Sunday showdown: Both parties look to sway fence-sitters for this weekend's healthcare vote 
Click to Print
Include Comments
“HIV is a gay disease.”
Who said it? Pat Robertson? Fred Phelps? No, it was Matt Foreman, outgoing director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, in a ”State of the Movement” address he delivered on Feb. 8.
Today, right now, more than 45 percent of African-American gay and bi men in key urban areas are infected with HIV, with a 33 percent increase in new diagnoses among our brothers under age 30 over the past six years. Today, right now, African Americans are nearly 10 times more likely than white people to be diagnosed with AIDS.
The response – internal to our community and external – is appallingly racist. Internally, when these numbers come out, the “established” gay community seems to have a collective shrug as if this isn’t our problem. Folks, with 70 percent of the people in this country living with HIV being gay or bi, we cannot deny that HIV is a gay disease. We have to own that and face up to that.
Foreman is not the first gay activist to buck the politics of AIDS in order to focus attention on the highest number of victims. A little over a year ago, the Los Angeles-based Gay and Lesbian Center launched a provocative AIDS awareness campaign with the slogan, “HIV is a Gay Disease. Own it. End it.”
The campaign drew cat-calls with many critics saying such frank talk would ratchet up anti-gay bigotry. Others were more measured, such as one columnist who wrote, “Time will tell whether the in-your-face approach to shaking everyone out of complacency translates to a resurgence of bigotry and stigmatism – and whether the number of lives of young L.A. men saved outweighs that.”
With Foreman’s statement, it appears some gay activists are now ready to admit that suppressing the epidemiological facts about AIDS is no longer worth the high cost in lives.
back to top181 Comments to ““HIV is a gay disease.””
You can try to run away from, or out run, the truth but it finds you or beats you the finsh line every time.
Efforts to do so are futile as much as the efforts in teh gay community to date have been to end the spread of AIDS.
Report comment to moderator
No matter who is affected we need to get on board to do what we can to help. I wouldn’t want my worst enemy to die of this horrible disease.
Report comment to moderator
Llama’s right — the truth will always find its way to the surface.
One would think the basic desire to survive would win over all the political nonsense. Note this part of the quote: “…. and whether the number of lives of young L.A. men saved ….” They’re talking about the promiscuous homosexual males — the same ones who are telling us they want normal, family lives. This is just as bad as all the heterosexuals who live their lives hooking up with someone different — the lifestyle the culture is teaching your children is normal.
I have no doubt that Christians will be blamed for saying “I told you so” but the truth is if people of all sexuals persuasions could face the truth that life is not about sex but rather about love, there would be a lot less Aids, STDs, divorce, abortion, abuse, etc., etc., etc. But that’s just too corny a lifestyle to promote, now isn’t it?
Yes, the statistics are showing HIV/Aids is a gay disease, but there are a lot of “diseases” out there. They all come under the umbrella of a culture that has promoted sex as the goal rather than a healthy, family life.
You reap what you sow. And that goes for heterosexuals, too.
Report comment to moderator
Preach it, Outdeep!
Report comment to moderator
“…it appears some gay activists are now ready to admit that suppressing the epidemiological facts about AIDS is no longer worth the high cost in lives.”
One can only hope…
Report comment to moderator
Suppressing or distorting, it’s way past time to deal with it in an honest and practical way.
Report comment to moderator
NJLAwyer: They’re talking about the promiscuous homosexual males — the same ones who are telling us they want normal, family lives.
The exact same individual ones? Are you sure about that?
What about this part of Foreman’s statement: Today, right now, African Americans are nearly 10 times more likely than white people to be diagnosed with AIDS.
Is HIV also a “black disease?”
It’s true a promiscuous gay man is much more likely to contract HIV than a promiscuous straight man. But the promiscuous straight man has a much greater risk than a monogamous gay man.
The problem isn’t the gay, it’s the promiscuous. As long as people are busy about the finger-pointing judgment of sexuality (and my don’t Christians always seem to be first to the gates with that), no progress gets made.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer (#3) is correct. The consequence of sin, no matter who you are, is as sure as gravity—even more so. It may be delayed, but it cannot be escaped by denial, compromise, or by medical science.
Homosexuality, like any other sin, eventualy leads to death. Jesus Christ is the only answer. He is the only one who has conquered death.
Report comment to moderator
I think many in the homosexual community have thought this way for a while. One of my biggest arguments with my friend DG (lesbian) was when she said something about gay men not doing what they knew they needed to do to prevent AIDS. She was on the conservative side and I was on the liberal side (quite a switch for us).
Gay people ARE in a better position to “own” this disease and get something done about it. I liken it to the fact that, yes, men can and do get breast cancer, but it is mostly women who get it so perception is that it is a “women’s disease” we all want to combat it and end it but WOMEN are in a better position to “own” it. ***I hope this makes sense to you***
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, the problem is with people who don’t tell the truth. The problem is with people on either side or in the middle who engage in, yes, I’m gonna say it, sinful behavior.
It doesn’t matter what color you are, what orientation you have, what race you are, what gender you are. Your sin will find you out. You reap what you sow in ALL aspects of life. You can dis Christians all you want. We’re used to it. It isn’t about judging — judgment belongs to the Lord. But if you cut yourself, you’re going to bleed. There are just normal consequences to actions, whether you can face up to that or not. Learn to call a dog a dog and a cat a cat. In other words don’t fight this: “We have to own that and face up to that.” Stop making excuses.
Report comment to moderator
“Gay disease?”
“Black disease?”
Why retreat to identity politics? It’s a behavioral disease. More specifically, it’s in large measure in America, a venerial disease.
Report comment to moderator
Never heard of a lesbian with AIDS. Does that mean God is punishing only men? A man is the only way a woman can get AIDS through sex.
God loves lesbians. It’s so obvious.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer at #10:
It doesn’t matter what color you are, what orientation you have, what race you are, what gender you are. Your sin will find you out. You reap what you sow in ALL aspects of life. You can dis Christians all you want. We’re used to it. It isn’t about judging — judgment belongs to the Lord. But if you cut yourself, you’re going to bleed. There are just normal consequences to actions, whether you can face up to that or not. Learn to call a dog a dog and a cat a cat. In other words don’t fight this: “We have to own that and face up to that.” Stop making excuses.
Are you aware that lesbians have very low rates of STD in general, and so far, the CDC has zero confirmed cases of female-female HIV transmission?
I believe that female homosexuality is just as much sin as male, as your view of things goes … but the prevalence of disease as evidence of Divine disapproval breaks down when it’s women rather than men involved.
Joel Mark is right in #12: HIV is spread through behaviors, not sexuality.
You said: But if you cut yourself, you’re going to bleed. There are just normal consequences to actions, whether you can face up to that or not.
I do face up to it. It’s the promiscuity, not the gay, that’s the problem.
Report comment to moderator
#2 Outdeep,
Most, actually all, of my gay male friends from architectural school did die of AIDS. They were just at the right age where they were getting sick and no one knew why. They were born at the wrong time, in the wrong place with the wrong sexual orientation.
The world lost a whole generation (and possibly two now) of some of the most talented designers I know.
It’s sad really. It didn’t have to continue to happen after we all, and I mean all, knew what was causing these illnesses and deaths. But it didn’t stop and that my friend was their fault – and they know it.
You can’t save people who want to die. Today it is nothing more than suicidal.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG wrote; “Joel Mark is right in #12: HIV is spread through behaviors, not sexuality.
SteveG – Behaviors and sexuality are not necessarily disconnected. So, the word “not” in your re-statement does not necessarily represent my view.
SteveG wrote; “You said: But if you cut yourself, you’re going to bleed. There are just normal consequences to actions, whether you can face up to that or not.”
Just to clarify, that was NJLawyer who wrote that and I agree with her, and with her whole post at #10. .
Report comment to moderator
I’m not sure what to make of this topic, more specifically Lynn’s last comment. To suggest that it’s a gay disease because gays are the lion’s share of it’s victims, then sure, yeah, it’s a gay disease. To suggest that breast cancer is a woman’s disease becase the lion’s share of it victims are women, then yeah sure, it is. What’s the point of “admitting” it. As if not admitting it was the REASON why so many people suffer from it. That’s misguided. Moreover, the statement from Matt Foreman really focuses on the divide in the gay community between races (which stinks). You may have missed the point of it.
Does “The truth” it mean that Christians don’t care because it’s God’s way of thinning out the gay population? Either way, the collateral damage from HIV/AIDS is massive. (Just like Katrina). Don’t talk percentages, talk lives lost because of it. If a HIV+ bi-sexual man marries a Christian woman and makes her positive will she find comfort in the admittance that it’s a “gay disease”. Will THAT save her the torment of this disease? Think it doesn’t happen? Think again.
Outdeep in post #2, you sound amazing!
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 11/Steve G post 7,
remarkable, I suggest you are both portraying the same message and I agree with you.
It is the mutiple sexual partners which is a key dominant issue, not the sexual orientation, and this is indeed a venereal disease.
Joel Mark: I am a bit bewildered with this recent spate of agreements between us!!!
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark in #15: SteveG wrote; “Joel Mark is right in #12: HIV is spread through behaviors, not sexuality.
SteveG – Behaviors and sexuality are not necessarily disconnected. So, the word “not” in your re-statement does not necessarily represent my view.
(Note: The original post was #11, not #12 as I erroneously said.)
Fair enough. Would you not agree though, that a promiscuous heterosexual is at more risk of HIV than a monogamous homosexual?
Report comment to moderator
“It is the mutiple sexual partners which is a key dominant issue, not the sexual orientation, and this is indeed a venereal disease.”
Not if you’re eating monkey meat.
Report comment to moderator
Now, SteveG, you’re the one hung up on homosexuality here. Go back to my original post and really read it. My opinion applies whether we’re talking about HIV or STDs or a simple cold. I personally wash my hands a lot so I don’t get a cold. I take my vities. I stay away from a lot of little kids. We can deal with illness and/or sin the same way — by doing (or not doing) those things which enable us to avoid it.
More power to the homosexual community if it can face the facts here. They’ll do themselves a good service if they do. But that is true of heterosexuals, too. Stop doing stupid stuff. Think.
Report comment to moderator
I do face up to it. It’s the promiscuity, not the gay, that’s the problem.
Yes, but with – as stated above – 70 percent of the people in this country living with HIV being gay or bi, and those according to you mostly male, the behavior seems to correlate closely with male homosexual behavior. A very small chunk of the population has 70 percent of the disease.
This is a major problem for them and any woman who may have sex with them.
Report comment to moderator
My point was that we should all work toward ending it. Men as well as women for breast cancer. Straights as well as gays for AIDS
Report comment to moderator
I don’t see how breast cancer can be compared to AIDS/HIV, it makes no sense.
Breast cancer is not disease which one ‘catches’- HIV/AIDS is a disease which is passed about, mainly through sexual contact!
Report comment to moderator
Kim wasn’t comparing diseases, but rather how folks should respond to them, noting that care transcends epidemiology.
Report comment to moderator
To put this in perspective, according to Wikipedia, smoking correlates with 87% of lung cancer cases. Male homosexual activity correlates with 70% of AIDS cases. But there are a lot more smokers (20%) than male homosexuals (maybe 1%), so the disproportionality is that much greater – the odds are far worse for homosexual males. Of course there are many other diseases associated with smoking – and with male homosexual behavior.
Yes, homosexuals can be monogamous and they can try to use protection. The problem is that, as these numbers show, most aren’t or don’t.
Report comment to moderator
amphipolis post 25,
I think perhaps I am misunderstanding your statistics here.
Smoking correlates with 87% of lung cancer cases.
Male homosexual activity correlates with 70% of aids cases.
20% of the populations are smokers.
1% of the population are male hmosexuals.
So to compare the relative risk for each s the risk or:
lung cancer = 0.20 * 0.87 = .174
aids = 0.01 * 0.70 = .007
So this model suggest that we don’t need to worry about aids, we need to eliminate smoking.
I am sure I am doing something wrong, but based on your numbers, what am I missing?
Report comment to moderator
“1% of the population are male hmosexuals.”
This no doubt low balls the gay population. 1% are probably self idenfied lesbians. At least 2% or more are self identified gay males. I’d say at minimum 3% of the society is self identified gay. In terms of same sex behavior, recent studies show that 10% do at some point in their lives either have same sex behavior or have more than a passing same sex feeling. Conclusion: Many self identified heterosexuals have some kind of incidental bisexuality.
If gay men are such a small % of society (and at 2-3% of the overall population they probably are), then why is it so many of them were in your architecture and design classes?
Probable answer: A disproportionate % of great geniuses in arts, literature, architecture and design in Western Civ. have been homosexual, chiefly homosexual men.
If God made gays for a reason, it might be to be some of the great artists and creators.
I know many gays don’t at all fit this stereotype, but I agree with Camille Paglia that many gay men have a psychology that seems to mix the best elements of the male and female persona (gays are not women trapped in men’s bodies; gay men have just as much testosterone as straights, which will always give them a strong degree of psychological “maleness”).
Even though I hate most of the music from American Idol this young man (probably homosexual) has that male/female creative dynamic (ala Freddie Mercury) that I am referring to. Anyone else see it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhsiMHgytzw
Report comment to moderator
Therefore what? I’d argue that it’s a more realistic policy prescription to say let gays be gay but demand responsibility than say either convert to heterosexuality or be celibate.
In other words, assuming the orientation is not chosen but the behavior is, it’s more realistic to expect gays to choose a responsible homosexual lifestyle than to expect gays to choose a heterosexual lifestyle or celibacy.
Report comment to moderator
#27: Many self identified heterosexuals have some kind of incidental bisexuality.
Or just tried straight sex to see if they could “pass”.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t believe you can expect a large proportion of the homosexual community to adopt practices unless they want to. After all its up to them to understand the risks, and avoid them.
I don’t equate smoking with sex. However, millions upon millions of people smoke in this country, knowing full well that it can result in lung cancer, or bladder cancer, ….. but that does not stop them from smoking.
Again you can take those who drink to excess, it can result in many diseases which will eventually cause death, but does that always stop them?
A vast part of our population in very overweight, or obese, knowing full well that their excess weight, fat and sugar consumption will have an effect on their life….. that would include heart disease, and cancer, just to name two.
People do what they choose, knowing full well the risks involved.
I believe those who choose to endanger their lives, making medical costs very high, due to their behavior should be made to pay a very high premium to help defray the costs of medical treatment. It’s not fair or just, that those who do not indulge in lifestyles which cause massive medical expense be made to pay for those who could care less, and live as though their lifestyle had no consequences.
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
I am not good with numbers, so I can’t explain it using statistical language, but maybe it’s proportional? Is it that of the male homosexual population (small though it is), more get HIV (proportionally) than within the pool of smokers:lung cancer? I don’t think Amphipolis is necessarily relating the numbers to the population as a whole, but within their respective subsets of the population.
Report comment to moderator
Musing -
Looking at it again, I think we are both wrong. We would need more information on the rates of AIDS and lung cancer in the general population to compare the odds or say that they are far worse. We are comparing apples and oranges.
Report comment to moderator
According to the psychiatrist, Jeffrey Satinover, back in 1981 when AIDS, originally Gay Realated Immune Deficiency [GRID], became proving itself inevitably fatal, many thought homosexual men would react swiftly to to the danger to health and survival engendered by their way of life.
Instead, the gay community mobilized politically to get the name for the disease changed to AIDS and to protect homosexuality as as a perfectly acceptable,normal, and safe way of life.
While the disease has now spread to promiscuous heterosexuals, originally through contact with homosexuals, it is fair to term the disease primarily a gay one, as the above numbers from Africa prove.
Report comment to moderator
Unfortunately, this story will be used as another excuse to verbally bash gays on here. On the one hand, conservative Christians denigrate gays for being promiscuous. On the other hand, they denigrate gays for wanting stable relationships. And that’s their point – they get to denigrate us now matter what we do. God forbid that gays should be allowed to live normal, decent lives. Nevermind the fact that the vast majority of us do exactly that in spite of the constant bashing by conservative Christians.
This story isn’t even worth commenting on because it’s being used solely to denigrate us, not to increase understanding or compassion.
Report comment to moderator
#34: Unfortunately, this story will be used as another excuse to verbally bash gays on here.
Yea, but they do it in “God’s Name” from a lofty soapbox.
You know that the millions of married Americans that belong to swing clubs put comdoms out like chips and dip at their swingers orgies? I hear they are even flavored.
Report comment to moderator
AIDS/HIV has cost this country and others millions of dollars. When it was first discovered, early 80’s it became the biggest health issue. The homosexuals at that time knew how it was transmitted, THEY WERE TOLD, and how they could avoid getting the disease and giving it to others. However, that didn’t stop the spread….maybe for a few, but the disease spread and the cost soared. The DEMANDS by the homosexual community to find a cure, and vaccine were never ending. Nothing could be done fast enough to find a cure, while those who could prevent the very spread of the disease, continued their lifestyle.
Many raised millions of dollars to find a cure to stop the disease, …… blood was given by those with the disease, and then transferred to unsuspecting ill patients who needed blood. As I remember those who gave blood could be paid for doing so. Children who suffered from blood disease, who needed transfusions contracted AIDS, what a nightmare.
So now, after almost 26 years the homosexual community is admitting that in fact it is a homosexual disease. This in itself is a good thing, to accept responsibility for the spread of HIV/AIDS. A cure will continue to be sought in hopes that those who have the disease will be cured.
”””””””” One can only look at the ‘Festivals of last year’ in San Francisco to understand how fast and furious this epidemic has spread with unbridled ‘careless’ attitudes . . . . and not just ‘that Festival’ but hundreds of others.
”””””””” My question is “what is the homosexual community doing to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS, what is their plan, other than to wait for a cure?” A cure many never come to fruition, just as there is no cure for some forms of cancer.
Report comment to moderator
“On the other hand, they denigrate gays for wanting stable relationships.”
No one is preventing you from having a stable relationship. Some of just don’t think it can be called a marriage.
Report comment to moderator
Musing wrote: “Joel Mark: I am a bit bewildered with this recent spate of agreements between us!”
Musing, it is in the nature of blogging that we tend to gravitate to disagreement. It is nice to enjoy some agreemenbt. In the big picture, we would probably agree on a lot of things and like each other if we met.
All the best to you.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG – 18, “Would you not agree though, that a promiscuous heterosexual is at more risk of HIV than a monogamous homosexual?”
I honestly don’t know. Both are at risk. A monogamous homosexual does have to worry about the possible pormiscuity of their homosexual partner and that can involve a higher than average risk. But I will say that a promiscuous heterosexual is every bit as much a sinner as a homosexual counterpart.
Report comment to moderator
#36: One can only look at the ‘Festivals of last year’ in San Francisco
Or the giant orgy convention in Florida and in Las Vegas. Oh, sorry, those were swinger’s “Convention”. I guess when they are called, “Convention” and they are not gay, they aren’t as tacky.
Report comment to moderator
Of course, one must also take into account that the first reaction to AIDS from conservative Christians was “It’s the judgement of God!”, not compassion, help, or understanding.
It was primarily our lesbian sisters who took up the care of their gay brothers with AIDS. We, in the gay community learned how to care for our own. And we knew the best ways to slow the spread of the disease. But our conservative Christian friends, and the Reagan administration in particular, fought us tooth and nail due to their squeemishness and plain old anti-gay bigotry. To this day, they still fight it.
No, our conservative Christian friends have a long, long ways to go before we will forgive them for turning their backs on us in our hour of need, for their self-righteous judgemental finger pointing, for their anti-gay bigotry. This article is just a continuation of that.
One wishes for better, but realistically knows that when it comes to gays, WorldMag and it’s readers have a gigantitic blind spot that will never go away.
Report comment to moderator
This is not entirely true and needs perspective. When it first appeared this disease was called, as PL noted, “GRID,” and mainstream heterosexual society really didn’t give a hoot, showing little if any concern or desire to “educate” gays on how to stop the disease. Their attitidue seemed, “if gays do what they do, they get what they get, so be it.” Take for instance, the utter silence from the Reagan administration on the matter. That’s why many gays think of C. Everett Koop as a hero because he put his conscience above right wing political correctness coming from the Christian Right at that time that said be silent about the disease and don’t you dare promote condoms.
Only when first Rock Hudson and then heterosexual hemophiliacs started coming down with the disease, and when people started to be convinced that this wasn’t just a *gay* disease did public concern mount.
In America, AIDS is vastly disproportionately a gay disease. But around the world it isn’t. It’s only in hindsight that experts have learned that folks like Michael Fumento (who claimed AIDS never would greatly impact heterosexuals in the West) were right.
And it still puzzles many experts why AIDS is so easily spread among so many heterosexuals in Africa but not in the West.
Report comment to moderator
I’m almost positive that if you analyze the history you’ll see that infected blood was donated BEFORE the first million dollars was ever raised to right the disease. By the time the public concered concluded AIDS was something that heterosexuals should worry about, gays were already banned from giving blood, and blood used in transfusions were screened for HIV.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry for the sloppy words. This should have read:
I’m almost positive that if you analyze the history you’ll see that the infected blood was donated BEFORE the first million dollars was ever raised to Fight the disease. By the time public concern concluded AIDS was something that heterosexuals should worry about, gays were already banned from giving blood, and blood used in transfusions was screened for HIV.
Report comment to moderator
- 40 -
This thread is about homosexuals taking responsibility for a disease which has killed many people, and the spread continues from a homosexual lifestyle.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir – 41
You have no clue as to who did what!
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
You can only speak for yourself and what YOU did.
Millions and millions of dollars were raised right away for a cure for AIDS. Our friends were holding huge ‘fund-raisers’ for research, YOU have no idea of what many did.
Report comment to moderator
No Victoria. I do have an idea because I am well read on the subject. I don’t deny that gays continued to have unprotected sex which spread AIDS after huge funds were raised. But you are wrong that this all occured right away. Ronald Reagan didn’t even mention AIDS until after his Presidency was over. It was around the GHWB administration that the $$ for the research started to pile in. And by that time, gays were banned from donating blood and such blood was screened. If I am wrong, prove it with sources.
The worst of AIDS was spread in the gay community in the 70s before anyone knew what was going on, before the virus was identified.
Report comment to moderator
Jon
Private money was raised for research right after the annoucements were made regarding AIDS. We lived in the S.F. area, I read the story when it came out in the San Francisco Times Sunday Edition. It was a very long article, maybe 10 pages long.
Many people up and down the West Coast were doing what they could, you don’t know all the facts Jon.
Report comment to moderator
And it’s homosexuals who get the disease who bear the brunt of the cost. And I’m not talking $$ and cents, I’m talking about living with the disease.
Compare that to what heterosexuals do: Divorce, abortions, and out of wedlock births. All three of these, unlike homosexuality and AIDS, bear costs on innocent 3rd parties. If one believes abortion is murder, irresponsible heterosexual sex leads to murder. And divorce and out of wedlock births, unlike homosexuality and AIDS, have drastic social costs, instead of mere health costs. Go to any neighborhood where homosexuality is the norm and the property values tend to be higher, they are some of the most livable neighborhoods in the nation. You can not name a squalid gayborhood in America. Like smoking, irresponsible homosexual sex leads to health consequences without disrupting the social order.
Go to neighborhoods where out of wedlock births, on the other hand, are the norm and you see social chaos.
The point is clear and irrefutable: Irresponsible heterosexual sex is far worse than irresponsible homosexual sex.
Report comment to moderator
Private money was raised for research right after the annoucements were made regarding AIDS. We lived in the S.F. area, I read the story when it came out in the San Francisco Times Sunday Edition. It was a very long article, maybe 10 pages long.
This is irrelevant to the point. The $$ raised before GHWB took office was penny ante. And it was probably raised by gays or friends of gays chiefly. Of course the gay community was concerned off the bat, and many folks were confused as to what to do. There was a time when gay folks like Randy Shilts were giving the proper advice but a mixture of heterosexual apathy and homosexual desire to maintain their promiscuous life style led to the needless spread of the disease.
The way you told the story was that gays were out spreading the disease and giving blood, knowing what they were doing, while the taxpayer was raising millions to fight AIDS. And that just wasn’t accurate.
Blood banks weren’t stupid. It didn’t take them too long to realize that they better start screening for AIDS. The overwhelming majority of horror stories took place before the authorities knew there was a problem.
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
You and others will blame everyone but those who continued to engage in homosexual sex….. AFTER they found out they had the disease and how to prevent its spread.
If you think that all the money people raised was just “penny ante” you insult the very people who were trying to help. Have you ever given any thought to those biting the hand that holds theirs to the suffering, and then is ‘told off’ and ‘ridiculed’ …
I don’t ever remember homosexuals saying “Thank you” to anyone for helping. What I have heard is, no one did enough, etc.,
You can discuss this by yourself, your anger won’t make anything better, or solve one single ounce on this subject.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria at #45: This thread is about homosexuals taking responsibility for a disease which has killed many people, and the spread continues from a homosexual lifestyle.
Right. When conservatives talk about AIDS, making sure the homosexuals know it’s all their fault and that they are filthy sinners is always what it’s about.
Report comment to moderator
Anger doesn’t cure disease,
Anger doesn’t cure sin,
Anger won’t make anyone happy,
it’s a fruitless endeavor which man uses to bolster his ego and blame anyone else but HIMSELF!
Report comment to moderator
From Victoria: you don’t know all the facts
She never let facts get in the way before.
From Victoria: you insult the very people who were trying to help
The things she says about gays, hopefully, she doesn’t consider herself one of those who “want to help”. I think the only help she would give is to find a “dry matchstick”.
From Victoria: I don’t ever remember homosexuals saying “Thank you” to anyone for helping
Funny, considering how much the gays have contributed to this country and the evangelicals has benefited in every field art, science, literature, architecture, and entertainment. And how little the evangelicals have contributed, you would think they would have said a word of thanks to their gay children. Even their churches are filled with art created by gays. So far, their only word of thanks have been, “burn”. Now, where is that match?
You know what is really funny to people like Victoria? Since gays aren’t allowed to get married, all of them have to pay taxes as single people. They have no say how their tax money is spent. They pay a huge proportion compared to their tiny numbers. They are basically taxed without representation. Yet, when they try to get a little government money, people like Victoria scream that she doesn’t want HER tax money going to these heathens. Sure, some money goes to help gays with AIDS, but only a tiny percentage of what gays actually pay. Most goes to whatever the government decides. Using it on the military, where gays aren’t allowed. People like Victoria want no legal protections for gays of any kind. I think she can’t admit it to herself, but doesn’t their suffering make you smile a little, in private? Just a little?
Report comment to moderator
You will never know what some have given to help the HIV/AIDS situation. You would be ASTOUNDED if you were ever prevy to how much we cared.
Report comment to moderator
No one can smile at suffering,
Not one person can joy in sorrow,
There is no hope in sin, or its destruction,
No laughter or joy in suffering,
Only pain in the heart of those watching,
a life destroyed by sin and unyielding,
to GOD its creator . . .
Report comment to moderator
a life destroyed by sin and unyielding,
Or, better yet,
a life destroyed by actions of those who hate people they don’t know and have no interaction with over imagined sins based on the prejudice of a primative desert people who lived thousands of years ago in a land far away. People who believed in the occult.
Report comment to moderator
HIV/AIDS is a disease. We all help to cure it in our own way simply because someone is sick, whether RDean or Anlir understand that or not.
For Anlir to say that homosexuals knew the best way to stop the advance of the disease and then turn around and blame Christians for the disease still advancing is to deny the truth. The best way to stop the advance of the disease is to not engage in certain behaviors. It sounds harsh, but Victoria is right. The overwhelming number of HIV/Aids patients contracted the disease because they don’t want to look at their own behavior. Even if every Christian condemned the homosexual community and did nothing, the truth is, the disease did not have to advance. The ability to stop its advance was within the homosexual community all along: stop engaging in risky behavior. It’s simple common sense. They didn’t do that. It isn’t the fault of Christians that they didn’t.
People in the news this very day are applauding GWB’ efforts in Africa with respect to HIV/Aids. Can Anlir? Can RDean? Can SteveG? I doubt it. They’re still making arguments for why homosexuals shouldn’t own their own actions.
Report comment to moderator
Can Anlir? Can RDean? Can SteveG? I doubt it. They’re still making arguments for why homosexuals shouldn’t own their own actions.
Whoa. Don’t put me in that group. How do you figure?
Report comment to moderator
#59: People in the news this very day are applauding GWB’ efforts in Africa with
Bush is once again wasting millions. When they should be passing out free condoms and explaining what the disease is, how it’s caught and how it can be prevented, instead, Bush, in an orgy of freaky tardation, cut funding to anyone that hands out condoms or advocates birth control of any type. If this has changed, then it was very recent.
Of course, the reason Bush did this was because of pressure from American Christians.
He tried to do it in this country and couldn’t. Bush doesn’t care about those people. Neither do Christians. If they did, they would be sending tons of condoms with actual facts and not just “don’t have sex cuz God doesn’t like it”.
Get real now.
Report comment to moderator
“The best way to stop the advance of the disease is to not engage in certain behaviors. It sounds harsh….”
This is NOT harsh; this is what the gay community has been saying for years. Don’t have promiscuous unsafe sex outside of relationships. Always use condoms, Be Faithful to your partner and get tested. If gays did this, the disease would greatly halt in that community.
Report comment to moderator
#59: They’re still making arguments for why homosexuals shouldn’t own their own actions.
Actually, in the more educated and those with close family ties, the number of new AIDS cases have severely dropped.
Where it happens is among less educated, those on the down low, intravenous drug users, teens thrown out of their houses for being “discovered”.
Blacks are only 12% of the population but make up 39% of new cases. In some cities, women account for more than a third of the new cases which is disturbing since it wasn’t that long ago that all the cases were gays.
In LA, it was only a year or so ago that they saw the first increase in the percentage of people getting AIDS since 1992. One half of one percent. It was also among whites.
However, nationwide, the rate is up 17%. Funny in areas where real sex education is taught, the rate goes down. To keep funding limited to “abstinence only” programs is probably one of the reasons AIDS is spreading again. It’s punishment for having sex outside of marriage. I can feel the compassion.
There are a million of these types of reports.
Kaiser Daily HIV/AIDS Report
AIDS cases in Washington state are increasing faster in Pierce and Kitsap counties than in the rest of the state, and the increases are mainly among women, minorities and the poor, the Tacoma News Tribune reports.
Report comment to moderator
Maybe you stay cooped up, and avoid outside contact, newspapers, and TV.
There isn’t a kid over the age of 12 (or younger) that doesn’t know about HIV/AIDS or how it’s transmitted. Condoms aren’t the answer, as those who have the disease and transmit it to others are mainly 18 and over, they understand what they are and where to buy them. They don’t live in a vacunm, if they did, they wouldn’t be able to go out on the street and pass the disease along to anyone they had sex with.
Report comment to moderator
This doesn’t make sense. People don’t use condoms when they should. So maybe condoms ARE the answer. It’s far more realistic to expect a homosexually oriented person to behave responsibly in a healthy outlet for his sexuality than to expect him to not be gay, convert to heterosexuality or be celibate.
Report comment to moderator
If condoms were the answer, and the homosexuals didn’t want to contract the disease or spread it, they would USE THEM! What a novel idea.
Report comment to moderator
Where is this ignorance coming from?
#64: There isn’t a kid over the age of 12 (or younger) that doesn’t know about HIV/AIDS or how it’s transmitted.
Yea, here. But Bush is spending this money in Africa. Hello. Many there believe that having sex with a virgin can cure AIDS. That’s why BABY GIRLS have been raped. Does this sound even close to knowing about HIV/AIDS. Sheesh.
Report comment to moderator
Rdean
Millions upon millions of dollars are spent to educate those in Africa, and to give free medication to those with HIV/AIDS.
Ever hear of Samaritan’s Purse? They have a very LARGE operation in Africa to educate and administer free medication.
Bush isn’t the problem, mans inability to control himself is the issue here.
What do you want Rdean, babysitters to walk around with every single homosexual, or those who are infected, both in this country and abroad, with condoms in a bag, read to assist those who are homosexual.
What are YOU doing to educate, and give out condoms?
Report comment to moderator
Jon
If you feel that CONDOMS are the answer and many homosexuals might agree with you. WHY don’t homosexuals take the inititive and hand them out to those in areas where many homosexuals frequent clubs, etc?
Report comment to moderator
RDean, if a person, homosexual or not, has the HIV virus, isn’t the decent thing, the proper thing, the right thing, for that person NOT to pass it on? I think so. When this disease was known as GRID (see above post for definition), had those persons who were infected not continued to engage in conduct which passed along the virus, HIV would have died out — much like ebola.
You assert that homosexuals are intelligent people. I’m not seeing it. They have the way to stop the disease — they’ve ALWAYS had it — yet here we are with more and more homosexuals becoming infected. How stupid is that?
Report comment to moderator
(Please note that I’m only picking on RDean.)
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer: Due to the long incubation period, it’s very likely that HIV had already spread to large number of people before any resulting illness was even noticed, and it was several more years before the medical community really understood what was happening and how to prevent it.
You should read Randy Shilts’ And The Band Played On. It’s quite illuminating about those early years.
I do object to your saying I am “making arguments for why homosexuals shouldn’t own their own actions.” I’m doing no such thing. But I do think that in the early years, and especially in the years when the virus was dormant but spreading invisibly, it’s unreasonable to think that anyone should have somehow known and stopped it.
Report comment to moderator
Rdean,
NOW that everyone knows what HIV/AIDS is, its reasonable that those who practice homosexual sex take responsibility for their lifestyle. It’s now been MANY YEARS and the disease goes on, and on.
If homosexuals had ‘owned up’ to their actions even 15 years ago, the disease would not have spread to point it is today. But that isn’t what happened.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry post 73 should have been to Steveg
Report comment to moderator
They DO. Gay bars and other clubs frequently give out condoms for free. If someone really cares enought — at least if they live in a big metro city — they probably don’t have to pay for condoms, they can just go to community health organizations which give them otu for free.
And many gay folks do regularly use them. Remember it’s not “gays” the majority of whom are not promiscuous and do use condoms but a sizable MINORITY of them in their community who don’t.
Report comment to moderator
Ooops. My blockquotes got reversed in the above post.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, I’m aware of the incubation period. Nevertheless, while it is not as “easy” to contain as ebola (the symptoms show up rather quickly!), at some point, the test became available and yes, HIV could have been contained. For it to resurge the way it has is irresponsible on the part of those people who engage in risky behavior. There’s no excuse now and there hasn’t been for quite some time.
The truth is, whether it is HIV or smoking or obesity or a host of other diseases, every last one of us “knows,” but we don’t take the steps to stop. With HIV you pass it on to others. Basic common decency says you don’t do that. I’m not saying I have no sympathy. I do, just as I have sympathy for the smoker who has lung cancer. It serves no purpose to point fingers at a sick person. That’s not what’s needed. But what we all have to learn, in every aspect of our lives, is personal responsiblity. That HIV/Aids is not under control in this country is not the fault of Christians or the government, but rather those who engage in irresponsible conduct. It is simply unfair to blame others.
Jon Rowe, I was picking on RDean with “how stupid is that?” because he has no concept of personal responsibility. He blames everything on the Christians and the government. I remember reading “The Hot Zone” at least ten, maybe 15 years ago, which was an account of how they controlled certain ebola outbreaks in Mannheim, Germany and Reston, Virginia. It’s a copout to say “In theory yes, in practice easier said than done.” If I had a deadly infectious disease that I could transmit to you just by touching you, it would be incumbent upon me to avoid you like the plague, whatever the cost, even if it meant living in total isolation. (And when it comes to adultery, men or women, all it takes is guts to say no and not engage in that irresponsible behavior.) It may all be easier said than done, but it CAN be done and it should be done. Unless you are prepared to literally isolate those infected with HIV, it has to be done by those infected, and they should step up to the plate. They should own it.
Report comment to moderator
Really, who do these comments help?
Does it make the victims suffer less?
Does it make the immunologists and volunteers work harder?
Does it make promiscuous people less promiscuous?
Will it make the apathetic people more sympathetic?
I don’t see the functional value of making the statement that “HIV is a gay disease”, especially when you consider the fact that many people, who have HIV and keep passing it on, do not identify themselves as being gay (or even bi), even if they have sexual relations with people of the same sex. So, even if you tell them that HIV is a gay disease, they’ll just say, “So what? I’m straight.”
If homosexuals had ‘owned up’ to their actions even 15 years ago, the disease would not have spread to point it is today. But that isn’t what happened.
Part of the issue is education. 15 years ago, where I lived, teachers couldn’t even mention homosexuality in schools. So while the government school system was happy to promote safe sex practices to heterosexuals, there was no safe sex message sent to young homosexuals. None.
Sure, people can get such information elsewhere (but who does when you’re in school and still in the closet?), but it seems ironic that the school systems actively refused to acknowledge the high risk behaviours of the high risk minority.
Even to this day, the thought of mandatory safe homosexual (and even safe heterosexual) sex education in schools makes people dive for the valium, even though such programs could save lives.
Report comment to moderator
The information, the HIV/AIDS epedimic was/is in every newspaper across the country, not to mention magazines and last but not least the INTERNET. Most kids use the internet, they know what the disease is and how its spread.
Most kids know how to use the computer and the internet better than their parents. Put a kid in front of one, ask them to look something up, and they will be happy to show you. Schools have computers, they teach the kids how to use them.
Schools don’t need to tell kids in 7th and 8th grade about AIDS, the kids already know what it is.
AIDS/HIV is not a secret disease to anyone above the age of 10.
Report comment to moderator
AIDS isn’t quite like this. If it were infectious like the chicken pox, then we would rightly quarantine people who had it.
I agree that folks who know they are HIV + have a responsibility not to spread the disease to unwitting partners. However, 1) many folks aren’t aware of their status. Lots of young gays want to have fun and live in denial; a positive test result would ruin their world. And 2) some HIV + folks might argue, hey, this person isn’t stupid, he knows the risks of gay sex, if he doesn’t demand a condom then he’s assuming the risk, so why should I say anything to ruin the moment. Again, I don’t agree with this line of thought. But, unless rape is involved, an HIV- person can always demand condoms whenever he has sex with a partner whose HIV status is unknown.
If an HIV+ person knowingly has unprotected sex with a partner who may be negative, he certainly has “fault” if the other person seroconverts, but it’s also the partly the fault of the uninfected person for allowing the unprotected sex to happen.
Report comment to moderator
Determined ignorance. Must be very comforting. You guys go on and on about “homosexuals”. You want so bad to believe it’s a gay disease. Pathetic.
The vast majority of AIDS carriers World Wide are heterosexuals. NOTHING to do with gays.
Like I said in an earlier post, some cities are reporting that more than a third of the new cases are women. From zero to a substantial percentage and it hasn’t been that long. And they are not getting it from gays. At the beginning of the AIDS epidemic, every single case was a gay. That’s because it spread for years through the gay community before anyone knew what it was. The disease is spreading through the straight community. It won’t be long before gays will once again be in the minority in this country.
Check this out from the US Department of Health:
Worldwide, more than 90 percent of all adolescent and adult HIV infections have resulted from heterosexual intercourse. Women are particularly vulnerable to heterosexual transmission of HIV due to substantial mucosal exposure to seminal fluids. This biological fact amplifies the risk of HIV transmission when coupled with the high prevalence of non-consensual sex, sex without condom use, and the unknown and/or high-risk behaviors of their partners.
From the US AIDS Health Center:
The number of women with HIV and AIDS in the United States is steadily rising. From 1985 to 1996, the proportion of reported U.S. AIDS cases occurring among women increased from 7 percent to 20 percent. HIV infection is now the third leading cause of death among women ages 25 to 44 and the leading cause of death among black women in this age group.
From HRSA:
The primary exposure category for women living with AIDS in 2004 was heterosexual contact, which accounted for 63.7 percent of cases. The proportion of cases attributable to heterosexual contact increased by 52.3 percent from 2000 to 2004.
When was the last time any of you smart mouths were tested? Huh Vicky?
Report comment to moderator
(The article below, very enlightening_
Top “Gay” Organization Comes Clean:
http://www dot freerepublic dot com/focus/f-news/1970496/posts
Report comment to moderator
(BELOW, excerpts from ANNOUNCEMENT)
Top “Gay” Organization Comes Clean: “HIV is a gay disease.”
February 14, 2008
Posted on 02/14/2008 1:56:50 PM PST by NYer
p>WASHINGTON, February 14, 2008
“A little over a year ago, Lorri Jean, CEO of the Los Angeles-based Gay and Lesbian Center, similarly shocked the “gay” community by stating that, “HIV is a Gay Disease. Own it. End it.”
“Foreman’s admission comes on the heels of a letter from Matt Barber, Concerned Women for America’s (CWA) Policy Director for Cultural Issues, inviting Foreman and other homosexual activists to work together in discouraging homosexuals from engaging in the high-risk behaviors researchers recently determined are responsible for the epidemic spread of a potentially deadly strain of staph infection among certain segments of the “gay” community. The CDC has acknowledged that many of those same high-risk behaviors, such as male-male anal sex, are chiefly responsible for spreading HIV/AIDS.”
Report comment to moderator
Remember from the above article:
Fine here is my advise. If gay men want to be promiscuous, they should only have oral not anal sex. Oral sex is btw, the most common behavior that gay men practice anyway. Anal sex if had at all, should be saved for relationships, after an HIV test, and still condoms should always be used.
While gay men are courting and before the relationship has cemented, they should only have oral sex and do other things as substitutes for anal sex.
Do the other folks here agree that this is proper behavior that gay men should choose?
Report comment to moderator
Check out where you get your statistics and where I get mine:
Mine come from:
US Department of Health
US AIDS Health Center
HRSA (Health Resources and Service Administration)
Yours come from:
Free Republic
This is a partial sentence on their home page:
shortly after the terrorist attack on America on September 11, 2001. Later, as the inevitable war against Iraq drew closer
Somehow the jump from 9/11 to “inevitable war on Iraq”. Even Bush says he doesn’t know where Americans got the idea there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq (HE was the connection, but will never admit it).
The site says anyone against the war is a “useful idiot”. Hello, the majority of Americans are against the war.
Statement by the founder of Free Republic:
In our continuing fight for freedom, for America and our constitution and against totalitarianism, socialism, tyranny, terrorism, etc., Free Republic stands firmly on the side of right, i.e., the conservative side.
This is the kind of Research Victoria does. From a right wing propaganda site. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?
Report comment to moderator
“When was the last time any of you smart mouths were tested? Huh Vicky?”
What on earth is that supposed to mean?
Report comment to moderator
George – 88
Some people don’t know any better. They play a childish game of ‘transference’ which has never worked in the adult world. They figure if they have a problem, everyone else is in the ’same boat’……
Report comment to moderator
#88: What on earth is that supposed to mean?
Exactly what it says. You guys want to make AIDS a gay disease. It is certainly one of the ways you promote your sick need to discriminate against people who are different than you.
As I pointed out, worldwide 90% of the people with AIDS are heterosexual.
In this country, it used to be all the people with AIDS were gay, now, it’s the third leading cause of death among women 25 to 44. For every woman who got AIDS through sex, there is a straight man that also has AIDS.
At the rate it’s spreading in the straight community, it will far outnumber the number in the gay community. The progression will be a function, it won’t be linear. It will happen. It’s unavoidable without education.
Once the vast majority of Americans with AIDS are hetro, will it still be a “gay” disease.
If you haven’t, you might want to go out and get tested. All of you. The next time you go for a checkup, ask for an HIV test.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer at #78: The truth is, whether it is HIV or smoking or obesity or a host of other diseases, every last one of us “knows,” but we don’t take the steps to stop. With HIV you pass it on to others. Basic common decency says you don’t do that. I’m not saying I have no sympathy. I do, just as I have sympathy for the smoker who has lung cancer. It serves no purpose to point fingers at a sick person. That’s not what’s needed. But what we all have to learn, in every aspect of our lives, is personal responsiblity. That HIV/Aids is not under control in this country is not the fault of Christians or the government, but rather those who engage in irresponsible conduct. It is simply unfair to blame others.
I completely agree that people who know they have HIV have a responsibility not to spread it, and those who know, or even suspect, that they have a risk of it have a responsibility to be tested and find out, and then act accordingly.
My agreement with that is why I objected to your earlier characterization.
However, I do maintain that when I hear conservative Christians talk about this issue, I hear a lot more interest in assigning blame than in alleviating suffering. This thread has been no exception to that.
Report comment to moderator
Rdean
The CDC says its a GAY DISEASE….however I’m sure they haven’t checked with you lately, I wonder WHY!
Report comment to moderator
However, I do maintain that when I hear conservative Christians talk about this issue, I hear a lot more interest in assigning blame than in alleviating suffering. This thread has been no exception to that.
See #92 for an example.
Report comment to moderator
STEVEG,
The blame for HIV/AIDS is with the homosexual community.
Helping those who are suffering is being done by many groups, but I have never heard ‘ONE SINGLE WORD’ from the homosexual community as to the support from Believers in any way shape or form as ‘THANK YOU’ - Maybe you should check all resources.
It’s not that those who are Believers expect anything in return, but we sure don’t expect to be chastised for not helping when WE DID. It’s old now, and you may find that people are very tired of the endless rhetoric.
Report comment to moderator
Those of you who are angry trying to blame others for a lifestyle which has brought pain and sorrow……..give some thought to how much we cared, we prayed. If you still feel we are just a bunch of garbage, look at what has continued to spread among those you say you love. Why on earth do you not help them, and seek to stop this hideous disease.
Report comment to moderator
“You guys” — Rdean
“All of you” — Rdean
Generalize much?
Consider how this diminishes the credibility of anything you have to say?
Caute,
SG
Report comment to moderator
Sorry Victoria, but you don’t come off as a believer who has supported the gay community in its suffering from AIDS. Some believers do, and they have been thanked by the gay community, for instance, C. Everett Koop, who was a disciple of Francis Schaffer’s. Or to take a more timely example, Bono, who is a devout Christian and AIDS activist is appreciated by the gay community. If you showned more real compassion and concern like they did, perhaps the gay community would be more grateful to believers such as yourself.
Report comment to moderator
“All of you, you guys”
You know who you are. The Victoria Phelps crowd.
WorldWide AIDS is 90% straight. Does that make it a gay disease?
When it first started here in this country, it was ALL gay, but the straights are racing to catch up. When the vast majority infected are straight, will it still be a “gay” disease?
#94: The blame for HIV/AIDS is with the homosexual community.
AIDS started in Africa and yet, in Victoria’s limited intellect, the blame is with the gays. 90% infected worldwide are straight and in Victoria’s myopic world vision, the blame is in the gay community.
In spite of these facts, AIDS is a gay disease according to Victoria’s questionable wisdom. There is obviously more going on here than meets the eye. Somehow, Victoria has had some type of experience with a gay or gays that have left her damaged, delusional or deranged whenever they are discussed. Perhaps some family member came out to her and was disowned by the rest of the family? A boy she liked came out and left her bitter? Her boyfriend left her for another dude? Her girlfriend left her? Except for Christians, most adults don’t have time to be so fixated on people they don’t know. It’s all so very odd.
Report comment to moderator
Well, it’s all so funny about “help” from the believers.
First all, gays can’t get married so they are taxed all their lives as “single”. They have no say where their tax money goes. If the gays tax money went to gays and gay causes at the same percentage straights tax money goes to schools, education and tax breaks for families, all sick gays would be taken care of. They wouldn’t need to beg the government for a sliver to help sick gays. People like Victoria want none of her money going to gays and what’s worse, no gay money either. They just assume all tax money belongs to straights. And, according to the law, it does.
I don’t know how many people have disowned a gay child? When that child dies, they show up to claim whatever that child owned? How many straights have taken a surviving gay partner to court to strip them of everything they can?
I guess in Victoria’s mind, gays should be thankful. Thankful they weren’t burned alive or beheaded.
Report comment to moderator
Rdean – POST 98
This has gone to far, this is a PERSONAL ATTACK against me, which is untrue, not to mention VICIOUS.
This needs to stop, NOW. No one should have to put up with this type of VERBAL, WRITTEN/POSTING, ABUSE.
You can can add Post 99 as PERSONAL ABUSE AS WELL.
Report comment to moderator
This has been loged and copied. There is no excuse for anyone to post this kind of accusation against another person.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, every post you’ve written in this thread has dripped with scorn and revulsion toward homosexuals, and you’ve made sure to make it clear all through that, to you, AIDS is “a gay disease!” (#92)
RDean has posted some relevant facts about its prevalence among heterosexuals worldwide, and growing in America, which you’ve ignored.
There’s no personal attack in that.
Report comment to moderator
#36: The homosexuals at that time knew how it was transmitted, THEY WERE TOLD
#36: blood was given by those with the disease, and then transferred to unsuspecting ill patients
#36: Children who suffered from blood disease, who needed transfusions contracted AIDS
#36: after almost 26 years the homosexual community is admitting that in fact it is a homosexual disease
#36: fast and furious this epidemic has spread with unbridled ‘careless’ attitudes
#36: This thread is about homosexuals taking responsibility for a disease which has killed many people
#52: You and others will blame everyone but those who continued to engage in homosexual sex
#64: they wouldn’t be able to go out on the street and pass the disease along to anyone they had sex with.
#73: If homosexuals had ‘owned up’ to their actions even 15 years ago, the disease would not have spread to point it is today
#94: The blame for HIV/AIDS is with the homosexual community.
SHAME SHAME SHAME ON YOU PEOPLE. Read the gist of the awful things that Victoria writes and not a single slanderous word is called into question on this site. According to her, AIDS is a gay disease, in spite of the fact that 90% of AIDS patient’s worldwide are straight. The groups that are growing the most in this country are straight. BUT IT’S ALL THE FAULT OF THE GAYS.
First she says that gays all knew from the beginning how it was spread and went out knowingly infecting other people where it ended up in unsuspecting hospital patients and children. KNOWINGLY SPREADING AIDS IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE. Awful Victoria is slandering these people and accusing them of engaging in reckless criminal behavior and suggesting they purposely give blood they know is infected with HIV. What kind of person is she? And then, after all this nasty slander and accusation, she has the nerve and gall to feel she is being “attacked”. Well, doesn’t that just take the cake????????????????
Why don’t you log that?
Report comment to moderator
RDean, instead of going after Victoria, why don’t you read the words posted in the original post, to wit:
“Internally, when these numbers come out, the “established” gay community seems to have a collective shrug as if this isn’t our problem. Folks, with 70 percent of the people in this country living with HIV being gay or bi, we cannot deny that HIV is a gay disease. We have to own that and face up to that.”
What people give off a “collective shrug” as if it “isn’t our problem? Answer: the established homosexual community.
What group of people accounts for 70–yes, 70! percent of the AIDS cases in the US? Answer: the established homosexual community.
Who has to own that? the established homosexual community.
Why doesn’t the established homosexual community take responsibility for its actions? Because it wants to continue its irresponsible behavior. They owe to their own, they owe it to everyone else having set this disease in motion to have the courage to own it, to mend their ways and set an example by leading the way in conducting themselves RESPONSIBLY.
You can spend billions seeking a cure, but you already have one: stop engaging in irresponsible behavior.
RDean, stop blaming everyone else for what the homosexuals unleashed in this country. And once you admit that, THEN we’ll talk about the rest of world. Just think what we could do with the money we’ve spent on AIDS if the homosexuals had contained the disease early on.
Report comment to moderator
And just so you know, RDean, I’m single, I pay the single tax rate and I have no say in where my tax money goes either.
Report comment to moderator
(PLEASE NOTE: this information is from the CDC. Going to this site, you will see graphs which will give ‘exact’ numbers of those infected with HIV/AIDS etc.)
Sexual Risk Factors
Sexual risk factors account for most HIV infections in MSM. These factors include unprotected sex and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).
- Having anal sex without a condom continues to be a significant threat to the health of MSM [6]. Unprotected anal sex (barebacking) with casual partners is an increasing concern. Not all the reasons for an apparent increase in unprotected anal intercourse are known, but research points to the following factors: optimism about improved HIV treatment, substance use, complex sexual decision making, seeking sex partners on the Internet, and failure to practice safer sex [7]. Some of these men may be serosorting, or only having sex (or unprotected sex) with a partner whose HIV serostatus, they believe, is the same as their own. Although serosorting between MSM who have tested HIV-positive is likely to prevent new HIV transmission to persons who are not infected, the effectiveness of serosorting between men who have tested HIV-negative has not been established. Serosorting with condom use may further reduce the risk of HIV transmission. However, for men with casual partners, serosorting alone is likely to be less effective than always using condoms because some men do not know or disclose their HIV serostatus [8].
- STDs, which increase the risk for HIV infection, remain an important health issue for MSM. According to the Gonococcal Isolate Surveillance Project, the proportion of gonorrhea-positive test results among MSM increased from 4% in 1988 to 20.2% in 2004 [9]. Rates of syphilis among MSM have increased in some urban areas, including Chicago, New York, San Francisco, and Seattle [10–12]. In the 9 US cities participating in the MSM Prevalence Monitoring Project, the rates of STDs and HIV positivity varied by race and ethnicity but tended to be highest among black and Hispanic MSM [9]. In addition to increasing susceptibility to HIV, STDs are markers for high-risk sexual practices, through which HIV infection can be transmitted [13].
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/resources/factsheets/msm.htm
Report comment to moderator
RDean — According to her, AIDS is a gay disease, in spite of the fact that 90% of AIDS patient’s worldwide are straight.
Roger — I don’t know about that. I went to the CDC website last night after I read your post and I looked into it myself. The CDC does not keep track of a person’s sexual orientation in its data. The US data is broken down in terms of age, race, State of Residence, and Transmission.
Under “Transmission” they list six ways the disease is transmitted from one person to another: male to male sexual contact, injection drug use, male to male sexual contact and injection drug use, (a special CDC category) high risk heterosexual contact (sexual contact with a person known to have HIV) Hemophilia/coagulation disorder, and mother to child perinatal transmission.
According to the CDC “Males accounted for 73% of all AIDS cases diagnosed in 2005 among adults and adolescents in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.” Given that the majority of AIDS cases are men, and given that the most common means of transmission is “male to male sexual contact”, one might say that AIDS is a “gay disease”, though it might be more accurate to say that AIDS is a “male to male sexual contact disease”, which seems like a bigger category than “gay”, depending on one’s definition of “gay.”
It is notable that the CDC doesn’t have a “female-to-female” category, and that females mostly get the disease from having “High risk heterosexual contact” 44%, or sharing a needle with another drug user, 36%.
Incidentally, Blacks account for over 50% of the AIDS cases in the 2005 study, for whatever that is worth.
I believe it would be more helpful to focus on behaviors rather than race, or sex as we seek to remedy this disease. Reduce male to male sexual contact and intravenous drug use for starters.
Report comment to moderator
From the post: “suppressing the epidemiological facts about AIDS is no longer worth the high cost in lives.”
Lynn: I don’t see how a spokesperson or campaign focusing attention on changes in behavior within the community where he/it has the most influence constitutes a prior “suppression of epidemiological facts.”
As many have noted here, HIV is spread through promiscuous unprotected sex regardless of orientation. I suspect that if HIV’s entree to the West had been through the heterosexual community, it’s rate of spread would have been outrageous, dwarfing what’s been seen in the last couple of decades, and illuminating the irresponsible tendency of those in the heterosexual community to engage in unprotected sex with multiple partners.
Report comment to moderator
From #36: “blood was given by those with the disease, and then transferred to unsuspecting ill patients who needed blood. As I remember those who gave blood could be paid for doing so.”
Victoria: Do you have any proof to support your assertion that people knowingly spread a deadly communicable disease for sake of the measly remuneration provided blood donors? Absent strong, convincing evidence, your accusation is, as Rdean rightly calls it, shameful.
Report comment to moderator
Man sentenced for lying about infected blood
A judge has sentenced a man to two years in prison for concealing that he was HIV-positive when he gave blood to a Hammond plasma center.
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/crown-point-in/TNSH5LFINS0VRRG6P
Report comment to moderator
(As most of you know, I’m not fond of using Wikipedia….. however in this instance it seemed an easier way to communicate info.)
Contaminated haemophilia blood products
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contaminated_haemophilia_blood_products
Report comment to moderator
Victoria:
The actions of isolated individuals and companies at a time when AIDS hadn’t even been recognized as an entity (1st US cases reported in 1981; HIV posited as the cause in 1983) are pretty thin stuff if irresponsibility of the gay community is your contention.
If (in the case of the hemophilia blood products) what you’re saying is that blood was donated by people who didn’t recognize they had an as-of-yet unidentified communicable disease, then your statement about transmission via tranfusion products is true. But that doesn’t seem to be the limit or tenor of your assertion. I may be wrong. Can you clarify?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
So the finding that people in high-risk groups donated blood products before AIDS was ever heard of (in the late 1970s, and just barely emerging in the early 1980s) is your evidence for the dirty-filthy-gays spreading “their gay disease” on purpose?
Good grief.
Report comment to moderator
“RDean, stop blaming everyone else for what the homosexuals unleashed in this country.”
Okay fine, but given HIV is relatively difficult to transmit, it’s been unleashed unto themselves, something for which the gay community has paid the cost.
The blood donation point made by Victoria is indefensible and the sooner she dropped it the less of a hole she’d keep digging herself in. Most of the blood bank infection occured before they new what HIV was. And within a short period of time blood was being screened and not just HIV+ folks, but all gay men were banned from donating blood, which is how it is today.
You don’t hear of Arthur Ashes, Ryan Whites or Elizabeth Glasers anymore and that’s because the problem has been nipped in the bud.
Report comment to moderator
The gay advocates on this thread have hardly refuted the proposition contained in: A little over a year ago, the Los Angeles-based Gay and Lesbian Center launched a provocative AIDS awareness campaign with the slogan, “HIV is a Gay Disease. Own it. End it.”
The fact that the bi-sexual gays have spread their disease to the promiscuous heterosexual population is beside the point.
Also, I have found it hopeless to argue the Christian ideal of abstinence with pagans and atheists. Their world-view is so far apart from that of Judeo-Christians that a reasonable discussion of the issues is impossible.
Also, though the gay militants advocate monogamous marriage,it is not really clear whether this is based on an honest view of monogamous marriage or an effort to corrupt the heretofore ideal sacred Judeo-Christian view of a lifelong marriage between between a man and women in order to complementarily bear and nurture children.
Victoria, I do admire your bravery for standing up to these pagans and atheists.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt at #115: Also, though the gay militants advocate monogamous marriage,it is not really clear whether this is based on an honest view of monogamous marriage or an effort to corrupt the heretofore ideal sacred Judeo-Christian view of a lifelong marriage between between a man and women in order to complementarily bear and nurture children.
Again I say, good grief. Where does this paranoia come from? You actually think that the push for a version of marriage for same-sex couples might be a nefarious gay plot to (somehow) “corrupt” heterosexual marriage?
As for the AIDS awareness campaign, I’m pretty sure the phrase “gay disease” as they use it is to be a call to gays to acknowledge their higher relative risk and behave responsibly … not to somehow concede to the Victorias of the world that it’s somehow all their fault.
Report comment to moderator
Mr. Leavitt:
As far as I can tell, the proposition contained in the quote amounts to an appeal from within a community for responsibility and recognition of the extent to which gays have been affected, not an admission of culpability beyond that.
In regard to “standing up to pagans,” I admire bravery as much as the next fellow, but have no admiration for dissembling methods.
Report comment to moderator
There is nothing to do, but turn away from those who oppose themselves and God. Who sin willfully, in the face of TRUTH. The dust is shaken from the feet, to leave those, wherever they are, to do what is not convenient or natural.
I will continue to help those in Africa, who’s mothers have died and are under the care of grandmothers and family, due to the HIV/AIDS epidemic. They are the innocent little ones who’s lives are so difficult, it’s hard to imagine the loneliness and pain they endure daily. Their mothers and fathers now dead, or to sick to care for them.
The US is vastly different from Africa. Those here in this country have been given endless education as to the HIV/AIDS epidemic, how its spread, what can be done to end the spread of this disease. Those who continue to live a lifestyle which puts them at risk, and then spreads the disease to others is responsible for their actions, 100%. Not just themselves but all those who are infected due to their careless behavior.
The CDC has made it plain as to who’s fault the spread of HIV/AIDS, many who are ‘heads’ of the gay organizations have agreed that it is a “GAY disease” there isn’t much to add, except it’s up to those who have the disease to control it, and for those who engage in the behavior to contract the disease, to be ready to accept the responsibility that their behavior has dealt them.
Arguing with those who defend homosexuality as a sexual lifestyle is useless, it serves no purpose other than to put ones self as a target for all the anger and hostility which are deeply harbored for whatever ’self justified reasons’.
I believe that those of us who are Believers need to pay SPECIAL ATTENTION and FOCUS our HELP to the children, what they are taught in public school, ‘how safe they are, where ever they are’- We can’t stop adults from doing whatever they wish, but we CAN PROTECT the children, its our responsibility as Christians, and adults.
We hear of many states who have decided that children, either boys or girls can use the ‘SAME’ bathrooms. We as parents and caring adults must do what we can to contact our law makers, Senators, Governor’s, Congressmen and anyone who will STOP children from being subjected to male-female contact in the same bathrooms.
The children are God’s little ones, those are the ones whom we should do all we can to see that their lives are not smothered with needless pain and suffering. If we as Believers in Jesus Christ put our attention to the safety of all the children, we will ALL have full time jobs.
Report comment to moderator
Peter – 115
Thank you for your kind remarks, it means more than you know.
God bless you
Report comment to moderator
So let me understand this. The argument is whether AIDS is a gay disease or not. I vote not.
I certainly think that gays need to be more active in preventing the spread of HIV. Since gays are at a greater risk, they need to be more vigilant in pushing correct health standards within communities with large numbers of men who have sex with men.
Still heterosexuals should not be complacent. Even if the likelihood of contracting the disease is less, a disease that is potentially fatal must be treated with an equal amount of caution from everyone.
As far as personally running out and getting tested for HIV, I see no reason for it. My wife and I are happily married and monogamous. I am certainly concerned for some of my friends in the Castro district though. I hope they understand the gravity of decisions that they might make.
Report comment to moderator
Gays might be able to end the spread of HIV within their community but they hardly have the resources to stop worldwide AIDS. Since homosexuals tend to be better educated and more financially stable, I would think it would be quite possible to end the spread of HIV or severely limit it among males having sex with males.
Perhaps if gay men took it personally as an issue of pride they would be act more quickly to end the spread of HIV. I think the columnist was hoping to drive gay men into acting out of gay pride by “owning” the disease.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria:
I can’t speak for anyone trying to self-justify deeply-harbored hostility, but do suggest you be rigorous in speaking the truth. This would include clarifying your remarks, the ones that appear to accuse gays of irresponsible and possibly willful transmission of HIV via transfusions. That’s pretty ugly stuff.
I can speak for myself in saying I’ll also tend to and care for adults stricken with disease, regardless of the cause. This is part of our responsibility as Christians and adults.
Caute,
SG
Report comment to moderator
Hope of Heaven for AIDS Victims
“Prescription for Hope, the Samaritan’s Purse HIV/AIDS ministry, works with local Christians to provide compassionate care to people who are affected by the deadly HIV/AIDS virus.”
Below is the link, which if you scroll down there is a very short VIDEO of the work Samaritan’s Purse is doing to give hope and comfort to those with HIV/AIDS
Report comment to moderator
CLARIFICATION:
I have never said, nor did I intimate that any person willfully donated or sold their blood, knowing that they were HIV/AIDS.
Let this be the end of this witch hunt!
Report comment to moderator
Whenever someone wants to justify tyranny they always invoke “protecting the children.” From day one. What was Socrates executed for? You got it, corrupting the minds of the children.
I’ll listen to any practically any rationale for public policy except for that one.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, the Queer theorists, prominent among the gays, have for years declared war on marriage as an oppressive bourgeois force. I find it hard to believe that the militant gays are seriously advocating monogamous marriage. Count me as a skeptic not a paranoiac.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria:
Then why did you bring up the transfusion issue at all in the context of a post contending that gays should “accept responsibility for the spread of HIV/AIDS” (#36) and then provide follow-up links for support, one of which explicitly describes a man who donated blood while lying about his HIV status? This is confusing, not clarifying.
Report comment to moderator
PL what you fail to appreciate is that the gays who have made the most impact arguing on behalf of gay marriage haven’t been the “Queer” theorists, but conservative, libertarian and moderate Democrat type gays, for instance the ones who write for
http://www.indegayforum.org
I’m speaking of Andrew Sullivan, Jonathan Rauch, Bruce Bawer and others. The reason why these “independent minded,” more conservative gays have become prominent as gay rights advocates is because the “Queer Theorists” completely missed the boat by sitting out the gay marriage and gays in the military issue. They sat out of the argument for precisely the reason you gave: Those institutions were viewed as too bourgeois.
That so many gays want marriage and to serve in the military only speaks of how conservative and traditionally minded many of them are.
The Queer theorists speak for themselves and no one else.
Report comment to moderator
Roger, do a search with the following sentence and see what comes up.
Worldwide, more than 90 percent of all adolescent and adult HIV infections have resulted from heterosexual intercourse.
You get all kinds of sites similar to the two below.
http://www.webcare.md/ArticleDisplay186c1784.aspx
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/womenhiv.htm
There is an especially humorous site called, “Ex gay watch”. The do have some good information about AIDS. The site is at:
http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2006/12/do-you-want-to/
Here is a bit from the site:
However, the most vile response to Warren’s efforts to fight the global AIDS pandemic comes from a coalition of anti-gay activists calling itself the “AIDS Truth Coalition” led by Peter LaBarbera and featuring ex-gay James Hartline and Stephen Bennett.
This group issued a missive that does not address the global AIDS pandemic at all, but rather serves as nothing other than a hateful rant.
As we have discussed here before, more than 90 percent of all worldwide adolescent and adult HIV infections have resulted from heterosexual intercourse. This fact is neither obscure nor unknown to anti-gay activists. It’s simply inconvenient to their campaign. Willfully choosing to ignore the truth, this “Truth Coalition” claims that the real solution is to “address homosexuality and ‘gay’ promiscuity in [an] effort to stop [the] pandemic.”
Notice there is a “AIDS Truth Coalition” that is a hate rant against gays. There you go. Peter, Victoria, finally, a place filled with your ilk. You guys should see if you can join. You can hate in a mystic circle using prayer beads to beg your God to remove the “source of the scourge”. And don’t forget to “log that”.
#107: Males accounted for 73% of all AIDS cases diagnosed in 2005
It used to be nearly all AIDS cases were male. If 30% are now female, they are mostly getting it from sex with men. THEY ARE NOT GETTING IT FROM GAY MEN. So, what % of the new cases diagnosed are straight people? GET IT???? In 20 years, women went from 0% to 30%. What’s it going to be like in another 20? When worldwide, AIDS is 99% straight instead of 90% straight, will it still be a gay disease????
Everyone in this day and age should have an AIDS test.
Willfully choosing to ignore the truth!!!!
Report comment to moderator
#36: AIDS/HIV has cost this country and others millions of dollars. When it was first discovered, early 80’s it became the biggest health issue. The homosexuals at that time knew how it was transmitted, THEY WERE TOLD, and how they could avoid getting the disease and giving it to others. However, that didn’t stop the spread….maybe for a few, but the disease spread and the cost soared. The DEMANDS by the homosexual community to find a cure, and vaccine were never ending. Nothing could be done fast enough to find a cure, while those who could prevent the very spread of the disease, continued their lifestyle.
Many raised millions of dollars to find a cure to stop the disease, …… blood was given by those with the disease, and then transferred to unsuspecting ill patients who needed blood. As I remember those who gave blood could be paid for doing so. Children who suffered from blood disease, who needed transfusions contracted AIDS, what a nightmare.
#36: One can only look at the ‘Festivals of last year’ in San Francisco to understand how fast and furious this epidemic has spread with unbridled ‘careless’ attitudes
#52: You and others will blame everyone but those who continued to engage in homosexual sex….. AFTER they found out they had the disease and how to prevent its spread.
#66: If condoms were the answer, and the homosexuals didn’t want to contract the disease or spread it, they would USE THEM!
#73: If homosexuals had ‘owned up’ to their actions even 15 years ago, the disease would not have spread to point it is today.
#124: I have never said, nor did I intimate that any person willfully donated or sold their blood, knowing that they were HIV/AIDS.
They knew they had it. They knew they were spreading it, yet they didn’t know it was being passed on in blood????
Well, which is it? IT CAN’T BE BOTH!!!!
Report comment to moderator
JonRowe, actually Andrew Sullivan has equivocated on the subject of marriage as the following from one of his Daily Dish posts indicates:
For me the interesting point came when Dan and I agreed that moderate hypocrisy—especially in marriages—is often the best policy. Momogamy (sic) is very hard for men, straight or gay, and if one partner falters occasionally (and I don’t mean regularly), sometimes discretion is perfectly acceptable. You could see Jong bridle at the thought of such dishonesty. But I think the post-seventies generation—those of us who grew up while our parents were having a sexual revolution—both appreciate the gains for sexual and emotional freedom, while being a little more aware of their potential hazards.[22]
While the liberal, Erica Jong, bridled serious Christians would be appalled.
Report comment to moderator
As I read Sullivan’s statement it’s that if one partner “slips” once or more that ought not necessarily be a “deal breaker” in marriage. I’m sure many Christians on this list not only agree with this but are living it.
Report comment to moderator
From Andrew Sullivan: Momogamy (sic) is very hard for men, straight or gay, and if one partner falters occasionally (and I don’t mean regularly),
Don’t get that. Ooh, it’s so hard. Lot’s of people get married and stay true. It’s not as hard as he thinks. How much is a few slips? Twice, twice a month, a week?
Andrew Sullivan knows all about hypicracy. He is a conservative Republican belonging to a party that believes he deserves less rights than any straight in “his” party. When they find out he’s HIV, they part around him like the Red Sea around Moses.
Considering the Party he pushes with his fame and endorsement wants to write discrimination into the constitution to make him forever an outsider is hypocracy. Someone might say he is into more than one issue. When that one issue is “equal rights”, then it’s more than just one issue.
Report comment to moderator
#92: The CDC says its a GAY DISEASE
I don’t see how we’ve gone from “Matt Foreman says HIV is a gay disease” to “the CDC says HIV is a gay disease.”
The CDC also says that “…it is possible for either partner to become infected with HIV through vaginal sex* (intercourse). In fact, it is the most common way the virus is transmitted in much of the world.” That doesn’t seem to support the idea that the CDC calls HIV a “gay disease”.
Additionally, if unsafe and promiscuous sexual behaviour is the cause of the spread of the disease, then blame unsafe and promiscuous sexual behaviour for the spread of the disease. Promiscuity and unsafe sex practices are not necessary attributes of homosexuality. To persist with the assertion that they are is to continue to peddle in stereotypes.
And as I’ve stated before, calling HIV a “gay disease” seems to miss some of the issues such as a) not all homosexuals engage in high risk behaviour and b) the people who are engaged in high risk behaviour, and who put themselves into positions where they can spread the virus, do not self identify as being “gay” even if they have same-sex sexual relations. So any attempt to send a wake-up call to those people, by calling HIV a “gay disease”, has just gone right over their heads.
So again, who do Mr Foreman’s comments help?
Report comment to moderator
Maybe you should speak to Matt Foreman, perhaps he can give you information which seems to escape you.
See TOPIC post above:
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
I see you’re unwilling to address any counter-concerns that Foreman’s statement brings up. Namely, that his attribution of HIV as a “gay disease” does nothing to address the spread of the virus amongst those who don’t see themselves as being gay.
If Foreman’s comments succeed in mobilising the gay community (whatever that is) to address behaviours within the community and fight against the spread of the virus with new vigour and determination, then kudos to him.
But, again, it doesn’t address the spread of the virus by people who remain outside of that target community/scene. These people will persist in high-risk behaviours and will potentially take Foreman’s words as a declaration that HIV is not a problem that they need to worry about because they’re not gay (or so they believe). e.g. “I’m not gay, so why should I worry about a ‘gay disease’?”
So how do you address those who sit outside the gay community? You have to address everyone and not limit your focus to one specific group of people because the virus surely won’t!
It is appallingly naive, and frankly dangerous, to simply imagine that everyone is adequately educated on the topic of HIV/AIDS just because it’s been around and reported on for 25 years.
The assumption that (from #80) “[m]ost kids use the internet, they know what the disease is and how its spread,” relies on a) all children having access to a computer, b) all computers being connected to the internet, c) all children being either motivated or directed to research the topic, d) all parents consenting to their children accessing information of a sexual nature, e) all children having accessed the appropriate information on the virus (and not been fed urban myths about the virus) and f) that all children have sufficiently understood the information that they’ve researched.
There are far too many gaps in the assumption that children know, understand and know how to avoid this virus.
Report comment to moderator
Flaming Icarus: What you’re not appreciating is that Foreman’s statement serves to reinforce the notion of Victoria and others that AIDS is solely the fault of and the responsibility of gays.
It’s counterproductive, actually, because not only does it not really speak to people who need to hear the message, it makes it easier for those who only want to justify their revulsion for homosexuals to do that.
People who think like that will not understand your question in #136. To them, all they need to know is that it’s a “gay disease.”
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe As I read Sullivan’s statement it’s that if one partner “slips” once or more that ought not necessarily be a “deal breaker” in marriage. I’m sure many Christians on this list not only agree with this but are living it.
Sullivan wasn’t talking about “slips;” he made an agreement with his “partner” that moderate hypocrisy—especially in marriages—is often the best policy. His idea of marriage is travesty of sacred marriage.
Report comment to moderator
#138: His idea of marriage is travesty of sacred marriage.
You mean like what the millions and million of swingers do?
http://www.ejhs.org/volume3/swing/body.htm
Nearly a third are Republicans and get this, “As shown in Table 4 swingers are slightly more likely than the general population to say that they are members of a religious organization.”
I wonder why there are never any discussions about swingers and their “indiscriminate, wild and wacky” sex? Straights have organizations and conventions where they bop everything that moves. Gays can’t even have simple legal monogamous relationship. But of course, who ever said the world was fair?
Report comment to moderator
#136: Victoria,
I see you’re unwilling to address any counter-concerns that Foreman’s statement brings up. Namely, that his attribution of HIV as a “gay disease” does nothing to address the spread of the virus amongst those who don’t see themselves as being gay.
That’s Victoria!!!!
In spite of the fact that HIV actually started in the straight community in Africa and spread here to the gay community. In spite of that fact that when it started, it spread for years, no one knew how it was transmitted or even if it was only one disease. In spite of the fact that worldwide 90% of all infected with HIV are straight. In spite of the fact that in 1980 the % of women with HIV was close to zero, but now it’s 30% and that means many new straight men also have HIV to be giving it to the women. In spite of the fact Christians worked to stop any type of sex education and have proclaimed AIDS “God’s punishment of gays”.
In spite of all these facts, in the minds of Victoria, Peter, Fred Phelps and others of their ilk, HIV and AIDS is a “gay” disease.
There was a very short time when some gays thought the conservative right wing part of the government purposely infected gays hoping to wipe them out. I never believed that. Besides, everyone knows gays are just born in straight families. There are always new ones coming along. You can’t stop nature.
Report comment to moderator
Donato: You mean like what the millions and million of swingers do?
Promiscuous swingers are just as odious as promiscuous gays.
What you ignore is the many Christians who adhere to their marriage vows.
The term “gay disease” is accurate and fair; that’s why Matt Foreman used it in the ad. Originally, what is now termed “AIDS” was known in the medical community as “GRID,” gay related immune deficiency. The term change came about by some forceful and clever maneuvering by the gay community militants.
Also, the fact of the matter is that AIDS first spread to heterosexuals through bi-sexual people. Most of the heterosexuals were promiscuous, though there are some well known examples of abstinent women who married bi-sexual men who were dishonest about their sexuality or condition; many of these women and some of their children in fact died of AIDS.
Report comment to moderator
How can it be gay if 90% of the carriers are straight?
Promiscuous swingers are just as odious as promiscuous gays.
And yet, considering there are probably more swingers in this country than gays, I can’t remember ever seeing a single blog about them. Hmmm.
Report comment to moderator
Donato: And yet, considering there are probably more swingers in this country than gays, I can’t remember ever seeing a single blog about them. Hmmm.
From Google:
Results 1 – 10 of about 265,000 for swingers “blogs. (0.20 seconds)
Sponsored Links
SwingersCove
A New Place for Open Relationships
100% Real Profiles – Unlimited Pics
http://www.swingerscove.com
Local Swingers Personals
Hook Up with Swingers Online
Search Thousands of Free Ads
We live in a quite sexually coarsened and hedonistic society brought about by the essentialy pagan Sexual “Revolution.”: Should you wish to understand this read Diane West’s recent book, The Death of Grownups: How America’s Arrested Development is Bringing Down Western Civilization.
Report comment to moderator
Theo writes: “Since homosexuals tend to be better educated and more financially stable, I would think it would be quite possible to end the spread of HIV or severely limit it among males having sex with males.”
You would think that, wouldn’t you? But that isn’t the case. I guess that shows that just because one is better educated doesn’t mean one has courage or has high moral character.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, but look at it this way, since it started in the early 80’s, 0% were women, now 30% are women.
http://www.coloradoaidsproject.org/USstats.html
HIV transmission patterns have shifted over time. Heterosexual transmission accounts for a growing proportion of newly diagnosed AIDS cases, rising from 3% in 1985 to 31% in 2005. Over that same period, the share of new AIDS diagnoses attributable to sex between men fell from 65% to 43%. The share due to injection drug use was 19% in 1985, peaking at 31% in 1993, and dropping to 20% in 2005.
Women account for a growing share of new AIDS diagnoses, rising from 8% in 1985 to 27% in 2005. Based on the CDC’s HIV/AIDS prevalence estimate,3 approximately 300,000 women are living with HIV and AIDS in the U.S.
Ironic that after 10 straight years of decline, it’s started rising again since Bush took office. I remember when there were ads everywhere, but I guess that since we have been in Iraq, either there isn’t money for AIDS prevention, or this Christian Administration prefers to give money away in Africa rather than help people in this country because, even though 90% of the HIV infected are straight, it’s a “gay” disease.
#144: Theo writes: “Since homosexuals tend to be better educated and more financially stable
Actually, that’s not true. Since gays can’t be in the military legally, they are cut off from any college benefits open to the non-gay. Many gays are thrown out of their loving Christian families. Look at Alan Keyes. Cutting off all college money and any support basically leaving his daughter destitute. The only thing keeping her from living in the streets were friends.
Many homeless children are gay. Many prostitute because they are underage, have no high school diploma and no where to go. Most homeless shelters are unsafe for gay children.
It’s the visible ones, like Andrew Sullivan that tend be better educated and financially stable. For many gays, their life is very hard. But it’s their choice, right? They choose to be hated and thrown out of their families. They choose to have fewer rights. If you believe that, then you believe in “magical creation”.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt at #141: The term change came about by some forceful and clever maneuvering by the gay community militants.
No it didn’t! The term change came about because medical professionals began seeing it in IV drug abuses, hemophiliacs and other transfusion recipients and other non-homosexual persons.
It became clear that the important aspect was that it was an acquired immune deficieny, and not “gay-related.”
Your statement is a lie — whether you know it or not — designed to reinforce the ability of conservatives to shrug off AIDS as something that’s not their problem because it’s a “gay disease.”
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt at #143:
You don’t respond to RDean’s question/point. If promiscuous swingers are “odious,” how come there are never topics posted about them?
Anti-gay threads come up fairly often. Anti-swinger? Haven’t seen nary a one.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, actually among evangelical and orthodox Christians there is plenty of criticism about the swinging lifestyle of both heterosexual and gay people. On this thread Christians have made it clear that both heterosexual and gay promiscuity is odious.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG #137;
Yeah, I was probably being overly optimistic about how Foreman’s comments might be received.
But I was thinking, we could always apply Foreman’s logic on a broader scale. He said; “Folks, with 70 percent of the people in this country living with HIV being gay or bi, we cannot deny that HIV is a gay disease. We have to own that and face up to that.”
Why not say;
Folks, with 70 percent of the people in the world living with HIV living in Africa, we cannot deny that HIV is an African disease. We have to own that and face up to that.
Hmmm… now what? We wait for the African’s to take responsibility for the spread of HIV and for them to bring an end to the virus? Maybe declaring HIV to be an “African disease” will improve the levels of sexual education in Africa. Or maybe it’ll do sweet nil-all in the scheme of things, other than to stigmatise African nations and further marginalise HIV as one of those problems that “other people” have to deal with.
Report comment to moderator
Peter,
I don’t know what kind of arrangement Sullivan has made with his significant other and I don’t think you do either. But the man is now Sullivan’s HUSBAND, not his “partner”; they were legally married in Mass.
Here is a report with pictures of their wedding:
http://wockner.blogspot.com/2007/09/andrew-sullivan-gets-married.html
The nice thing about marriage is that there is privacy associated with it. Just like with you and your wife, whatever they do in the bedroom or whatever arrangements they’ve made are no one else’s business.
Report comment to moderator
Hate is ugly. When people discriminate, they look for reasons to validate their hate. One of the ways is make the object of hate dangerous and threatening. #36 is a perfect example suggesting that gays knew they had AIDS and nonchalantly passed it on to hospital patients and children. Who could be more vulnerable than hospital patients and children. Similar to how they go on that gays are child molesters even though all credited studies and statistics say otherwise. They don’t want to look at facts. They have an agenda of hate. Make your object of hate a threat to most vulnerable of society, and that’s how to find others that also want to hate.
Report comment to moderator
RDean, you need to spend some time in NJ. If you go to Asbury Park, you will see that well-educated, financially stable homosexual men are buying up the old houses, restoring gentrifying them and forcing the poor people around them out of the hood.
SteveG, Peter Leavitt is right. I remember someone actually confessing to being an adulterer on a thread here. You are Flaming Icarus are also missing the point when you state that there are those who say that HIV/Aids is “solely” a gay disease. What people, including Matt Foreman, are saying here is the truth: in this country HIV/Aids started out as a gay disease. I distinctly remember Peter Jennings saying that when it first became known, he was saying the heteros didn’t have to worry. I remember this because I thought how irresponsible to say that when all it would take would be one person who was bisexual to bring the infection into the heterosexual community. Obviously, there are “swingers” as you call them in the heterosexual community which accounts for the other 30% of the cases. Again, see Matt Foreman’s quote. You want to deny what it was in 1981, and what Matt Foreman is saying it still is: in the US, it is predominantly a “gay” disease. You want to deflect the truth of Foreman’s quote by bringing in Africa. How PC.
Report comment to moderator
Jon I”m well aware that Sulivan married his partner in Massachusetts. So far, however, to my knowledge, he hasn’t had second thoughts about the earlier agreement he made with Dan that moderate hypocrisy—especially in marriages—is often the best policy. i.e. that on occasion one may break the traditional marriage vow to be faithful to one’s wife or husband.
Sullivan chose with the Daily Dish post to make this in effect codicil to marriage public; hence, we may discuss it. Your paean to privacy doesn’t apply in this case.
Report comment to moderator
I have to agree with NJ Lawyer; there’s much we don’t know about this. And of course when trying to generalize all we can do is come forth with averages knowing that there are many exceptions to the rule. But as a group, as far as I can tell, gays are better educated probably more intelligent and creative. And in a capitalist system that equates with higher incomes and more $$. Some of this might have to do with not having kids (or having fewer kids); but I don’t see that as any more than a small part.
The best analogy is to Jews. Jews have had terrible problems with bigotry in Western Civ. but still managed disproportionately to achieve and show their talents.
This doesn’t mean such groups should be disqualified from “civil rights”/anti-discrimination categories. And under our system, they are not. If you discriminate against Jewish people because they are Jewish this is as illegal as raced base discrimination.
After Camille Paglia, I think one can argue because there is a connection between homosexuality and high cultural achievement, society has the moral obligation to nuture homosexuality. Bioengineer the “Queer Eye” from Leonardo or Michaelangelo and perhaps you’ll get dull pictures from ordinary Joe-Sixpacks.
Just a thought.
Report comment to moderator
Jon, I’ll grant that homosexuals as a class have made contributions to civilization disproportionate to their numbers, as have the Jews. Through most of history civilized people respected and tolerated homosexuals; it has only been until quite recently the homosexuals became militantly political in attempting to establishing the normality of their sexual behavior along with marriage that many civilized people have seriously objected to the homosexual agenda.
I understand that this seems cruel to homosexuals, though serious Christians, particularly Paul in Romans, along with natural right philosophers including Aquinas and Maitain have regarded homosexuality as a complex disorder of God’s moral law and human nature.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer at #152:
SteveG, Peter Leavitt is right. I remember someone actually confessing to being an adulterer on a thread here.
I’m not sure what that has to do with anything I said. RDean raised the issue of “swinging,” and I was echoing it. Adultery generally involves someone cheating on a spouse and keeping it secret. Swinging is practiced openly and with the consent of all involved.
Swinging violates the ideal of monogamy and I’m sure you consider it sinful even though it’s done with the knowledge, consent and usually participation of the spouse. And RDean rightly points out that a lot of people are involved in it. But when it’s raised at all, it usually gets a quick “well that’s wrong too” response before the topic gets turned back to how bad gays are.
You are Flaming Icarus are also missing the point when you state that there are those who say that HIV/Aids is “solely” a gay disease. What people, including Matt Foreman, are saying here is the truth: in this country HIV/Aids started out as a gay disease.
The problem I have is with the term “gay disease.” What the heck does that even mean? AIDS is not confined to gays. It’s a blood-borne virus that can be transmitted to anybody under the right circumstances. As I am not gay, I’ll let Foreman and his intended audience haggle about what it means in that context, but you all are appropriating to suggest that AIDS in America is the fault of the homosexuals. There’s a strong implication of “not my problem” in the whole discussion.
I don’t recall Jesus saying “care for the sick unless they got sick doing something bad.”
I distinctly remember Peter Jennings saying that when it first became known, he was saying the heteros didn’t have to worry. I remember this because I thought how irresponsible to say that when all it would take would be one person who was bisexual to bring the infection into the heterosexual community. Obviously, there are “swingers” as you call them in the heterosexual community which accounts for the other 30% of the cases.
No, you’re confusing issues here. Some heterosexuals do get it from bisexual partners. Others get it from IV drugs. Health care workers get it from needle stick accidents. And while the blood supply has been safe for many years now, early on that was another route it came into the heterosexual community through.
I doubt many people get it from “swinging.” If the swingers have any brains at all, they’re practicing safe sex and not really at great risk of any sort of diseases.
(Another sore point with me is how the Christian community has largely opposed clean-needle programs for addicts on the grounds that it “condones” drug abuse. Why do conservative Christians consistently stand against measures that can save human life? Granted, it’s better for addicts to break their addictions. But that’s obviously not easy to do, and giving them a way to take their drugs without risking a deadly infection seems like a good thing to me.)
Again, see Matt Foreman’s quote. You want to deny what it was in 1981, and what Matt Foreman is saying it still is: in the US, it is predominantly a “gay” disease. You want to deflect the truth of Foreman’s quote by bringing in Africa. How PC.
I didn’t bring in Africa actually, RDean did. Nobody here is denying that in America, AIDS appeared first in the homosexual community, and in particular among promiscuous homosexuals. And that still is where it is most prevalent.
Are homosexuals not also image-bearers who should be loved and cared about?
Report comment to moderator
PLEASE NOT: There seems to be a disagreement as to where HIV can be found. Here is the report from the CDC.
HIV and Its Transmission
Scientists and medical authorities agree that HIV does not survive well in the environment, making the possibility of environmental transmission remote. HIV is found in varying concentrations or amounts in blood, semen, vaginal fluid, breast milk, saliva, and tears. (See page 3, Saliva, Tears, and Sweat.) To obtain data on the survival of HIV, laboratory studies have required the use of artificially high concentrations of laboratory-grown virus. Although these unnatural concentrations of HIV can be kept alive for days or even weeks under precisely controlled and limited laboratory conditions, CDC studies have shown that drying of even these high concentrations of HIV reduces the amount of infectious virus by 90 to 99 percent within several hours. Since the HIV concentrations used in laboratory studies are much higher than those actually found in blood or other specimens, drying of HIV-infected human blood or other body fluids reduces the theoretical risk of environmental transmission to that which has been observed–essentially zero. Incorrect interpretation of conclusions drawn from laboratory studies have unnecessarily alarmed some people.
Report comment to moderator
NJL #152; You want to deflect the truth of Foreman’s quote by bringing in Africa. How PC.
You missed the irony. Sorry, it’s hard to do irony on a blog. But yes, how PC indeed to allocate a disease to a particular country… or minority group within a country, for that matter. [/irony]
For clarity: given that I don’t agree with calling HIV a “gay disease” it’s not likely I’m going to agree with calling it an “African disease”. Both terms make about as much sense as each other and can be justified in exactly the same way… but neither term addresses the issue or contributes any constructive benefits. So far, people here have just been parrotting, “It’s a gay disease, it’s a gay disease.”
So what? What now? Do you believe that the gay community is doing absolutely nothing to combat the virus? Do you think that people who have been, and are, behaving irresponsibly are going to suddenly change their ways because it’s been called a “gay disease”? Do you think Foreman’s message is going to effectively reach those people/communities that are affected by the virus?
If there are positive outcomes from Foreman’s statement then that’s great. But I’m sure there would be other ways for him to meet his objective, if his objective was to get white homosexuals to contribute more to assist the African-American homosexuals who have HIV and to bridge that racial divide. In trying to provoke more action from within a minority he’s potentially provoked more apathy (and prejudice) from the majority.
Report comment to moderator
For months now, I have been insisting that people aren’t interested in data. I think this thread proves my point. It isn’t about the data is it?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
I’m surprised to see you posting on this thread again with a purpose other than either clarifying or making a retraction/correction. Please do (see #127). PLEASE NOT indeed.
Take care,
SG
Report comment to moderator
The reason there is little condemnation of swinging is that swingers haven’t voiced their grievances, insults, and demands for “rights.”
Similarly, remember the Tailhook scandal in San Diego some years ago? The naval aviators aren’t here demanding their “right” to occasional drunken orgies, either.
Report comment to moderator
#155: Through most of history civilized people respected and tolerated homosexuals;
That is so funny you should say that. Once I found a site that showed a timeline as Christians influence spread, so did the discrimination against the gays. In every country, gays were accepted at worst and celebrated at best. Every time the Christians showed up, they turned the population against their sons and daughters. Gays were normal in China, India, Japan, nowhere were they discriminated against. Not until the Christians showed them how to do it.
The worst was in the New World. Apparently, the Christian Spaniards were outraged when they saw gays as shaman and medicine men and holding a high rank in society. There are diaries written by Spanish, which talk about the fun of letting their dogs, loose on these men dressed as women and how fun and entertaining were the screams and ripping.
The Christian pogrom against the gays is one of the longest in mankind’s history. Who knows how many they have killed and how many families they have torn apart? And yet, gays are always born about the same percentage everywhere in the world.
All that work to wipe out these “unnatural” people and nature keeps replacing them “naturally”. And the ironic part is that it’s the Christians that feel they are the ones “picked on”. They feel they are the “moral” ones. Where in history have gays ever attacked Christians? Yet here you have so called “militant” gays that want to be happy. How do we know the gays are “militant”? Because moral Christians tell us based on magical scriptures written by primative desert people. Makes sense.
Report comment to moderator
Unlike gays, swingers aren’t being denied their basic rights. They’re straight so they can marry, and the swinging is one small facet of their lives so they can keep it under wraps from those who might disapprove without feeling like they’re living a lie about who they are.
That doesn’t explain the seething revulsion toward gays and the relative indifference toward swingers shown on this and similar threads.
Report comment to moderator
#161: The reason there is little condemnation of swinging is that swingers haven’t voiced their grievances, insults, and demands for “rights.”
Exactly my point. How dare those people want a protected relationship and want to be happy. Want to write valid wills and visit loved ones in the hospital. Oh wait, Christians say they have these things. Well, Christians have to say that, otherwise, it looks like they are the bad ones.
Report comment to moderator
So those who engage in so called ’swingers clubs’ are now going to be targeted by homosexuals since HIV/AIDS is a Gay disease.
I haven’t heard of ’swingers clubs’ until this bunch brought it up in the past week.
What does HIV/AIDS, and all the death and distruction have to do with ’swinger clubs’? If they exist as some of you are so ‘WELL READ’ on the subject, why aren’t they out complaining about whatever disease they have, that we aren’t helping them with? Who are they blaming for their calamity?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria at #165:
WHAT?
This may be the single most nonsensical post I’ve seen, and that’s saying something.
Report comment to moderator
SG #160;
I’m surprised to see you posting on this thread again with a purpose…
You saw a purpose in that post??
Victoria, #157;
PLEASE NOT: There seems to be a disagreement as to where HIV can be found. Here is the report from the CDC.
Why quote the CDC? Just ask an 11-year-old. They know all about HIV and how it’s transmitted. They’ll clear up the disagreement in a jiffy.
#165;
Who are they blaming for their calamity?
I see, it’s all about blame and finger-pointing. I guess if someone doesn’t engage in a few goodly sessions of self-flagellation you think that they’re blaming you for their misfortunes.
SteveG #166;
This may be the single most nonsensical post I’ve seen, and that’s saying something.
That’s definitely saying something! (especially if it outdoes the saline canine).
Report comment to moderator
That’s definitely saying something! (especially if it outdoes the saline canine).
That’s a good point. Maybe it’s a tie. Victoria’s has the advantage of brevity.
Report comment to moderator
#163
SteveG,
“Seething revulsion”?
We’ll not bless what God has condemned (a man having sexual intercourse with another man.) Medical science shows God to be right.
Report comment to moderator
John Denny: But for some reason, homosexuality seems to send the conservatives into a tizzy that many other sins that are (I presume) equally bad do not.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, conservatives are concerned with the sexual revolution in all its aspects including fornication, adultery, and homosexuality. However, no one, for example, has lodged themselves on this blog making the case for fornication or adultery. We understand that fallen humans are tempted and make serious mistakes, though not one blogger here has extolled the virtue of these sins.
The homosexual advocates are involved intensely in our culture and on this blog with a strong political movement for homosexual marriage based on “equal” rights and a cultural movement to gain acceptance for homosexual behavior as a virtue for those so inclined.
The conservatives are in fact far from being in a tizzy. We regard homosexual behavior both on Biblical and rational grounds to be a serious sin and a disorder of nature; further we are for the most part coolly and rationally making our case to in the public square and have no intention of desisting.
Report comment to moderator
on Biblical and rational grounds to
Biblical and rational????
What a hoot.
Report comment to moderator
re: #162
“The worst was in the New World. Apparently, the Christian Spaniards were outraged when they saw gays as shaman and medicine men and holding a high rank in society. There are diaries written by Spanish, which talk about the fun of letting their dogs, loose on these men dressed as women and how fun and entertaining were the screams and ripping.”
My boy was just learning about the Aztec civilization recently, and was appalled at the human sacrifices – sometimes 10,000 in a day, the Aztec priests using a bare hand to rip the heart out of their still living victim through a slit made through the abdomen and diaphragm.
I suppose it would have been homophobic for the book to say the priests were homosexuals.
The Spanish had their faults, but they did put an end to hundreds, maybe thousands of years of human sacrifice in South America.
Report comment to moderator
RDEAN,
How many homosexuals in the U.S. know their activity puts them at high risk of acquiring AIDS, and yet do it anyway?
And you mock OUR rationality?
Truly it is written:
But these people mock and curse the things they do not understand. Like animals, they do whatever their instincts tell them, and they bring about their own destruction. – Jude 1:10
Report comment to moderator
#173: sometimes 10,000 in a day
A DAY???
They must have had a lot of people. Primitive people did all kinds of cruel weird stuff. In some cultures, people were even crucified. You know that in the Bible, if a woman were raped, her attackers punishment would be to marry her? If you tortured your slave and he or she lived a whole day, then you didn’t do anything wrong. Spanish Inquisition. Of course considering what the Nazi’s did, I guess and what goes on in Darfur, I guess we haven’t learned that much. I guess your point was that it’s ok for the Christians to torture and kill the gays because of the society they lived in.
#174: How many homosexuals in the U.S. know their activity puts them at high risk of acquiring AIDS, and yet do it anyway?
Year before last was the first year in ten year’s new cases among gays has actually increased. Of course, you would expect that because most of the educational funding from this administration has been cut. Younger gays believe you have to be older to get it. A real problem from those cuts is the dramatic increase in the straight community. Cutting education allows straights to believe it’s a “gay” disease. Only gays get it. The opposite of education is ignorance, which can easily lead to death. I remember when I was a kid. Some girls actually believed you had to be married to get pregnant.
Report comment to moderator
EXCUSES, EXUCSES!
BLAME GAME….not anymore – - – - “HIV is a gay disease.” check the topic.
We are tired of this, most of us have heard the same old complaints over and over agian. Take responsibility for sexual behavior, if you don’t you will be the loser.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
What on earth are you talking about???
Do you think that if someone objects to HIV being called a “gay disease” it’s because they want to blame other people for the spread of the disease? This is not about blame or making excuses or finger-pointing, it’s about finding solutions.
Matt Foreman obviously thought it would provoke the rest of the gay community to tackle the HIV epidemic with renewed vigour. If that happens then that’s great. But my objection, which you’ve never acknowledged, is that labelling a disease in such a limited way is misinformative (you can read my other posts for why I think that).
Contrary to what you might believe, calling HIV a “gay disease” actually does nothing to address the irresponsible sexual behaviours that spread the disease. It’s not going to stop people from being gay, it does nothing to promote low risk sexual behaviour and it completely misses anyone who doesn’t identify as being gay.
Report comment to moderator
To this date, nothing has worked to help those who spread HIV/AIDS. As many have said, “it’s not going to stop people from being gay” so what’s the point? All that can happen now is, males who continue to have homosexual sex could/might spread the disease, …. if they do, its their loss and their lives at stake.
No one can stop anyone from spreading this disease, the only way it can be eliminated is for those who are living the homosexual lifestyle to discontinue the practice, otherwise it will continue to spread the disease which the rest of us have no control over.
If those who are homosexual don’t want to be infected, then DON’T ENGAGE in sexual activities which will put you at risk.
Homosexual sex is a CHOICE, its not a COMMAND PERFORMANCE!
Report comment to moderator
…the only way it can be eliminated is for those who are living the homosexual lifestyle to discontinue the practice…
What practice? You seem to be assuming that the “homosexual lifestyle” necessitates promiscuity and unsafe sex. That’s simply not true.
Furthermore, in other countries HIV is predominantly spread through heterosexual sex. What then? Should they apply your solution and discontinue heterosexual sex in those countries?
If those who are homosexual don’t want to be infected, then DON’T ENGAGE in sexual activities which will put you at risk.
A lot of people don’t engage in sexual activities that put them at risk, whether they are gay or straight.
Report comment to moderator
Stop it, you’re making too much sense. Since the fastest growing group of newly infected are straight people, then the answer must be for everyone to stop having sex. Have sex and die. How many on this site see that as the solution? Gay sex or straight sex it doesn’t matter. If you have sex outside of marriage you should die. That’s what you get for not listening to God. That’s what God wants, I know. I memorized the Bible. So there!!!!
Report comment to moderator
With AIDS growing so fast in the straight community, I can’t imagine the pain of a parent who takes their daughter in for a check up and have the doctor say she is HIV. And then the daughter says, “I thought it was a gay disease”. I’m sure it’s happened many times already. It has to be devastating.
There was a colonel who told the Tilman family they wouldn’t be so upset at their son’s death if they believed in God. Do you think that’s how the Christians on this site feel?
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!