Choosing to have unprotected sex is tantamount to trusting your partner with your life.

That there appear to be no fewer than seven different women who have lodged complaints about Richardson since 2001 and the victims themselves allege that there are others who have not yet come forward, it seems safe to say that most of these encounters were not had in serious, long-term relationships. Furthermore, that none of these women is alleging that they were raped or coerced into having sex with Richardson, why were they not using condoms? Some will call me a cynic, and others will call me an alarmist, but if people routinely lie about inconsequential things, why would they not lie in order to have sex? We are bombarded with news about rising HIV and STD rates everyday and are implored to remain abstinent, to be monogamous, or to practice safer sex. The message in all of this seems crystal clear. Choosing to have unprotected sex is tantamount to trusting your partner with your life. If you don’t trust the person that much, perhaps you should not be having sex with them, and if you still choose to do so, use a condom. While Richardson was deceptive, that these women decided to trust him that much is their own fault. They are lucky they aren’t HIV positive and should count their blessings and move on.

Are we at the precipice of every preventable disease or illness becoming cause for litigation?

Furthermore, don’t laws like these further stigmatize and marginalize everyone that is HIV positive? While it is clear people like Richardson that go out of their way to lie should probably be thrown in prison, what about those that simply do not volunteer any information? Since our country legalizes don’t ask, don’t tell in other arenas, should sexual encounters be any different? What if an HIV positive person uses a condom but does not tell their partner that they are indeed infected? Since condoms aren’t foolproof, are they now a criminal? I am certainly not an attorney, but if the law he broke was knowingly exposing someone to HIV (and let’s not forget that none of these women was infected), are those individuals that are HIV positive essentially in a catch-22 for the rest of their lives? If they tell someone they have it, they will probably be discriminated against, and if they don’t, they could go to jail. I am not aware of any other laws such as this that target sick people. Are any of you?

Are we at the precipice of every preventable disease or illness becoming cause for litigation?

While not to downplay the gravity of HIV infection, recent statistics showed that more people in the United States died from the flu and heart disease last year than complications from HIV/AIDS. I certainly have never heard of us arresting people who refuse to get flu shots, nor sick children that come to school, causing half of their classmates to get sick. While people have started suing McDonald’s because they are fat and cigarette companies because they have cancer, I am not quite sure I have heard of people suing restaurants for their heart disease, though that is probably just around the corner. Are we at the precipice of every preventable disease or illness becoming cause for litigation?

More than anything else, this story reminds me of the American proclivity to try to find someone else to blame. Yes, Richardson was dishonest and perhaps deserves to be punished. At the end of the day, however, life is full of risks. It is one’s personal responsibility to remain as informed as possible about potentially risky situations. Sure, it would be ideal if everyone told the truth all the time, but since we know they do not, we should accept the fact that our decision to trust someone is inherently risky. When you decide to put yourself at risk, it is your own fault. Period.

Have we really gotten to the point that being upset that someone put their hand across your mouth is considered homophobia? Give me break.

In a culture that is obsessed with political correctness, many live in constant fear of offending someone.

I am not going to argue for one second that racism, sexism, and homophobia do not exist in the world. Some women, ethnic minorities, homosexuals, and even some religious people live in constant fear because of irrational hatred that exists in the world. But in a society that seems to have become increasingly obsessed with political correctness, many others live in constant fear of offending someone. At the end of the day, the level of general discomfort felt in this country is as much the fault of individuals that actually are hateful as it is of people like Rosie O’Donnell that attempt to turn everything into a case of discrimination.

Rosie O’Donnell is homophobic?

Dictionary.com defines homophobia as unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality. Rosie’s use of the term is thus problematic on many fronts. On the one hand, most would agree that it is extremely impolite to put your hand over someone else’s mouth. Manners transcend any cultural division, thus regardless of whether Clay Aiken is a homosexual or not, what he did was inexcusable and Kelly Ripa reacted as most would have, and it has nothing to do with antipathy towards homosexuality. Secondly, by saying Kelly’s simple remark was homophobic, Rosie has herself diminished the gravity of true homophobia that is a routine occurrence in the lives of many. I believe one would be hard pressed to convince James Mastas, should he actually survive, that the irrational hatred that caused four youths to kick him to a pulp while constantly calling him a faggot, was the same impetus for Kelly Ripa’s “I don’t know where that hand has been.” Furthermore, while rumors have been circulating for quite sometime about Clay Aiken’s sexuality, he has never addressed them. Rosie’s insistence that from where she sits as a gay women–as if to say that being a gay woman gives her complete authority to determine what is and is not homophobic–that the remark was indeed a bigoted one, was perhaps an intimation that she knows Clay Aiken’s homosexuality to be a fact. Many, including some homosexuals, have argued that the act outing someone is inherently homophobic, because it implies that while gays are entitled to their sexuality, they are not entitled to any privacy. Thus by labeling Ripa a homophobic with such authority, Rosie O’Donnell has not only marginalized real suffering, she may have outed one of her friends, and committed an act of homophobia herself.

Clay Aiken is sexist?

Lastly, as the guest host pointed out, if Rosie insists on looking for discrimination in the exchange between Ripa and Aiken, she should have been more offended by the fact that a man had the temerity to try to keep a woman quiet when it was he that was the guest on the television show. Perhaps she is right. If being a bigot means anything at all, it seems that it would be feeling entitled to a position of superiority over someone else for no other reason than the fact that they are different. Thus Clay Aiken, as a man, and therefore in a traditional position of power, somehow felt emboldened enough to take control over Kelly Ripa for no other reason than the fact that she is a woman. Therefore he is clearly he is sexist. Does this not sound completely ridiculous?

In my eyes, nothing at all in the exchange with Clay Aiken and Kelly Ripa was rooted in sexism or homophobia. What Clay Aiken did was rude, and Kelly Ripa had the right to respond the way she did. If one goes looking for homophobia or sexism, or any other form of discrimination at every turn, then he is sure to find it. That does not mean, however, that it actually exists on every corner. If people would reserve words like racism, homophobia, and sexism for those grave incidents when they are actually appropriate, we would all be able to take these issues more seriously. Furthermore, it would help us all be free from paranoia of a simple action somehow making us bigoted. Discrimination is based on irrational hatred and fear. Fear of contracting germs from a stranger who insists on putting his hand over your mouth is not irrational. Case closed.

If you really stop and think about it, is female circumcision really all that different from dental braces?

In the first female circumcision female circumcision case in US History, Khalid Adem was found guilty of mutilating his then two-year old daughter and sentenced to ten years in prison. Many activists, who view the practice as an attempt to rob women of sexual pleasure, lauded the decision as an advance in women’s rights. While this may be the case, it could also be America’s latest addition in our ongoing quest of cultural imperialism. If you really stop and think about it, is female circumcision really all that different from dental braces?

While women’s rights activists have long maintained that the only reason the practice is carried out is to rob women of sexual pleasure, this is largely a view that has come from the west. In interviews with both male and female Africans in countries where the practice is carried out, many have maintained that they believe circumcision makes a woman cleaner, more beautiful, and a more suitable bride. Others have said that if a woman is uncircumcised and tries to give birth to a child, the baby will die should its head touch the clitoris. While it is apparent that these things are not true, is it really these people’s fault that they have grown up in a society that dictates such standards of beauty?

When I was about sixteen, my parents finally decided that I needed to get braces. My teeth were fairly crowded and not straight, but I had lived with them for that long so what was the big deal? My parents, like most, thought that I would have an easier time in life with straighter teeth because I would instantly be more attractive. They also feared that the teasing I had endured for so long had taken a mental toll on me as well. Perhaps it had, but would any of these things be of grave concern had I grown up in Great Britain? I think you can look at the average Englishman and answer that for yourself.

If women are equal to men, why should women have special laws to protect their private parts?

And if you aren’t buying the braces comparison, let’s look at it from another angle. Each day in America, thousands of newborn baby boys are circumcised, often without anesthesia. The reasons are pretty idiotic if you ask me. Some people think it is cleaner, some people think it looks better, and other still maintain that they want their sons to be just like his father. Coincidentally, America is pretty much the only industrialized nation that routinely circumcises boys. Should we start prosecuting parents for genital mutilation because they are robbing their sons of their foreskins and countless nerve endings? Doesn’t it also seem a little odd that women’s rights activists, who fight for female equality never mention male circumcision or call that a form of mutilation or a human rights violation? If women are equal to men, why should women have special laws to protect their private parts?

The bottom line is that many cultures do many idiotic things and when you have a country that is a cultural melting pot, many of these idiotic things are going to start to appear. The way to fix the problem is not to denounce a parent –who is acting in what has been culturally ingrained as the best interest of his child –as a child abuser. Change happens by awakening people to new ideas and new viewpoints. Until we take the time to understand why people believe things they do, the problems will only continue. With a new direction, however, perhaps people everywhere will live full, happy lives with clitorides, foreskins, and crooked teeth.

It seems that until the last few years, the Gay Rights Movement focused on unapologetically asserting that homosexuals were not only different, but that they had the right to be that way. After all, why shouldn’t someone be able to have sex with whom he wants, as often as he wants, and in whatever fashion he wants as long as both parties are consenting adults? Recently, however, the focus seems to have shifted to being able to prove that homosexuals are indeed identical to their heterosexual counterparts, save that one little detail. This trend is not only evidenced by the “new” gay families and the push for marriage rights, but also within the gay community itself with the rise of descriptions such as “straight acting” or “relationship oriented.”

The push for marriage, thus, seems to be wholly antithetical to nearly everything that gays have long fought for.

The push for marriage, thus, seems to be wholly antithetical to nearly everything that gays have long fought for. While I will not go as far as saying that gay marriage is a bad idea, it does not seem like many have actually stopped and asked what the ramifications may be for the gay community itself. As gay culture is already seeing a rupture in its community between the “good gays”—that is to say those who wish to get married and raise families—and the bad gays—those who wish to continue fighting for the right to not subscribe to the status quo—won’t this become even more pronounced as more homosexuals are actually given the right to get married? Once marriage rights are made fully available to homosexuals—and we all know that this will eventually happen—I do believe that day will mark the end of the gay community as we know it. One only needs to look to the African American community to see how the desire to prove that we are like “them,” can divide a people once wholly united. Ironically, the gay community, whose fight gave birth to an entire of culture of dissidence in the United States, will have inadvertently reinforced the idea that the only acceptable way to live is with two parents in one house with their 2.4 children.

Once again, Americans will have missed an opportunity to actually think outside of their Puritan boxes.

In the end, other alternative families—single parent homes, polyamourous couples, or any other combinations one can come up with—will be viewed less validly and respected much less than they already are. Once again, Americans will have missed an opportunity to actually think outside of their Puritan boxes. And strangely enough, perhaps finally placating conservatives once and for all, the unapologetic, radical homosexual will slowly fade into the distance, left behind by his friends that wanted to prove that they were just like everyone else.

…like a relationship on Facebook, its complicated.

While this has all been woefully exciting, I was not really inclined to write anything until I saw a few stories buried deep in a few internet news sites. NBC quietly backed away from allowing Madonna to be shown on a cross during an upcoming broadcast of her concert. At about the same time, the President of Columbia University, who is a noted first amendment scholar, came under scrutiny about some of his decisions, including rescinding a speaking invitation to the President of Iran, who has called the Holocaust a myth. The next day, I came across an article about our lovely friends in South Dakota who are renewing their efforts to ban all abortions, including those desired in cases of rape and incest, unless the life of the mother is at risk. One might ask how these things are all connected. And I will say, like a relationship on Facebook, it’s complicated.

We all learn it in our civics classes; the wonderful thing called the first amendment. In case you forgot it: 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. Theoretically, it is from these words and a few others that our country takes its notion of the separation of church and state. It is from these same words, however, that we derive our propensity to protect all sorts of speech, however heinous, hateful, offensive, or just downright idiotic they may be. Ironically, rather than these two ideas working together, it seems that they often work against one another.

Even though our country theoretically has separation of church and state, in reality this is a complete farce

Though I am sure it is not a surprise to some of you, I will let you in on a little secret. Even though our country theoretically has separation of church and state, in reality this is a complete farce, and the last three articles I cited illustrate this more clearly than anything I have seen in quite sometime. Let’s be honest about it. The reason NBC news decided not to show Madonna on a cross is because a large number of influential terrorists were convening to plan a boycott of one of the concert’s corporate sponsors. There was not even a question of whether said terrorists would boycott, but rather, what group should be boycotted. I call them terrorists, Christian terrorists to be exact, because much like the Islamic terrorists we have grown accustomed to singling out, they are doing more and more everyday to impose what they believe to be the will of God on the rest of humanity.

Why did no one stop and say: “What about Madonna’s free speech? What about her free exercise of religion?” Though Madonna claims to have faith based in Judeo-Christian principles and has compared her placement on a cross to those who wear crucifixes around their necks, why should this even matter? In theory, if she were a Satanist who thought that Jesus was actually a schizophrenic and that all Christians who believe the story actually happened, probably need to be on Prozac, she should be able to state these ideas publicly, stage peaceful demonstrations to explain why she feels that way, and do so on television, regardless of whether or not that idea is offensive to some Christians, Satanists, or schizophrenics. The idea of the first amendment is that the government should not prefer one religion over another and that the state should not impose any religion.

I am pretty certain I learned in Sunday school that God gave man free will–more commonly known as the right to choose–and that it exists in all facets of life, including religion.

Again, that’s the idea, but look at South Dakota. Somehow many Christian–including some who support the death penalty, and others who support a political party that is largely against the expansion of social programs that would likely help poor, young, unwed mothers and their children–believe that life begins at conception and that they must do everything in their power to save the unborn children. Maybe they should and maybe that is their religion; it is certainly not my place to say otherwise. Their free practice of religion ends, however, when they attempt to thwart the government and impose that religion on me. I am pretty certain I learned in Sunday school that God gave man free will–more commonly known as the right to choose–and that it exists in all facets of life, including religion. Why should medicine be any different? Let’s go even one more step and suppose that I am a Christian who believes abortion is against the word of God and that if I have one, I will go to hell. Shouldn’t where and when I apply my religious ideals be left to me? Should I not be able to choose to go to hell if I want to go to hell? I am pretty sure I don’t need anyone, especially not the government, telling me what I can and cannot in order to ensure that my salvation is secured. That’s between me and God. Right?

How long are we going to let these Christian terrorists hijack our country and our Constitution?

So here is where I bring it all together. First amendment activists are angry that the Iranian president could not come and say that the Holocaust–in which, by the way, nearly 11 million Jews, gypsies, invalids, and homosexuals were exterminated like flies–was a myth, but no one is batting an eye everyday as our elected officials, including the buffoon that we elected President, continue to say that America is a Christian nation founded on Christian values and that we need to somehow “codify” and thus, impose those values? Are you kidding me? Are you really serious? This is not a question of whether or not it is ridiculous that we protect someone’s right to deny the deaths of a group of people many times larger than the population of Wyoming, or that some gay rights groups and the ACLU actually defend the freedom of speech of Fred Phelps, or even whether Christians, who may well be a majority in America, have the right to exercise a great deal of political power. The question really is how long are we going to let these Christian terrorists–with scare tactics such as boycotts, abortion clinic bombings, and really just plain old evangelical bullying–hijack our country and our Constitution and chip away at the principles of the very amendment that gives them the right to be “Christians” in the first place?