Dan Savage addresses the gay rights / drug rights comparison

by: RadicalRuss

Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 22:50:24 PM EDT

(Savage Love) I am a high-functioning regular heroin user (not quite an addict), and I feel constantly compelled to hide my drug use. I feel that there are similarities between being a drug user and having an alternate sexual orientation in the sense that both users and gays are constantly confronting judgmental opposition from an ill-informed and puritanical American public. I wonder whether you have any thoughts on this matter. Do you believe that drug users are deserving of the same kind of empowerment and liberation as gays, or do you view drug use as a "disease" that needs to be "cured" the same way that the Carrie Prejeans of the world believe gays need to be "cured"?

I realize that one significant difference between heroin use and sexual tastes is that heroin use is illegal, but of course gay relationships were illegal until relatively recently. Am I just rationalizing? Or could drug use be the next civil-rights frontier?

-Dude Requests Understanding Gay Sensibility

Uh... gee.

I don't believe that all drug use is abuse, and I believe that recreational drugs can be used responsibly. And I believe a person should be able to use a drug regularly without being labeled-by himself, by others, by court order-an "addict." I also wish that more people were open about their drug use-but, in the hypocritical fashion of most Americans, only when we're talking about drugs that I like and have used myself, e.g., caffeine, sugar, pot, and my boyfriend's pheromones.

Recreational heroin? Heroin seems kind of extreme, DRUGS, as recreational drugs go. I've known a few people who've self-medicated with heroin and functioned well enough to get by-just-and I think that all drugs should be legal, your drug of choice included. We need to end the war on drugs, a failure and a waste of money and lives. And the quickest way to end it is for successful drug users-people like you, me, Michael Phelps, and the president of the United States of America-to be open about our past, present, and future drug use. But I don't think "drug user" is an identity that's really comparable to sexual orientation. Using drugs is something you do, DRUGS, it's not something you are.

Look at it this way: If you stopped doing drugs today, DRUGS, you'd no longer be a drug user. If I stopped inhaling my boyfriend's pheromones-and cock-today, DRUGS, I'd still be a big homo. Because gay is like Cats ("now and forever"), while heroin is like Twitter (fun at first, sure, but you'll regret it one day). See the difference?

But, yeah, the freedom to use drugs can certainly be viewed as a civil-rights issue: It's about the right to control what you do with your own body, and that argument resonates with others advanced by gay-rights advocates and advocates of reproductive choice. But different drugs carry different risks-risks of harm, risks of overdose, risks of death-and, legal or not, heroin is a highly dangerous drug. It's a drug that's made more dangerous by its prohibition, sure, but it's dangerous even when it's pure. But I think you have a right to use it, if you want to use it, and that you should have access to safe, medical-grade heroin and clean needles. But I don't think you should use it, not when there are other, better, safer drugs available.

Like my boyfriend's pheromones.

Dan Savage's Proposal for Civil Disobedience

by: Lurleen

Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 17:52:19 PM EDT

I have suggestion for an ongoing, smaller-scale action that would have a larger impact than [Cleve Jones's] one-off "march" through an empty city. My idea would need fewer than a 1000 people to succeed-730 to be exact-and it wouldn't be over in a day. It would go on, day-in, day-out, every day, for a year. Hell, it could go on indefinitely. It involves civil disobedience and the 730 volunteers would have to be willing to get arrested. People who are unable to participate could make donations to help cover the expenses-legal expenses and travel expenses-of those who can.

Here's the idea: one gay or lesbian couple-a couple currently denied their rights under DOMA-shows up at the entrance to the White House grounds. A different couple every day. They ask to speak to the president about DOMA. They're refused. They sit down. They refuse to leave. They're arrested, carried away by the police.

Saddlebacking defined

by: Pam Spaulding

Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 13:30:00 PM EST

And now ... without further delay ... the winning definition of "saddleback" ... by a gaping margin ... definition number 5.

"Saddlebacking: the phenomenon of Christian teens engaging in unprotected anal sex in order to preserve their virginities."
After attending the Purity Ball, Heather and Bill saddlebacked all night because she's saving herself for marriage.

Here's why this definition is perfect: Saddlebacking, like barebacking, involves one person riding up on another's backside. But in this case, it's not the bare-naked cock-in-ass that's the most important feature of the ride, but the fact that the person being ridden has been saddled - thanks to the efforts of the Rick Warrens of this world - with religious hang-ups and serious misconceptions about sex. Like the barebacker who casually tosses away his health - or his partner's health - because he believes, quite erroneously, that "risky = sexy," the saddlebacker offers up her ass because she believes, quite erroneously, that she can get fucked in the ass - vigorously, religiously - and still be considered a virgin on her wedding night.

I've set up a website - www.saddlebacking.com - to popularize the new definition. (Get to work, Google bombers!) Spread the URL far and wide, please, and let's get this term into common usage as quickly as possible.