AIDS is on the increase in the homosexual community, but are you likely to hear about it from most of the "mainstream" media?
From Reuters yesterday:
Between 2001 and 2006, male-to-male sex was the largest HIV transmission category in the US, and the only one associated with an increasing number of HIV/AIDS diagnoses, according to a report from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The increase was highest among boys and men between the ages of 13 and 24 years who had sex with other males, particularly among ethnic minorities.
SOURCE: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, June 27, 2008.
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that 72% of male AIDS cases spring from homosexual activity.
The risk of homosexual activity in the contraction of AIDS has become so difficult to ignore that even Matt Foreman, the former Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, admitted a few months ago that AIDS is primarily a "gay disease":
"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."
There are certainly other valid reasons for not engaging in homosexual behavior, Biblical prohibitions and other health risks among them, but if there was any intellectual honesty in the greater homosexual community, that community would be radically shrinking out of self-interest, if nothing else.
There has to be a spiritual component at work, a "strong delusion" that prevents some from seeing the truth, even from a secular perspective.
Which is why it's all the more irresponsible when well-meaning (or uncaring?) politically correct individuals deliberately avoid the truth, glossing over it in an attempt to look like a nice guy. They're like the doctor who examines the smoking patient, finds cancer, then tells the patient, "You're in perfect health! Keep doing what you're doing!"
We're not doing homosexuals a favor by telling them there's nothing immoral or unhealthy about their behavior. In doing that, we're negligently contributing to their physical, emotional and spiritual disaster.
There's a reason the Bible says, "Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses."
21 comments:
While doing their best to shift the problem of HIV to the general populace, those on the inside have always known that HIV is a "gay" disease. That is a major impetus for efforts to legalise homosexual "marriage." By doing so, homsexuals can tap into the the insurance of a "spouse" to pay the high cost of medical care for an AIDS sufferer. Qualifying for VA medical care is also a motivating issue for many homosexuals serving in the military. They know they have a problem and they worry how to pay for it. Transferring those costs to the larger general population is the obvious answer; no need to take personal responsibility.
Dr. Theo,
Your ignorance is astounding. HIV is not a "gay disease." HIV is not a disease at all, but a virus -- hence the name Human Immunodeficiency Virus. And you obviously ignore, or just don't know, the fact that most people in the world who have HIV are heterosexual. Let's not forget about a little place called Africa.
Also, suggesting that many gay people want to serve in the military purely to qualify for VA medical care is insulting. Is it possible that they just want to serve their country?
Anonymous, if even Matt Foreman has the intellectual integrity to admit that AIDS is a "gay disease" because over 70% of male AIDS cases in the U.S. come from homosexual activity, why is it so difficult for you to accept?
Because, as I'm sure you know, even gay activists can be wrong, and the world is comprised of more than just America.
And Bob, please don't use "HIV" and "AIDS" interchangeably. They are not the same thing. Educate yourself.
I realize one is the effect of the other. However, you will find that practically every medical, scientific an political entity mentions them in tandem and interchangeably. That includes the Centers for Disease Control.
Maybe you should educate yourself. :-)
It's so amusing how opportunistic Christians can be. You side with science only when it suits your agenda. For example, if the CDC uses "HIV" and "AIDS" interchangeably, that means you can too, because you figure that if every medical entity says it, it must be right. But when the APA and many other authoritative medical establishments state that homosexuality is immutable and normal, you're all too quick to jump on them and say that they're wrong, wrong, wrong!
Bob, the problem with using a phrase like "HIV is a gay disease" is that it's terribly inaccurate and misleading. First of all, as I've said, HIV is not a disease, it's a virus. One can have HIV without developing AIDS, and one can get AIDS from some other source than HIV. A more accurate phrase here would be "AIDS is a gay disease."
Second, putting a label like "gay" onto the virus limits the magnitude and severity of the epidemic. HIV/AIDS is a WORLDWIDE problem, not an American one. Go to Africa, and you won't find anyone calling AIDS a "gay disease," because most of the people who spread HIV/AIDS are heterosexual. So to the people of Africa, AIDS is most certainly a "straight disease," and I think this label would suit a worldwide description of the epidemic, as most of the world's HIV/AIDS patients are heterosexual. Therefore, if you're going to call AIDS a gay disease, at least limit your discussion to America.
Third, saying that "HIV is a gay disease" ignores the fact that lesbians are least likely to spread HIV/AIDS. Maybe you've heard the saying "If AIDS is God's punishment for homosexuality, then lesbians must be his chosen people." Female-female sex lacks the penetrative component that spreads HIV, so lesbians are less likely even than heterosexual couples to contract the virus. So, while it's true that men who have sex with men are the MOST likely to spread HIV/AIDS, it's misleading to label AIDS a "gay disease," because the word "gay" includes lesbians.
So in all, a more accurate description of AIDS would be "a disease that, in America, is spread predominantly by men who have sex with men."
Your problem is that you're so eager to use any statistics and quotes that help your agenda that you don't stop and think about their implications or level of accuracy. And if these quotes come from gay activists and influential medical groups, then you're all the more eager, because they essentially prove your points for you.
It's a testament to your blinding homophobia that you don't treat "pro-family" information with the same level of skepticism as you do "pro-gay" information.
What is perhaps the ultimate sad truth about AIDS, HIV, the "gay disease" or whatever you want to call it, is that both here and across the world, if people would simply have sex as God designed it (one man and one woman within marriage), the entire disease/virus/whatever would be stopped in it's tracks.
I'll say it again: if everyone would just do the moral thing, there'd be no more AIDS/HIV.
How sad that we insist on doing immoral things we know we run the risk of them killing us.
So I take it you're among the people who believe that abstinence, not contraception, is the answer to the AIDS crisis? The answer is not that simple.
What we need to do is stop exclusively emphasizing abstinence in places like Africa and spend more of our time addressing other problems there, like how certain local cultures believe that having sex with a virgin will cure you of AIDS, or that cutting the end off of a condom will make it MORE effective. These are the types of real problems that should take precedence. We should be inundating Africa with condoms and information about safer sex, not just insisting that they wait until they're married to be sexually active. Because like it or not, people...will...have...sex. And many, many of the AIDS patients in Africa are children, who aren't even sexually active and who just want to live past the age of ten. I don't think getting married is high up on their to-do list.
Unlike condoms, abstinence is effective 100% of the time. It works. It keeps people safe from infection.
Like it or not, morality is the only way to assure safety. If people are bound and determined to engage in immoral and unhealthy behavior, there's really nothing that can truly help them. If you take the risks, sometimes you pay the price.
And what did a rape victim do to deserve living the rest of her short life with HIV? What did a baby do to deserve being born with the virus transmitted from its mother in utero? What risks did these innocent people take to warrant a lifelong consequence? As I said, it's not as simple as you want it to be. Not everyone contracts HIV/AIDS as a result of their own irresponsible voluntary behavior, so you should stop treating the issue as if they do.
I'm not arguing that abstinence is effective, but condoms are also effective and should be universally encouraged. People are going to have sex, so they might as well do it as safely as possible. It's easier to put on a condom than it is to get married, especially in a place as unstable as Africa. I think you are looking at the AIDS crisis from only one angle -- abstinence -- rather than realistically.
"If people are bound and determined to engage in immoral and unhealthy behavior, there's really nothing that can truly help them."
It's statements like this that really bother me. Are you implying that condoms provide no help whatsoever? Or that if something isn't as effective as abstinence (or doesn't sufficiently meet your criteria of "morality") then it should be discarded altogether as a possible solution?
Rape victims and babies born to AIDS infected women, of course, did nothing to deserve the disease. As I said earlier, if people would have sex in a morally responsible manner within the monogamous confines of their own marriages, AIDS and HIV would come to a quick end. The number of people who fit the rape victim/baby born to AIDS infected mother are relatively small compared to the number of people who contract AIDS through sex outside of marriage, especially in the U.S. where 72% of male AIDS cases spring from homosexual activity.
Condoms are better than nothing, but far from a sure bet. They were designed to prevent pregnancy, and even with correct use, their failure rate is somewhere around 15%. The AIDS virus is much smaller than a sperm, so what are the odds the virus will get through the condom barrier even with proper use and without breakage?
Would you stick your penis in a random set of sample containers at a Centers for Disease Control laboratory? Of course not, yet people do it all the time in the sexual field; how intelligent and rational is that? They should use their brains, if not abstain for morality's sake.
To simplify both sides, AIDS IS a gay disease in America because of irresponsible promiscuity. AIDS IS a cultural disease in Africa because of a lack of education and irresponsible promiscuity. The common thread is promiscuity. Abstinence and education would solve tackle this problem on both fronts.
Good point, monkeydriven.
Bob, you're drawing illogical conclusions from the CDC report. It says 72% of male AIDS cases result from homosexual activity. Notice it doesn't say "HIV cases." One can have HIV and live without symptoms for years, and one can even live his whole life without developing AIDS. The percentage you're using is most likely taken from men who contracted HIV decades ago and are just now showing symptoms. Getting HIV from homosexual activity does not mean that a person will develop AIDS now or any time soon. It could be years before you get an accurate percentage. The men represented in this statistic probably got HIV at a time when there wasn't a fraction of the education and public knowledge surrounding HIV/AIDS as there is today. Extrapolating this data onto today's situation is illogical.
In this vein, in twenty years, we may see this percentage change to something like "72% of all AIDS cases appear in heterosexual African-American women," which is a quickly rising demographic for HIV/AIDS.
There's no fact left unquibbled for homosexual activists, is there?
You and I both know AIDS/HIV is used synonymously and in tandem in every major official reference, including the CDC. Why is it so tough to accept the reality that homosexual behavior is a deadly activity? You should deal with that reality and make the necessary changes in order to preserve human life and reduce suffering.
Logic would dictate that, even if morality remains too unpleasant.
I'm not an activist, and my sex life isn't deadly. It doesn't spread diseases or hurt anyone, no children are in danger of being indoctrinated by me, and although I may get cocky sometimes, I never think that my personal life is important or threatening enough to "hijack" anyone's marriage and lead to the decline of Western civilization.
Why must all homophobic conservatives resort to hyperbole and treat average people like they're activists? I'm just a regular guy who pointed our an error in your reasoning, that's all.
There is no error in my reasoning. AIDS and/or HIV is deadly.
Having sex as God intended, between a man and a woman in marriage, would end the disease in it's tracks. Continuing to have sex outside God's design will continue the death and suffering.
"Having sex as God intended, between a man and a woman in marriage, would end the disease in it's tracks."
Uh, no. You can get HIV/AIDS from other sources than just sexual contact.
I think stopping about 72% of a disease could easily be considered "stopping it in it's tracks."
As for the remainder, ending the immoral behavior of drug use would pretty much wipe out the rest of the disease. Causes other than sexual contact and drug use are about 1%, and likely those (blood transfusions, accidental blood transfers, etc.) would be wiped out if everyone quit having sex outside God's design and stopped using drugs.
This is why God wants us to live in a moral manner, as he's told us to live. It's not because he's a cosmic killjoy; it's because he knows it's the best and healthy way. We avoid a lot of suffering if we do things God's way.
Oh sorry. My liberal educated mind thought that by "stopping it in its tracks," you meant 100%, not 72.
Yes, I know. The liberal mind quibbles for any excuse to justify immoral behavior. No problem.
Post a Comment