The increased violence, severe depression and suicide mostly stem from people being beligerant towards homosexuals.  You try not lashing out at people when you are constantly told that you are evil and going to hell.  It's fine if someone wants to believe that homosexuality is a sin but to constantly berate people for how they live their lives is going too far.  As for GRID, there's a very good reason that it was renamed because AIDS has nothing to do with homosexuality.  It was the myth that it was a "gay disease" that led to it being ignored for far too long causing it to grow to the global epidemic that it now is.  Had research into it started when it was first found we might have been able to discover better treatments and maybe even a cure by now.

I will agree that information about the potential increase in disease should be discussed but that has less to do with homosexualtiy as it does with anal sex so it should be part of the comprehensive sex-ed anyway.

That's not true Lula and you know it.  Parents have to sign permissions slips for their kids to join in the sex-ed classes so you have just as much right to pull your kid out of the class and I would imagine that if a parent wanted to meet with the instructor prior to signing the slip arrangements could be made (there are parent teacher conferences after all).

Because it's not related to their lifestyle any more than it's related to anyone elses lifestyle.  AIDS is spread through fluid exchange which means heterosexuals are just as likely to contract it from unprotected sex as homosexuals.  The reason it may have been seen in homosexuals more was most likely because they didn't see the need to use protection when having sex since there was no risk of pregnancy.  With education that has changed.

This doesn't support your position Lula it supports the other side and actually supports the need for comprehensive sex ed to inform kids of the dangers out there related to sex and drug use.  In fact the entire article that you cited works against your argument.  Yes homosexual sex may increase the chances of contracting AIDS but it is followed very closely by heterosexual sex and IV drug use.  This means that EDUCATION is the key.

The school that my daughter goes to has a night that parents can sit in on exactly what will be shown/discussed with your child in sex ed.  I doubt my school is the only one that does that.  After that, you can decide if your child attends the class or goes to a study hall instead.

~Lula~

First, that is in the D.C. area, not the United States, and not the world.

Secondly, that news report shows:

1.Multiple sexual partners

2. "D.C. also has a high number of gay men, and HIV is high among gay black men."

That is statistically skewered because since DC has a high number of gay men, it is then more than likely that a study of the DC area would show that gay (black) men have a higher risk, etc... The findings are too slanted to be worthwhile.

3. The document is an update of a breakthrough 2007 report, which brought into clearer focus a picture of a city in the grip of a complex and "modern epidemic" that had traveled from a mostly gay population to the general one and disproportionately hit blacks

Right there it states that it has shifted to being a general and black issue. (Or "disease" as you put it.)

It should also be noted that men, whether gay or not, tend to be more promiscuous. It's a sad but unfortunate truth. That being said, if it is accepted that gay men also tend to be more promiscuous - then it can be said that they have a higher chance (hence a higher rate) of AIDS.

However, most health organizations agree that AIDS/HIV is an equal opportunity killer, and anyone can get it - no matter if you are gay or straight or even purple and blue.

good question Kingbee.  I would say that would vary from individual to individual but in all cases there is usually a mourning period just like any other death.  I miscarried a child after my third child was born.  Even though I had three babies already and was not happy about being pregnant again, I mourned for this child.  It hit me like any other death in the family. 

and what would that be Ock? 

we only had this when the kids were in grade school because it was pretty touchy then about having sex-ed for grade school kids.  At the time I'm talking maybe about 3rd-4th grade.  The funny thing is this video night that the teachers from the various schools in the district put on was barely attended.  I remember looking around and seeing maybe less than 10 parents and the district was one of the biggest in the state.  How sad. 

My kids never had to sign any slips and sex-ed was very comprehensive.  Most of the time my kids were taken out of the classes during those times because I requested it. 

Lula posts:

AldericJourdain,

I said that proportionately speaking, male homosexuality (specifically sodomy) results in higher rates of HIV/AIDS.

You made the assertion in #142 that HIV/AIDS is not primarily a homosexual disease.

I provided a news story that clearly states otherwise...and  what's happening in the Washington, DC area is what's happening in the rest of the US and around the world. Washington, DC happens to be where the interest and study is being done.

Let me reiterate.

The first case of AIDS and the first isolation of the HIV virus in the US occurred in 1981. In its origins, it was entirely a disease of sodomites, generated in and by anal intercourse. I don't know what the statistics are now, but in the early 90s, 85% of the AIDS cases were sodomites. HIV/AIDS was contracted by women from bisexual men and they in turn spread it to other men and thereby to other women. Infected women may transmit it to their unborn children and intravenous drug users may contract it by sharing needles with infected persons. Innocent persons may contract it by transfusions of infected blood.

So, while the proximate cause of HIV/AIDS is not in every case sodomy, it can't be denied that the etiology of every case leads back to sodomy as its point of origin.

HIV/AIDS is a disease, a deadly venereal disease. It's way past time that we demand that this pandemic be treated as one rather than a civil or equal rights issue.

In all the public discussion of HIV/AIDS the connection between the "Gay Rights" or "Gay Pride" movement which started in the early 70s, and AIDS is never mentioned. Yet, that connection is as evident as smoking is to lung cancer. Why do public officials, (including school teachers) tell people to stop smoking, (Just say No), but will not tell them to stop sodomizing is incomprehensible.

But then again, I shouldn't be surprised  for we live in an age when, as the Holy Bible says, "reason has become unreason."

Here we have an HIV/AIDs pandemic that threatens billions of lives with no effective treatment in sight. We know what steps are necessary to contain the AIDS pandemic, but we refuse to take them. Other plagues have been checked by identifying and forthrightly addressing the root causes as well as attempting to treat the victims. But HIV/AIDS is different; it's not treated so much as a disease but as a cause..AIDS is a symbol of sexual freedom born out of the 1960s sexual revolution.

The number one defense against getting AIDS is practicing chastity, not living "alternate lifestyles".

That's the thing lula, sodomy is not the point of origin. It just is not. There are many other cases of people getting AIDS, and they are not gay, nor do they practice any form of sodomy. They ended up finding out they got it from needles through blood transfusions.

Also, you used a small sample...the District of Columbia...as proof for the entire country? Sorry, that is a bad way to support any argument. It is also a hasty generalization, which is a logical fallacy.

I will agree practicing smart/safe sex is a good thing, but who am I to tell others how to live their life? You talk about us having free will, and the right to choose or not choose your Gods preferred way, but I feel you fail to expand this into other areas. This goes for smoking in my opinion. I do not smoke, but I have no right to tell others to not smoke.

Btw, there is a difference being promiscuous and living an alternative lifestyle. Just because you are homosexual does not mean that you are promiscuous; vice versa, just because you are promiscuous does not mean you are homosexual.

That being said, it comes down to how you live your life; you, and you alone have the right to say how you live your life. What others do with their lives is their own business. Of course, that is just my opinion.

in its origins, hiv was--and remains--a viral infection common to non-human primates, specifically chimpanzees. while there's no conclusive evidence proving how this virus was first transmitted to humans, most authorities theorize (hold onto your mitre) this virus "evolved" to exploit human hosts.  it's a process known as zoonosis, one familiar to anyone whose contracted so-called asian flu.

it's not a one way street; human virii take advantage of animals--usually pets or those in close contact with humans.

of all the scenarios so far put forward, it seems most likely blood was initial vehicle of transmission and contamination the result of butchering chimps for food.

dunno bout you but i've never seen a recipe for chimp requiring (or suggesting) anal intercourse as step in preparation.

i sincerely sympathize with you and your loss.  i've no doubt it was painful and you grieved.

i won't presume to tell you how or what you felt. 

still, there are significant differences between any other death and a miscarriage. most obvious of which would be a total dearth of existential experience.  in many ways the most apt analogy is between we the living and those no longer here with us.  we are by no means dead although we all have that potential. 

kingbee posts:

Kingbee,

First, I posted the Heritage Foundation Report as a rebuttal to Taltimer's claim that EVERY observation, statistic and empirical study shows abstinence ed doesn't work causing less abstinence and increases the rate of teen pregnancy and STDs, etc.

Second, the answer to your question is yes. The Heritage Foundation provided a study that showed 15 Abstinence programs were effective in helping kids understand the importance of their physical, emotional, mental and moral health of delaying sexual activity. If they would have helped only one kid, it would have been a success....that's how important kid's lives are.

Kingbee posts:

Over the years, there have been 3 types of Abstinence Education that I am aware of...abstinence-plus education, abstinence-only education, and abstinence until marriage education.

 In general, public schools aren't serious about teaching Abstinence...why, being into secular humanism, they are "value free" as in amoral, and abstinence-only and abstinence-until-marriage education programs are laden with moral values.

So, in order to get federal funds, and in order to appear to be effective in promoting abstinence for those parents who clamour for it, sex education became known as "comprehensive sex education" and included abstinence-plus programs in its curriculum.  Comprehensive sex ed promotes abstinence and responsible (using birth control) sexual behavior at the same time. However, the abstinence part amounts to...so abstain from sexual activity until you are ready, its' consensual, and condoms and contraceptives are available and being used consistently.

lula posts:

My kids were in Catholic School during this time and I didn't pay too much attention to what public schools were doing as far as sex ed was concerned. I've been actively involved ever since 2004 and that's the period of time I was addressing my remarks as that is my first hand experience. A group of us tried to get this same abstinence-only education program into our school district and the answer from 22 school board members was NO.  

Now, I have to ask are you sure that every state except California complied with Title V mandates? That would surprise me becasue first, Title V wasn't implemented until 1997 and second, in order for the state to get the federal funds, it required matching funds from the state..and besides that all these 8 conditions had to be satisfied in order to receive the abstinence money.

the reason

Both of you are wrong.

lulu is just spouting bullshit. But the counter that HIV is reported higher because men are more likely to ADMIT to having anal sex is wrong. The reason is simple. There are only two reasons to wear a condom:

1. Prevent STD

2. Prevent pregnancy

Pregnancy is NOT AN ISSUE with for homosexuals!

If a hypothetical X% of the population is willing to use a condom to prevent only pregnancy, Y% to prevent only STD, and Z% to prevent both. Then the percentage of gays / exclusively anal/oral sex hetrosexuals using protection is Y+Z while the percentage of hetrosexual vaginal intercourses where a condom is used is X+Y+Z.

However that has absolutely nothing to do with the rediculous claims lula makes.

The article fails to debunk the myth because it just spews politically correct BS instead of actually correct information. And we already established that lying to push your agenda just makes you look stupid and hurts this very same ajenda (be it abstinance or equality for gays).

I am still waiting for a proper response for this post I made lula. I apologize if you did and I missed it. But all I saw is you claiming that non abstinance sex ed = teaching that homosexuality is awesome (what does homosexuality have to do with mentioning proper condom use?) = is "wrong" because homosexuality leads to suicide and depression.

Then your school system, and any similar school system, is dropping the ball.  Permission slips should be required for sex-ed simply because some parents, like you and Lula, wouldn't want their children in the class.  The school should do a better job of educating the parents about what is going on in the school.

Just because the first recorded case in the US was from a homosexual doesn't mean that it all stems from homosexuality.  The disease itself came from Chimps although I don't recall exactly how it made the jump in species.  You are misconstrewing (sp?) the facts.  The fact of the matter is that AIDS is transmitted by fluid transfer which means that it can infect anyone.  If it was truly a homosexual disease then it would only impact homosexuals or only be transfered by anal sex (and even that isn't exclusive to homosexuals).

Again it isn't a homosexual disease.  It is transmitted by fluid exchange and the message getting out there is educating everyone to that fact.  We should be encouraging needle exchanges so that the disease is less likely to spread through the sharing of needles (since there will be less needle sharing).  We should also encouraging abstinence and condom use so that it isn't spread through sexual contact.  It is NOT a gay disease so mentioning that doesn't do any good and in fact would put straight people at risk because they might think that they don't have to be as careful.

Well said.  And the adendum to that is that we all have to live with the consequences of our actions, whatever they may be.  With something like AIDS the key is education.  Educate the public on how it is transmitted so that people at least have the information to make better decisions, if they choose to ignore the information that is their choice and they must deal with whatever the consequences may be.

Precisely.

Lula and KFC seem to talk from one side about how their God gives us free will to make decisions on how we live our life and then deal with the consequences, but then they do not seem to apply this to other things like this case. What is the point of God given free will if you are unable to use it?

~Alderic

Too bad for them, its those kind of idiots who refuse to teach their kids for which sex ed was made for.. I knew about sex, anyone whose parents understand proper parenting knows about safe sex... people like him and lula think utter ignorance is somehow more moral, and as such their children get teen pregnant and put more kids for adoption / abortion (or flat out dropout), and spread STDs around the student body.

The quote said SODOMY not HOMOSEXUALITY. I hate to break it to you but anal sex doesn't require two men. a man and a woman  can have anal too. The chance of infection from a single vaginal encounter is 3%, it is an order of magnitude higher from a single anal encounter. More over, anal sex doesn't carry a risk of pregnancy (gay or hetrosexual) so those unconcerned about STD but concerned about babies will not use a condom during anal but will during vaginal. the chance of infection from an anal / vaginal goes down to almost nothing as soon as you put on a condom.

If you're gay you're much more at risk of catching it than someone who is heterosexual, if everything else between them is equal (i.e. they both have the same amount of sex, are as likely to use a condom as each other, etc. etc.). It may not be the root cause, but that shouldn't  mean you don't teach children not to be gay so that they'll reduce their risk of catching it (or at the very least point out that if you are gay then you are more at risk and it is even more important that you practice safe sex).

The simple fact is that if you are straight then you don't have to be as careful. That is, you should still be careful, but the risk associated with not being careful is lower statistically speaking.

Note I'm not saying that straight people shouldn't be told to practice safe sex - IMO the dangers are so severe that everyone should be taught to have safe sex (i.e. use a condom unless you know that both you and your partner are free from infection). I just think that as part of that teaching it should be ok to point out that if you're gay then you're more at risk.

well, are you including where they put their dick in the "everything else is equal" thing?

If the have the same amount of anal sex and the same amount of condom use then no, there is not a single difference between the two, there is no magic in a gay mans arse that makes it more aidsy than a womans.

But if you are just comparing couples then NOT everything is equal, two things that are different can never be equal no matter how much liberals wish it so. In this case they aren't equal because the anatomy of the vagina is vastly different then the anatomy of the anus. None of the pregnancy stuff even occurs at the vagina, it occurs past the cervix, in the womb and tubes etc... the vagina is a 6 inch tract meant to milk a penis, feel goof for the man and the woman, and protect and prevent infectious diseases. deeper in you go past the cervix and you get into a variety of organs meant for actual reproductive purpose, the purpose of the vagina itself is SEX.

And free of cheating.

aldericjourdain posts:

Only in a perfect world. But we are discussing the deadly disease of AIDS and aren't you glad that the Red Cross takes into consideration the lives of homosexuals regarding their policies on blood donations?

EL DUDERINO POSTS:

Education you say....consider this by Rabbi David Eidensohn who writes that even though we have much medical knowledge, we can't stop the growth of HIV/AIDS......He says we have an Alice in Wonderland attitude about it mainly becasue of the homosexual lobby. That's why I say it's a politically correct disease.

Here's a snippet.... How does the government fight HIV? It asks the Gay Lobby what to do, and they demand money for "education." The gays then take the millions of dollars for "education," and "educate" their way. In the above newsletter is a separate article about the San Francisco gay organization called STOP AIDS, which received from the government $698,000 in fiscal 2000. It took this money to "educate," and it did so by promoting the opposite. The practice is now under the scrutiny of Inspector General Janet Rehnquist (daughter of the Chief Justice). She found that events they promoted were "inappropriate, potentially obscene and appeared to directly promote sexual activity." Paying the gays to "educate" about HIV was attacked by physician Congressman Dave Weldon (R-Florida) who asked, "Where's the data that all the billions we spent over the last 10 years have slowed or stemmed the spread of this disease?"

The entire report can be read here:

            http://www.sinaicentral.com/gendercentral/1_4_02_pr_Gay_Lobby_%20and_the_cost_of_AIDS.htm

It's not education....it's practicing chastity.

Granted, in a perfect world. The sense of keeping out of others business is a virtue most in the world do not have; however, just because others do not follow it, does not mean it shouldn't be followed. Besides, it is not about peer pressure, it is about doing what you wish with your life. To invade other peoples lives and try to tell them what to do, just goes to show that you don't care about that. (BTW, I mean "you" as in general you; not specifically you.)

Actually, I would rather see the policy as a blanket policy for anyone who has done drugs, etc... To do it as they do it only tends to be antagonistic.

Lula, I think we're all saying the same thing here in: Either practicing safe (educated) sex, or no sex at all - verus getting aids. I'm sure no one here wants anyone to wind up with AIDS. It's a horrible disease and  nasty way to died, and/or suffer. However,we all seem to be coming at this from different angles. It is obvious that you see such a task as being done through chastity; myself, and it seems, others, see it as becoming educated about the matter so that one can make the decions - whatever the outcome. This ties into the principle of living your life as you see fit, bad and good decisions included.

KINGBEE POSTS #148

TALTIMER POSTS:

Turns out it's classroom sex education that is putting children's lives in danger. ANd we cna thank in part Congressmen Dave Weldon who is also a physician. He asked the question "Where's the data that all the billions we spent over the last 10 years have slowed or stemmed the spread of this disease?"

We've known ever since 2001 that the public has been misled on Condoms, "Safe Sex" education.

When push came to shove, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) admitted that years after promoting "safe sex"  that there is very little scientific proof to back the claim of safe sex messengers. The New American, August 27, 2001, reported Dr. Weldon saying, "Sixty five million AMericans suffer today from incurable STDs, and there will be 15 million new STDs infections annually unless Americans are given the facts so they can change behaviors. (like stop premarital sex and practice chastity!...my addition) Most young people today have been misinformed and believe that condoms offer them significant protection. Unfortunately, millions have been misled and given bad information which will result in their making decisions which will cause incurable diseases,......" 

Around 1999-2000, Congressman Tom Coburn, also a practicing physician, had a scientific panel develop a report on the effectiveness of condoms cosponsored by the National Institute of Health, Food and Drug Admin. the CDC, and the US Agency for International Development. On July 20, 2001, Dr. Weldon was reported as saying that this report was kept under wraps for nearly a year. The report concluded that there is no scientific evidence to support the claims that condoms provide universal protection against 8 STDs....HIV, gonorhea, chlamydia, syuphilis, chancroid, trichomonaiasis, genital herpes and HPV, human appillomavirus.

Dr. Cobrun said, "This report finally exposes the safe sex myth for the lie that it is, for decades, the federal government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to promote an unsubstantiated claim that promiscuity can be safe. We all know for a fact that it's a lie. Who can ever know the true toll in human lives and health care costs that have resulted from misinformation that has been propagated by the CDC, Planned Parenthood, and the rest of the "safe sex" lobby?"  

What's more this report means that when condom use is discussed it is no longer medically correct or legal for the CDC to refer to sex as "safe" or "protected. As a medical doctor the best prescription I can give to avoid infection with a sexually transmitted disease is abstinence until marriage and a lifelong,mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner.

So, Kingbee, turns out that it was best afterall that Title V Abstinence only Education programs downplayed condom use and wanted to emphasize their failure rates. And the ones who are putting other lives in danger are the ones who push contraceptive sex education.

of course.  I agree.  and this whole thing about AIDS not being a gay disease is a ridiculous  It started out that way and has progressed but it did start out as a homosexual disease no matter what anyone tells you.  It's not PC to pick on the homosexuals or to insinuate anything about them.

 Taltimar, you weren't even born when the first cases came to light.  I was.  I saw the news.  I saw the movie that came out in the 80's (I think it was called "The Band Played On").  I saw the men (at first that was it) involved and the gay bathhouses that were being closed down all over the place as a result of this disease.  It put fear into the homosexual community BIG time.  But like any sin it has consequences and the innocent do get contaminated and unfortunately the Ryan Whites (remember him?) of the world get caught because of what the grownups were doing wrong. 

maybe you're just not understanding?  Could that be it?  Hmmmmmm?

I absolutely agree with you about the free will.  Lula and I are not infringing on that.  But the freewill is only one sided when it comes to secular governmental education.  Our kids were educated in a public school.  Why can't our views and voices be heard?  Why do our kids have to leave the classroom when comprehensive sex is being taught? 

We went to countless school board meetings trying to get an abstinence program going to give an alternative and let parents choose which program they'd prefer.  Guess what?  Shot down.  Why is that?  This goes alot deeper than surface level.  The funny thing is if you had given the parents the choice....I'm willing to bet most parents would have put their kids in the abstinence side of the health program.  The whole idea is to give the kids support and tell them it's ok to wait and not be like the kids who chose not to wait.  Tell them it's not a shame they didn't lose their virginity before they get their diploma. 

When my boys were in H.S. there were other Christian parents like me.  We all took our kids out of this semester course because it was laden with indoctrination and went against everything we believe in and teach our kids.  What people don't seem to understand is our kids were the kids not having sex at the parties and delving into risky behaviors and how it's all related.  My kids were home everynight usually in bed by nine if they didn't have a sports event.  They certainly were NOT given the green light to "be careful" cuz you're going to do it anyway speech.  The bar was raised a bit higher...and guess what they met the expectation and.....I went to a half dozen weddings (these same kids) who went to the altar as virgins. 

It can be done and abstinence can work....if given the chance and the support.  It's a pretty good thing when you can enter marriage and not be bringing a whole lot of baggage on the trip. 

I guess I should put a disclaimer. I don't mean the you as specifically you, it is meant as an in general you.

BTW, I'm not saying abstinance is wrong, or that it shouldn't be an option. I'm just saying that sex ed should be an option for those who wish to actually have the information, and then make decisions. I'm glad i was given the education, more than glad. Instead of just being told what to do, I made the decision to be careful. It helped me mature tons.

I'm just saying that with what you both are saying, and how you both are saying it tends to irk me. It comes accross like saying that cancer is a ______ disease, because it is easier to get it if you're whatever. (I think the percentage is high for blacks, maybe im wrong) That's what it is sounding like, that you're labeling it their disease, when it can end up with anyone, and kill anyone.

ok.

But that's not the problem.  The problem is we have a whole bunch of teens having sex starting now in the 5th-6th grade when this wasn't happening before.  What has changed?  The problem isn't that there's a lack of information out there is it?  No. The problem is they're not even considering telling these kids how beneficial it would be for them to wait.  The problem is it's only a one way street.  There isn't an option for parents like us who wish to teach the same biology but instead of hand out condoms encourage them to abstain for their own benefit but yet still tell them the risks involved.

BTW I didn't just "tell" my kids what to do.  I, as a parent, strongly encouraged them with information to wait until marriage.  Of course being a Christian I had backup.  I could tell them that it was God's best plan for their lives and that it was so because of great love for them and their future mates. 

I understand from a non-Christian viewpoint it's much harder because basically what you have to say is "I say so."  But in a classroom setting the teachers are not going to have an "I say so" attitude.  It would be filled with facts and information to encourage them to stay pure either until marriage or until they were at least old enough to either be married or take responsiblity fully for what could happen to them as a result of having sex before they really should.  They would be strongly encouraged as I did my kids to make sure they didn't put themselves into a position where a sexual encounter would be possible (like being alone with the opposite sex).   When my son, as a teen,  took a girl home in the car, we always made sure someone else was in the car with them.  Of course, if they are hell bent on having sex, they will.  They'll find a way.  This was only to help and encourage them by not giving them an opportunity when there could be one. 

Not sure why this wouldn't help you mature as well?  The only diff between one program and the other is one is either passing out condoms or showing you how to get pills and work the clinics and the other is strongly encouraging you to wait possibly until marriage.  The reason many aren't getting married nowadays is they don't have to.  It used to be marriage and then sex.  Now it's sex, babies and maybe if you want get married or even better just go from man to man.  See that alot nowadays.  Women having children from various relationships.  That's healthy and mature? 

well maybe because that's how it started and the blame is or should be there as that's where it originated.  Now, of course it's progressed outside of the homosexual community I agree.  But if I'm not mistaken (and I might be with the whole Africa problem) it's still very much a concern for those in the homosexual community more than the heterosexual one.   When this first appeared (in the 80's) it almost scared the homosexuals straight.........but like anything else  we get desensitized.  But for a while homosexual men were dropping like flies and they were very scared and committing to manogamy like never before. 

 I'm not positive but I suspect my homosexual uncle died of AIDS in the eighties.  Of course there was a stigma attached and I think they put down he died of pneumonia or something.  He wasn't that old. 

... lets put SMOKER in the blank... saying cancer is a smoker's disease is misleading, because non smokers can get cancer too. But smoking is a contributing factor...

The difference is that homosexuality isn't a contributing factor, there is no magic gay juice in a gay man's body that makes it more STD susceptable. It is simply that gays are more likely to engage in risky behaviour (condomless sex) because they have less to worry about (no pregnancy)