
Which do you think is BETTER and what facts and beliefs are you using as the basis for the comparison?

Mat,
Quite a few well respected organizations disagree with you:
Major health organizations from the American Psychiatric Association ( http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx ) to the World Health Organization ( http://new.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6803&Itemid=1926 ) to the American Academy of Pediatrics to federal Department of Health and Human Services have all dismissed notions that homosexuality is anything medically/psychologically unnatural or inherently dangerous.

Also, Dr. Jack Drescher (member of the American Psychiatric Association) was asked about the Mayor's comments and stated:
"She’s not really stating a medical issue. She’s really stating something about the perception that everyone who is gay is leading a promiscuous sexual life and the promiscuous sexual life may lead to increased health risks. Religious social conservatives call that ‘the gay lifestyle,’ even though that’s as absurd a phrase as ‘the heterosexual lifestyle.’ There are sexually promiscuous heterosexuals and there are risk-taking heterosexuals. It’s not really a medical issue. It’s a culture wars issue."

If you want to continue to push stereotypes and misinformation, people will call you out for it. The SPLC does... http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths

Thanks Helen, that was a very reasoned response.

Mat - I'm curious, when did you make the conscious choice to be straight? Or could you choose to fall in love with someone of the same sex? If you can "choose" to do that, I'd venture to say you're not heterosexual. If you can't, then you are heterosexual. No one is asking for special treatment or rights, people are asking to be treated as equals under the law. "I thought this was America?" You know, with liberty and justice for all...

So Mat, you pretend to speak for God? It is just possible your understanding is not correct? There are lots of God loving people who believe otherwise.

Mat, Helen's response to you and my first response were not "emotional replies". If anything, Helen's response was the perfect logical counter to your emotionally charged "partner" question. I provided you links to medical associations in response to your claims that "there is fact that the homosexual lifestyle is more dangerous and destructive than the heterosexual life style". Those medical professionals disagree with you and they have actually studied the issue closely.

My second response was a little more emotionally charged, but it still points to the fact that your "special rights" arguement doesn't really hold water. Please provide an example of a "special right" and how that right would be special under the law.

If you look closely at all three posts, we never mentioned God. Since you can only fall back on religious arguements, then I assume everything you say is emotional instead of based in facts. Last time I checked, He also said that eating shellfish and getting a tatoo were equally wrong, and that we should stone adulters, and that slavery was acceptable. Are these all things you think are right?

These are prohibitions contained in the Bible regarding what Dave W. said, above, regarding shellfish, tattoos, killing adulterers and condoning slavery: I'm no biblical scholar, I just looked them up in my Bible.
Tattoo Leviticus 19:28: “do not tattoo yourselves, I am the Lord”
Shellfish Leviticus 11:10, 11: “but of the various creatures that crawl or swim in the water, whether in the sea or in the rivers, all those that lack either fins or scales are loathsome for you, and you shall treat them as loathsome. Their flesh you shall not eat and their dead bodies you shall loathe.”Slavery: Deuteronomy 15:12-15, addresses the treatment of Hebrew slaves and Colossians 4:1 addresses the treatment of slaves.Adultery: Deuteronomy 22:22 "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die." Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."

And Christ said, of the second of the two greatest commandments: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Mark12:31). He also said: "But what I say to you to you is: offer no resistance to injury. When a person strikes you on the right cheek, turn and offer him the other: (Matthew 5:39)