Friday, November 13, 2009

HIV/AIDS & Health Care Reform, What Do We Really Know?

This Post Discusses Adult Situations And Describes Sexual Activities That Some May Find Offensive. Material Contained Herein Is For Educational Purposes

In the days of health care reform one thing is abundantly clear. No matter what the public says Washington will reform the system in some manner or fashion. Supposedly this reform is for the approximately 38 to 45 million uninsured individuals in the United States legally. This reform will, in some form or fashion, make employers responsible for the health care of their employees imposing penalties for failure to acquire health plans. This in and of itself could put some companies out of business depending upon the requirements. While it is not yet all hashed out there is also additional pressure for what has been called the "Public Option". This option is said to be a way for individuals to secure coverage at supposedly lower and more competitive prices group rate prices as opposed to individual plan prices. I have placed the most up to date information on the current congressional wrangling at Dunamis Insurance & Business Services web site, and will update that regularly to clarify exactly what's going on regarding this issue.


However, as noted in "Hate Crimes Legislation, Presidential Approval Of The Gay Agenda" in light of our President's agenda to normalize homosexuality, even calling homosexual relationships:

"just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman."

We should ask and look critically at the real motivation behind such an expansive move, and we should better define what is really occurring and why there is such a push to insure the "uninsured". Most of those infected with HIV/AIDS in care rely on public sector insurance programs or are uninsured, estimated to range between approximately 70% and 83%  [Fleishman, J., Personal communication, Analysis of HCSUS Data, January 2002 also see: Nakashima AK. “Who Will Pay for HIV Treatment? Health Insurance Status of HIV-Infected Persons.” In: Proceedings of the 1997 Meeting of the Infectious Diseases Society of America; September 13-16, 1997; San Francisco, CA. Abstract 293.]

3 Facts To Keep In Mind Before We Embark Upon This Subject:

1- America's citizens should have access to excellent health care and there is enough money within the system to provide such for all of it's citizens. That doesn't necessarily mean that health care should be controlled or distributed by the government. Those things are a separate issue from this writing.

2- No individual should be denied adequate health care because of any factor including sexual orientation. To suggest so is a ridiculous notion. This article makes no such suggestion.

3- There is NO ENDORSEMENT of any immoral sexual activity within this article. God's way of marriage and one man and one woman still is the best prescription for sexual activity, health, growth of the family and health of the community and society in general.

The Case & History of AIDS:

In examining the accuracy of the classification of cases by the CDC, it must be recognized that, except in perinatal cases, it is virtually impossible to know with absolute certainty how a particular individual became infected with HIV. Originally, pre 1981, AIDS was referred to as "GRIDS" ("gay related immunodeficiency syndrome"), because it appeared to be a disease which affected only homosexual men. Later, it became clear by statistical analysis that it primarily affected homosexual men and IV drug users, but that HIV could also be transmitted by penile-vaginal intercourse and blood transfusions, and from an infected mother to her child. All of these transmission methods are consistent with the fact that AIDS is a blood disease. However, even though the high risk categories are known, there is no way of knowing for certain whether a particular person became infected in a particular manner, because the precise details of one's life cannot be known with absolute certainty by others.


Research provides abundantly clear information  that AIDS is a devastating disease. The research also shows that HIV/AIDS is a disease that is rampantly and readily spread throught the  homosexual community. Currently there are 1.1 Million individuals known to be infected either with AIDS or the disease thought to cause AIDS, HIV.
 The research also affirms that although there are many advertisements such as BET's "Wrap It Up" campaign and condom distribution at high schools and now even grade schools throughout the country, geared toward heterosexual individuals, yet HIV/AIDS is still primarily a homosexual disease, more readily and easily transmitted through homosexual. Despite all of the efforts to make the disease a disease for all sexually active individuals, HIV/AIDS remains tied to the immoral sexual and anti-biblical sexual activities of homosexuality and the homosexual community.

Don't believe me? Good, because I didn't do the research. However the research and medical professional dis and here's what they found. In  An Actuarial Analysis on the subject:

Distribution of AIDS Cases In The United States

As of the end of 1992 (publication of the 1993 report having been delayed by the CDC), the cumulative distribution of adult cases since 1981 by exposure category was as follows:
Male homosexual/bisexual contact 142,626 (57%)

IV drug use (female and heterosexual male) 57,412 (23%)

Male homosexual/bisexual contact and IV drug use 15,899 ( 6%)

Hemophilia/coagulation disorder 2,026 ( 1%)

Heterosexual contact with a person with, or at increased risk for, HIV infection 13,292 (5%)

Born in Pattern II country 2,962 ( 1%)

Receipt of blood transfusion, blood components or tissue 4,980 ( 2%)

Other/undetermined 10,002 ( 4%)

Total 249,199 (100%)
According to 2007 CDC figures, the current status of HIV/AIDS in the US is as follows:
In 2007 There were 42,655 new cases of HIV/AIDS in adults, adolescents, and children were diagnosed in the 33 states with long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting, which was down from the 2006 estimate of 56,300 new HIV/AIDS infections.

Approximately 74% or 42,495 diagnosis were men the remaining 26% were women.

Men having sex with men (MSM) category accounted for 71% out of the total male infections and 53% of overall total new infections in 2007.

Heterosexual sex with high risk individuals (individuals known to have HIV or AIDS)  accounted for 11% of all new infections.

Among women, 83% of all new HIV/AIDS diagnosis were from women who engaged in high risk heterosexual contact. ie: Had sex with men who were thought to already have HIV/AIDS.

Blacks/African Americans accounted for over half (51%) of the estimated number of HIV/AIDS diagnoses made during 2007, followed by whites (29%) and Hispanic/Latinos (18%).
To date there have been approximately 562,793 death from AIDS in the US.

Currently there are approximately 455,636 persons in the US living with AIDS (excluding HIV)
It is estimated that 1 in 5 (20%) of all kids infected with HIV/AIDS are unaware of it.
This statistical data compiled by the same government who wants universal health care knows that HIV/AIDS as of this 1992 report, delayed, says that almost 60% of HIV/AIDS transmission was from the homosexual/bisexual community.

One would say that well that data only tells part of the story. We've seen figures such as Magic Johnson who caught AIDS from heterosexual sex and therefore your argument is DOA because it can be proven that heterosexual can easily catch AIDS.

Is that so? Is my argument a moot point, or one worth examining closer? The fact is that Cookie didn't catch AIDS. So it's worth examining a little more closely. Let's see. In that same actuarial analysis, there were also statistics compiled as to the likelihood of acquiring AIDS from one of the most high risk sexual groups in the world. Prostitutes. Surprisingly this is what the study found: 

HIV and Female Prostitutes:

Prostitutes are another group which engages in sexual activity with multiple partners. Root-Bernstein discusses their experience as follows:
"M. Seidlin and his colleagues examined the prevalence of HIV infections in New York City call girls during 1987, They studied seventy-eight women who had been prostitutes for an average of five years each. Each woman had had an average of over 200 clients during the past year, or approximately 1,000 lifetime partners. Use of condoms was sporadic at best. Vaginal intercourse was common; anal, rare. Since it is estimated that nearly 5% of men in New York City are thought to be intravenous drug users and half of these are HIV seropositive, it is probable that each of these prostitutes had sexual relations with an average of twenty-five HIV-seropositive individuals. Despite this unusual promiscuity and despite living in one of the AIDS capitals of the world, only one of the women was HIV seropositive. She admitted being an intravenous drug abuser. Her seventy-two non-drug abusing co-workers were all HIV negative."
You mean to tell me, putting a gun up to one's head and playing Russian roulette by having unprotected sex with women who have sex with men for money as an occupation amounted to ONE HIV positive case in this study in the AIDS capital of the world??? If this disease was truly a heterosexual disease would not the cases of infection and the infection rate be much more expansive? Let's read further:
"Another study carried out in New York City by Dr. Joyce Wallace and her co-workers between 1982 and 1988 found similar results. They surveyed several hundred streetwalkers (a lower class of prostitute than call girls) for a variety of measures of immunodeficiency. Excluding admitted intravenous drug users from their study, they found that only 4.5 percent of the prostitutes were HIV infected. The only statistical difference between those who were infected and those who were not was that the HIV-positive women had had a mean of 3,062 sexual partners during their lifetime, whereas the HIV-seronegatives had had 1,047. On the other hand, Wallace found an HIV seropositivity rate approaching 50% among drug-abusing prostitutes."
"Similarly, a 1988 study concluded that "HIV infection in non-drug using prostitutes tends to be low or absent, implying that sexual activity alone does not place them at high risk, while prostitutes who use intravenous drugs are far more likely to be infected with HIV".
The Difficulty Of The Transmission Of HIV By Heterosexual Contact

This is one of the most misunderstood parts of a presentation of this sort. First there is no endorsement to run out and have heterosexual sex outside of marriage. Secondly, there is no endorsement to not worry about catching the disease if one is not committed to the will and plan of God. I am convinced that many heterosexuals are receiving this disease at the hands of bisexual lovers (men and women) and even spouses on the Down Low. In many instances women are challenged by a man who likes other men and are convinced that they can "change the man" and his desires, only to find out that the man will have sex with a woman as a matter of variety, proliferating his disease, but maintaining his lust for other men also. There are men in a similar situation with bisexual women, and they are in equally as dangerous of a situation.

Most STDs have a fairly high efficiency of transmission - perhaps a 10% to as high as a 50% probability of transmission during a single sexual act with an infected partner. As a result, the typical route for such diseases is from male-to-female-to-male-to-female..., by heterosexual intercourse. Obviously, therefore, the best defenses against the spread of such diseases are said to be (1) monogamy, (2) condoms (which is not a safe method as will be discussed below), and (3) medical treatment when symptoms occur.

HIV, however, is very different in one fundamental respect. Although it has been demonstrated that the transmission of HIV by heterosexual intercourse is possible, both male-to-female and female-to-male, unlike most other sexually transmitted diseases, the transmission is extremely inefficient, particularly female-to-male.

In addition, transmission usually is associated with some type of abnormality, such as some other STD. This was dramatically illustrated in a paper titled "Female-to-Male Transmission of Human Immunodeficiency Virus", by Padian et al, published in the September 25, 1991 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. In this paper, 72 male, non-drug using partners of HIV-positive women were studied, beginning in 1985. Of the 72 males, only a single one became infected through sexual contact. It is instructive to quote excerpts from the description of this couple's sexual practices and physical condition, to show the conditions which caused the man to become infected.
"Over the five years prior to the study, [the woman] had over 600 male partners, including over 2000 contacts with a bisexual man, an unidentified number of contacts with an intravenous drug user, and over 1000 contacts with a person she knew to be HIV-infected.

"The couple reported an average of 15 sexual contacts a month for the last 7 years. Almost all of these contacts consisted of unprotected vaginal-penile and oral intercourse. The couple practiced anal intercourse twice. The couple never used condoms. ... The woman would frequently have sexual intercourse with another partner while her husband first observed and then had intercourse with her immediately after the other partner.

 "This couple reported ... over 100 episodes of both vaginal and penile bleeding. The cause of this bleeding could not be established. Medical data were available only by history, and over the last 5 years, the woman reported four cases of vaginal yeast infections, both reported one case of trichomoniasis, and the man reported one case of urethral gonorrhea. In addition, the woman reported a history of endometriosis and had a hysterectomy during the year prior to entry into the study."
The report goes on to suggest that the man's HIV infection may have come from one of the other men who had sexual relations with his wife immediately prior to his sexual activity, rather than from his wife.

The report also states that six other of the 72 men reported penile bleeding during sexual intercourse, but did not become infected.

Now get this, the HIV was NOT from the woman, but from the man that the woman had sex with prior. Could this be the reason that HIV is on the increase in the Black Community and especially among Black heterosexual women. the lesbian is deceived into believing that they are exempt, but if they also have bisexual lovers their risk is equally as great of both catching and spreading this disease.

It is not at all surprising that this one man became infected, given his history of penile bleeding and other STD's. In fact, it illustrates that the risk of transmission of HIV infection may depend on a variety of factors relating both to the degree of infectiousness of the infected partner and to the susceptibility to infection of the uninfected partner. Of particular interest in this regard is the paper "Biologic Factors in the Sexual Transmission of Human Immunodeficiency Virus", by Holmberg et al. This paper discusses a number of possible cofactors, and concludes with the following summary:

"The probability that any single episode of genital-genital or anogenital sexual intercourse will result in transmission of HIV may be determined by multiple biologic factors of the infectious person, the virus itself, and the exposed susceptible person. Some of these factors are known or suspected (figure 1), and they may explain observed differences in the sexual transmission of HIV in different parts of the world, notably in Africa, where genital ulcerative disease is probably influencing the epidemiology of HIV. Several studies have shown that infection in partners of HIV-infected persons is not determined solely by numbers of sexual encounters; on the contrary, HIV-infected partners have usually had fewer sexual encounters with infectious mates than have noninfected partners.,, Thus, sexually active persons should be cautioned that, to our knowledge, there are no nonsusceptible persons and that any single sexual encounter may lead to HIV transmission. Research into biologic factors that modulate HIV transmission continues to be hampered by difficulties in identifying HIV transmitters and nontransmitters, infective and noninfective variants of HIV (if the latter exist in vivo), and persons relatively more or less susceptible to HIV infection. However, as the number of partner studies and the number enrolled in them increase, a progressively clearer idea of the biologic determinants of sexual transmission should emerge."
Given the level of STDs among street walking prostitutes, and the desire by some to try to conceal their drug habit, it is not surprising that a small percentage of those who did not admit to drug use nevertheless were HIV-positive. All things considered, it is significant that the percentage was so low, and is another indication of the extreme difficulty of HIV transmission by heterosexual intercourse.

AIDS and Homosexual Men

In contrast to the low risk for heterosexuals, homosexual men incur a significant risk because of their lifestyle. Root-Bernstein details the many immunosuppressive risk factors that affect homosexual men. Many of these, such as syphilis and a variety of other infections, are associated with anal sexual practices engaged in by a significant percentage of homosexual men. However, other risk factors were related to the widespread use of various drugs by homosexuals. In this respect, Root-Bernstein quotes the following studies:
"A CDC survey conducted in 1983 found that a 'typical' gay man in New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco used four street drugs regularly. Those who had developed AIDS by 1983 had a history of increased drug use both in therm of frequency of use and number of different drugs used regularly. Ninety-five percent of the gay men surveyed regularly used inhalant nitrites; over 90 percent smoked marijuana; 60 percent used cocaine; about 8 percent used heroin; over 50 percent used amphetamines; over 30 percent, barbiturates; almost 50 percent, LSD and methaqualone; and about 40 percent had used phencyclidine. Linda Pifer's 1987 survey of gay men in Memphis found slightly lower rates of drug use. Over 80 percent of this group admitted to using nitrites at least occasionally and 30 percent more than once a week. Seventy-four percent admitted to use of other illicit drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, phencyclidine, and LSD, with an average of nearly seven years of 'routine use.' Eleven percent described themselves as being 'heavy drinkers' and another 37 percent as 'moderate drinkers.' Multiple drug use was the norm among the heavy abusers."
 The increased risk of HIV infection for those homosexuals (and heterosexuals) who engage in anal sex is described by Root-Bernstein as follows:
"Immunological contact with sperm, or material carried in sperm, is increased in anal, as contrasted with vaginal or oral, intercourse. On reason has to do with the physiological differences of the rectum, vagina, and upper gastrointestinal tract. Vaginal tissue differs markedly from rectal tissue. The vagina has thick, muscular walls covered by a deep layer of epithelial (skin-like) cells that are easily sloughed off and secrete a lubricating mucus to decrease the possibility of abrasion. Even if abrasion does occur, the capillaries that embedded in the vaginal tissue are far from the surface and difficult to reach. There are also very few lymphocytes directly in the vagina, most of them being located higher up, near the cervix. The rectal tissue presents an entirely different picture. The rectum is comprised of an extremely thin layer of tissue, densely entwined with capillaries. It lacks the thick layers of epithelium that protect the vagina and its ability to produce a protective mucus. Moreover, the intestines are studded with Peyer's patches. Located along with the Peyer's patches are concentrations of M cells, which apparently function as portals through which the resident lymphocytes constantly sample the contents of the rectum for foreign material. These M cells have been shown to permit viruses such as HIV to gain access to the immune system from the rectum. Thus, unlike the vagina, the rectum represents a place in the body through which the immune system can easily be reached, even under normal conditions. Since microscopic tears and bleeding can accompany anal intercourse and infections but are rare in vaginal intercourse, anal exposure confers another means for semen components (and viruses) to enter the bloodstream, there to be immunologically processed."
Root-Bernstein then goes on to list a number of diseases that may develop in the rectum as a result of the various anal sexual practices engaged in by homosexual men. It is no wonder that, even apart from AIDS, homosexual men who engage in anal sexual activity have a higher incidence of immunosuppressive disease than heterosexuals.

More recently, Scottish researchers found transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) among heterosexuals slower than among homosexual men.  A study, published in PLoS Pathogens, also found transmission clusters in the heterosexual population occurred in networks of more than 10 people and as many as 30 people, but were smaller than those found among HIV-infected homosexual men.

 Mental Health Issues:

The study was conducted by UCLA scientists and involved data from a survey of more than 2,000 Californians in 2008.

The researchers found 48.5 percent of gay lesbian or bisexual individuals said they participated in treatment during the past year, compared with 22.5 percent of heterosexuals. Lesbians and bisexual women were most likely to receive treatment and heterosexual men were the least likely. The report stated:
"It is well known that health services utilization is greater among women generally," researcher Susan Cochran said. "Here we have shown that minority sexual orientation is also an important consideration. Lesbians and bisexual women appear to be approximately twice as likely as heterosexual women to report having received recent treatment for mental health or substance use disorders."
The Condom/Safe Sex Myth:

It's commonly thought and taught that condoms will make one "safe" during sex or sexual activity. The facts are asotounding that this is equally as great of a lie as any. According to The Medical Institute.org:
"The Bottom Line Condoms don't make sex safe, just less risky. Although condoms can reduce your risk for some STIs, they don't eliminate it. You can still get an STI (Sexually Transmitted Infection) or get pregnant...To completely reduce your risk for some STIs, you should avoid sexual activity (oral, vaginal or anal sex) until you are faithful to one partner. If you've already had sex, see a doctor about getting checked for STIs...Waiting to have sex until you are in a faithful, lifelong relationship (such as marriage) is the only certain way to avoid being infected sexually."
Life Expectancy:

 According to the US Library Of Medicine National Institute Of Health:

Previous estimates from obituaries and pre-1994 sex surveys suggested that the median age of death for homosexuals is less than 50 yr. Four contemporary databases were used to test that estimate: (1) obituaries in the homosexual press from 1993 through 1997 reflected treatment success for those with AIDS but suggested a median age of death less than 50 years; (2) two large random sexuality surveys in 1994--one in the USA and the other in Britain--yielded results consistent with a median age of death for homosexuals of less than 50 years; (3) the median age of those ever married in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway was about 50 years, while that of the ever homosexually partnered was about 40 yr; further, the married were about 5 times more apt to be old and 4 times less apt to be widowed young; and (4) intravenous drug abusers and homosexuals taking HIV tests in Colorado had almost identical age distributions. The four lines of evidence were consistent with previous findings suggesting that homosexual activity may be associated with a lifespan shortened by 20 to 30 years. ~ PMID: 9923159 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Anal Sex Misconceptions

With the advent of hip-hop and porno's "Booty Worship"  and "Booty Fixation" there also comes a more widely proliferated experimental sex type that is having its devastating effects on our community. This is called anal sex. The problem is that anal sex is is much more risky than any other form of sex and is not just for homosexuals, as was once thought.  According to the Bradley Hasbro Children’s Research Center in Rhode Island, anal sex is on the rise among teens and young adults, particularly those who have unprotected vaginal sex. Experts say girls and young women are often persuaded to “experiment” with their bodies for all the wrong reasons: To please a partner. But at what cost?

Since there’s a higher likelihood for contact with blood and other bodily fluids during anal sex, experts say it puts you at a higher risk for STDs. According to the Kaiser Foundation, more than one-third of new HIV infections in the United States occur among people between the ages of 13 and 29 and can be attributed to the mind-set among youth that they are not at risk of contracting the virus. In an ABC news.com interview Eliz. Schroeder co- author of "Sexuality Education: Past , Present & Future" said:  “They don’t think you can get a disease from it (anal sex) because you’re not having intercourse. They can actually recite by rote how you get AIDS, but it doesn’t transfer to their personal behavior.”

Medical Costs Associated With HIV/AIDS

Although this is one of the most obfuscated areas of information for obvious reasons, it is estimated that for every HIV infection that is prevented, an estimated $355,000 is saved in the cost of providing lifetime HIV treatment. See: Schackman BR, Gebo KA, Walensky RP, et al. The lifetime cost of current human immunodeficiency virus care in the United States. Med Care 2006 Nov;44(11):990-97.

There is a differnt cost for various treatments and regimens and varying costs appropriate to teh stage of the disease. I have attempted to provide a Rough estimate of medical costs in one age group based on Life expectancy for that group. I have also used conservative figures in todays dollars rather than inflationary dollars. This is the data:
20-29 age group represent approximately 25% (10,624) of all new HIV infections.

Annual estimated medical costs for this age group $8,452 per year per individual.~This figure is dependent upon the regimen and payer (newer formulations of more than one antiretroviral drug may be priced as high as their component parts)[This is based on average wholesale price (AWP). The price Medicaid pays for prescription drugs includes a rebate off the average manufacturers price (AMP), which itself is less than the AWP. The rebate received is defined as the greater of 15.1% of AMP or AMP minus the Best Price (BP) for brand name drugs. The rebate for generic drugs is 11% of AMP.] This represents an average estimate across all payers and all HIV disease stages, based on several studies. {Personal communication, James G. Kahn, January 2003. When additional medical expenses for doctor’s visits, laboratory tests, and drugs to prevent or treat HIV-related opportunistic infections are taken into account, average annual costs rise to approximately $18,000 to $20,000 per patient, with even higher expenses for those with more advanced HIV-related illness.}

Annual estimated cost per all individuals within this category $89,794,048

Providing healthcare to all individuals in this demographic group until life expectancy (excluding premature deaths or other occurrances) $3,771, 350, 016.
Rx Costs:
National Institute for Health Care Management (NIHCM) Foundation, for example, found that national retail drug expenditures for antiretrovirals totaled $2,572.4 million in 2001, representing an almost 21 percent increase over 2000, compared to a 17% increase for all retail prescription drug sales over the same period
Once again for obvious reasons, there is much obfuscation of truth in this area and my estimates are admittedly rough, but give a good idea of the costs associated with HIV/AIDS. Ultimately most of those costs are produced and will be generated by the homosexual community. This is not to question the humaneness fo the treatment. All sick individuals need and should have a right to healthcare, but it does bring into clarity the push for a nationalized healthcare against the backdrop of calling homosexuality admirable.

What Could Be The Results For Not Providing Adequate Universal Type Healthcare For Homosexuals?

Canada found that out when they were sued. Canadian Homosexual Complaint PDF Against The Gov't. The Canadian Government found out that the gay community stated the following as being the reason why they needed healthcare:

  • The life expectancy for gay and bisexual men is 20 years less than the average Canadian man;


  • GLB people commit suicide at rates ranging from twice as often to almost 14 times more than the general population;

  • GLBs have smoking rates ranging from 1.3 to three times higher than average;
  • GLBs become alcoholics at a rate 1.4 to seven times higher than the general population;
  • GLBs use illicit drugs at a rate from 1.6 to 19 times higher than other Canadians;
  • GLBs experience depression at rates ranging from 1.8 to three times higher than average;
  • Homosexual men comprise 76% of AIDS cases and 45% of all new HIV infections;
  • GLB populations are at a higher risk of lung and liver cancer;
  • Homosexual and bisexual men suffer a higher rate of anal cancer than heterosexual men;
  • Lesbians report a higher rate of breast cancer;
  • GLBs experience verbal and physical abuse at a greater rate than most Canadians.
Boy on so many points that sounds exactly like what I've laid out here doesn't it. Could this be a major source of the push to nationalize healthcare. Not to minimize individuals suffering because of inadequate access to healthcare, but does the homosexual agenda dn lobby have more to do with this than meets the eye? I wonder if we are next?

Conclusion:

Is the treatment of HIV/AIDS the most expensive medical care and treatment? NO, hemodialysis costs an estimated $150,000 annually per quality adjusted year life. {Freedberg, et al., “The Cost Effectiveness of Combination Antiretroviral Therapy For HIV Disease,” New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 344, No. 11, March 2001.}

Anyone thinking that the point of this article was to say that HIV/AIDS treatment costs so much that it shouldn't be covered missed the complete purpose of the article.

The article uncovers the hidden agenda behind the posture of the homosexual agenda, gay rights, and the insistence on this governement to normalize homosexuality and exalt it to an equal status of heterosexual relationships. This article exposes an element behind healthcare reform that is not discussed by many if any but that cannot be denied.

This is yet another reason often unspoken that the gay rights agenda has sought to plant itself so deeply into the thread of American life.  Rather than simply treat the result of gay sex, which can be proven to be harmful to siociety in general, I'd rather spend my time pleading with homosexuals to leave the lifestyle, because it is not only spiritually and morally devastating, but it is also physically and mentally devastating.

Based on the numbers, homosexuality is anything but admirable. The results of Homosexuality according to the numbers which I did not compile is not a wise decision for individuals, monetarily, socially, mentally, physically or otherwise.

We should ask our President is this the aim of health care reform? To socially normalize and encourage the immorality and devastating effects of homosexuality? how could anyone who cares about humanity, knowing the facts, endorse a homosexual lifestyle. The statistics say that the lifestyle is froth with problems none of which were invented by me or on this site. Is our Preseident promoting what is simply politically expedient, or something that is actually good for all of America? We may ask, I wonder if we will receive and answer?

Blessed!

Proverbs 16:25 ~ "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the WAYS OF DEATH."

References:


US Library Of  Medicine National Institute Of Health

UPI.com Gays & Lesbians Seek Healthcare

The Dakota Voice

American Psychiatric Association Coverup

Sexuality Education: Past Present & Future
Eliz. Schroeder & Judy Kuriansky Prager Publishers 2009

EDINBURGH, England, Sept. 28, 2009

HIV Prevention in the US at a Critical Crossroad CDC
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/reports/hiv_prev_us.htm

Current News:

Life Site News
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/aug/09081407.html

Education Czar Homosexual affirming religious hater
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/23/critics-assail-obamas-safe-schools-czar-say-hes-wrong-man-job/

CA Supreme Ct. Forces Doctors to lay down their religious beliefs
http://jasonaclark.com/2008/08/19/california-supreme-court-says-homosexual-rights-trump-christian-rights/

Concerning Medical Costs See:

1- Bartlett, J., Medical Management of HIV Infection, 2001-2002 Edition, 2001.

2- Kahn, J., Haile, B., Kates, J., Chang, S., “Health and Federal Budgetary Effects of Increasing Access to Antiretroviral Medications for HIV by Expanding Medicaid,” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 91, No. 9, September 2001.

3- Freedberg, et al., “The Cost Effectiveness of Combination Antiretroviral Therapy For HIV Disease,” New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 344, No. 11, March 2001.

4- Bozzette, S., et al., “The Care of HIV Infected Adults in the United States,” New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 339. No. 26, December 1998.

5- Bozzette, S., et al., “Expenditures for the Care of HIV-Infected Patients in the Era of Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy,” New England Journal of Medicine, Vo. 334, No. 11, March 2001.

6- University of Alabama (UAB), Press Release: UAB Announces Results of First HIV Patient Care Cost Analysis, July 2002.
In the UAB study, the average annual cost of patient care ranged from $14,000 for those at early stage HIV infection to $34,000 for those with advanced-stage disease.

7- National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation, Prescription Drug Expenditures in 2001: Another Year of Escalating Costs, Revised May 2002.

31 comments:

  1. I hope noone missed the point of this article.

    Individuals with AIDS/HIV need and deserve unfettered acess to life saving medical care. That's a fact that noone denies.

    The problem I have is the normalization of homosexuality as if it is a good proposition when all evidence is against such. Secondly, I hate being used as a taxpayer to help fund (in a vicarious manner) immorality..but what can we say...it seems to be the American Way.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Harvey wrote: in light of our President's agenda to normalize homosexuality, even calling homosexual relationships:

    "just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman."


    Harvey,

    First, was there a particular reason why you posted this as an incomplete sentence? For example, is a particular limit to the number of characters you can post here?

    I'm asking because, as I've mentioned several times before, it's common for you to post incomplete or out of context information when it suits your agenda.

    Second, I couldn't help but notice the specific words President Obama used here, which I think you either glossed over or intentionally ignored.

    President Obama wrote: You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman.

    For example, do you consider all relationships between men and women are admirable? Or to be more specific, do you think there are aspects of relationships between men and women which are NOT admirable?

    I'd also note that HIV Incidence data from the Centers for Disease Control and Preservation provides much more detailed and up to date information, than the references you've posted. A question and answer summary provides useful analysis of the study, which was performed in 2006.

    Last, I'd note that one demographic missing from both your references and the CDC HIV Incidence data is lesbian (same sex) couples which obtain from heterosexual activity with men of any orientation. This is because the incidence rate is significantly lower than even heterosexual contact of any type.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Scott,

    Look, I can't help it that you are reading impared and can't put 2 and 2 together when it comes to understanding and comprehension...

    You state nothing that I didn't say...obviously you just like to see what you've written or hear yourself talk...The President's words are DIRECTLY in context and in a more complete manner in my previous post to the HRC...So you what are you attempting to do? Loose another argument over something that is so plain and clear that everyone but you can understand it?

    The President said that homosexual relationship are:""just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman."

    What's there to be confused about? That's not my agenda that's his.

    Secondly, the CDC does a little something with their stats. They seem to pad them with criteria that obfuscates the truth. The criteria that they use is at somewhat of a conflict and I believe purposefully structured to conceal the truth.

    The data is incomplete at best when it comes to how lesbians get the disease. But there is a commopn thread and that's bisexuality. That is where the disease comes into the lesbian community. Bisexual women having sex with men who are infected, and then returing to have sex with other women.

    This is something that is caught up in the variance rates of reporting as many are reluctant to share such information (which is normal) and in addition, it's hard to track if a sexual partner has had homosexual sex prior to having heterosexual sex unless there are obvious signs.

    So scott please refrain yourself to actually proving information that helps discover the topic. I won't let you be the terrorist that you obviously try to on this blog...Your efforts are poor at best and only reveal your Godless, atheistic and materialist AGENDA.

    Mine agenda is clear and complete within the whole blog so there's nothing new to what I'm saying at all...your anti-Christ advocacy is really telling.

    ReplyDelete
  4. What's there to be confused about? That's not my agenda that's his.

    Harvey, you're implying that Obama wants to normalize specific sub behaviors, such as being promiscuous, drug use, etc. But he is doing no such thing.

    The key phrase here is "just as admirable as relationships between a man and a woman."

    Again, do you consider all relationships between men and women are admirable? Are you going to avoid the question yet again?

    For example, do you consider promiscuous heterosexual relationships "admirable?" Are heterosexual couples that use drugs "admirable?" Do consider sex outside of marriage "admirable?" I'm guessing the answer to these questions is a resounding NO. And, I think Obama would agree with your whole heartedly.

    So why would you assume Obama would find these behaviors admirable in a homosexual relationship? I mean, do you really think this is true? Really?

    Or are you merely trying to portray him as such, because he doesn't share your fundamental Christian beliefs?

    Secondly, the CDC does a little something with their stats. They seem to pad them with criteria that obfuscates the truth.

    Harvey, you're being incredibly vague. If this is the case, then you should have no problem pointing out exactly how these statistics are "concealing the truth." Of course, I'm guessing you won't come out and say it, because that would reveal what you either didn't know or don't want people to know.

    The criteria that they use is at somewhat of a conflict and I believe purposefully structured to conceal the truth.

    You mean the data conflicts with YOUR argument, that the only group with a disproportionate number of incidents of HIV is homosexuals? Let me guess, you think God used HIV to punish homosexuals, and any data that suggests otherwise somehow conceals this "truth?"

    For example, your sources only noted disproportional HIV incident rates based on sexual orientation. This is despite the fact that there are also significant disproportional HIV incident rates among races and ethnicity.

    Hispanics/Latinos are also disproportionately affected by HIV. Although Hispanics/Latinos account for 15% of the population, they accounted for 18% of people living with HIV in 2006 (194,000 total persons). The overall prevalence rate for Hispanics/Latinos (585 per 100,000) was nearly three times the rate for whites (224 per 100,000). The prevalence rate for Hispanic/Latino men (883 per 100,000) was more than two times the rate for white men (395 per 100,000), while the prevalence rate for Hispanic/Latino women (263 per 100,000) was four times the rate for white women (63 per 100,000).

    While blacks make up only 12% of the U.S. population, they represented nearly half of all people living with HIV in the U.S. in 2006 (46%, or 510,100 total persons). Overall, the HIV prevalence rate for blacks (1,715 per 100,000 population) was almost eight times as high as that of whites (224 per 100,000). African American men bear the greatest burden of HIV; the prevalence rate for black men (2,388 per 100,000) was six times as high as the rate for white men (395 per 100,000). African American women are also severely affected. The prevalence rate for black women (1,122 per 100,000) was 18 times the rate for white women (63 per 100,000).

    Is God punishing people due to their race as, well as their sexual orientation?

    Bisexual women having sex with men who are infected, and then returing to have sex with other women.

    Harvey, your whole argument seem to be that contact types with the lowest incident rate for HIV is somehow "better" than contact types with higher incident rates. But if this is the case, then lesbian women who ONLY had sex with other lesbians (NOT bisexual women), would be preferred as it's incident rate is even lower than heterosexual contact.

    I mean, even if we go by the data YOU yourself presented, wouldn't this be the case?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Scott,

    You said:"Harvey, you're implying that Obama wants to normalize specific sub behaviors, such as being promiscuous, drug use, etc. But he is doing no such thing."

    homosexuality is a "specific sub culture" that Obama and many bleeding hearts want to normalize. Did you miss the whole point or just part of it?

    That's EXACTLY what's he's doing bot here and in many other speeches... You maybe the only one in America that doesn't know that but the truth is here. That's exactly what's happening.

    The problem is that the issue of homosexuality and homo-equality of all forms is "piggyback" on health care. Obmama has CLEARLY and unequivocally stated that he wants ALL rights normally conferred to married individuals to exist between partners in same sex unions. One of those rights that he has SPECIFICALLY mentioned is health care and other financial benefits.

    Facts are that most people with HIV/AIDS received such disease from the homosexual community. Over 70 to 80% of infected individuals cannot qualify or get health care on their own. So what's is happening here? It's pretty clear that health care is simply another part of the homo-agenda.

    In this article I add a broad range of figures from 1992 until NOW to show that the historical trend of homosexual infections are fully consistent. Male homosexuals no matter what ethnicity are the NUMBER ONE group of people infected.

    Among homosexual men monogamy DOES NOT slow the spreading of the disease and also on average homosexual men have 8 relationships. Do the numbers and you'll soon figure out that the group proliferating the disease the most out of all possible groups are homosexual men.

    You also ask this regarding the President's support of the homo agenda: Or are you merely trying to portray him as such, because he doesn't share your fundamental Christian beliefs?

    Are you merely saying he doesn't because of your RADICAL ATHEISTIC beliefs? That's the question you should ask and answer. A mere cursory folling of Obama's speeches point out his affinity for the gay agenda CLEARLY...you're just a radical atheist who's unlearned on the subject.

    You ask this also:"Is God punishing people due to their race as, well as their sexual orientation?"

    People are punishing themselves and one another with their refusal to hear God, deal with sexual sin and turn live morally, that has nothing to do with God...To the "small minded" point that you arte trying to make:

    I've already pointed out the disparity of this disease within minority communities in my postHip Hop, Idolatry & The Church Pt.4 However, as the good radical that you are, you don't realize that the STATISTICS hold form that homosexuals in the racial groups are the #1 reason for the high incidence of HIV/AIDS infections in those groups.

    The reason that women stats are so high is because women are more quick to get diagnosed regarding changes in their bodies, while men are slow. In addition there is an alarming percentage of women who could identify where they caught the disease by identifying a bisexual (THAT'S A MAN AND WOMEN LOVER) as the source.

    As I stated, our President is not hiding his agenda. He didn't when he was a candidate and he's not now.

    It's clear that he is dedicated to the homosexual crowd, no matter what ethnicity. With statements claiming that their relationships are just as ADMIRABLE as any other is both telling and specific. He's not talking about any other aspect of their relationship EXCEPT there homosexual union, which is the point of his statement that you so INSANELY try to reduce to nothing to support YOUR RADICAL ATHEISTIC AGENDA .

    He wants homosexual relationships normalized, and part of the plan includes getting them to receive health care at any cost when he already knows this will more than likely bankrupt private insurance companies and put the taxpayer in the business of funding homosexual lifestyles.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Scott,

    You said regarding lesbianism:But if this is the case, then lesbian women who ONLY had sex with other lesbians (NOT bisexual women), would be preferred as it's incident rate is even lower than heterosexual contact.

    Once again stupidity makes bold leaps...according to what's stated in the article lesbian women also share a high incidence of mental health issues. In addition lesbian women cannot be placed in a vacuum and the disease proliferates through their community also along with a myriad of others STD's. Why? because many lesbians are also bisexual and some of them hook up with bisexual mean who got the disease from where? THE HOMOSEXUAL COMMUNITY. This is part of the obfuscation. The CDC skirts over this issue and most local health departments do not assess this because there is no standard to assess it and this is not normally volunteered information. When it has been assessed this is what has been uncovered. Still the disease flows from the homosexual community.

    PLEASE DON'T TRY TO INSULT OUR INTELLIGENCE with your GARBAGGE to the contrary. We've been looking at and following this issue too long for a novice like you to have any impact on trying to minimize the real the truth of the matter.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Harvey,

    You are DOGGING THE QUESTION ONCE AGAIN.

    Do you consider promiscuous heterosexual relationships "admirable?" Are heterosexual couples that use drugs "admirable?" Do consider sex outside of marriage "admirable?" I'm guessing the answer to these questions is a resounding NO. And, I think Obama would agree with your whole heartedly.

    So why would you assume Obama would find these behaviors admirable in a homosexual relationship? I mean, do you really think this is true? Really?


    Are you merely saying he doesn't because of your RADICAL ATHEISTIC beliefs? That's the question you should ask and answer. A mere cursory folling of Obama's speeches point out his affinity for the gay agenda CLEARLY...you're just a radical atheist who's unlearned on the subject.

    Huh?

    First, I'm pointing out that you're up to your usual technique of smearing anyone who doesn't agree with you. If Obama does share you beliefs then it's somehow necessary to polarize his views and paint him in a negative light.

    Second, what does me being a non-theist have to do with this? I'm not even sure if a non-material being exists. As such, why would I assume he would disapprove of same sex relationships if he did?. This simply does not follow. Instead, this is your claim.

    Are there not other theists that agree with Obama? And isn't Obama himself a theist?

    If so, then it appears you're just using the word Atheist as an attempt to smear my character because I disagree with you.

    Third, I'm asking because I know several monogamous, non-promiscuous, non-drug using homosexual couples that I conceder admirable. It's obvious that they care about each other very deeply. One couple in particular are upstanding members in their community who owns a business that Laura would probably love to shop at.

    I believe this is what Obama is referring to when he said: "You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman."

    You intentionally choose to present this matter as black and white, all or nothing, because it suits your theological agenda.

    on average homosexual men have 8 relationships. Do the numbers and you'll soon figure out that the group proliferating the disease the most out of all possible groups are homosexual men.

    Harvey, would you not consider a heterosexual man who had 8 sexual partners promiscuous? Are you really suggesting you'd consider this behavior admiral?Really?

    So then why would Obama find it admiral in a homosexual relationship?

    according to what's stated in the article lesbian women also share a high incidence of mental health issues..

    Gee Harvey, if you were vilified by society for being attracted to women, do you think you it might effect your mental well being?

    In addition lesbian women cannot be placed in a vacuum and the disease proliferates through their community also along with a myriad of others STD's.

    I guess my point has gone over your head once again. Or perhaps you simply do not want to acknowledge it?

    Your entire argument seems to resolve around the idea that contact types with the lowest HIV incident types are somehow "better" than contact types with higher incident rates. For example, men who have sex with men is somehow "worse" because they have a higher HIV incident rate than heterosexual couple.

    Would this not be accurate?

    But if we use this same logic, women who ONLY have sex with other women (NOT BISEXUALS), would be "better" than even heterosexual relationships, because they would have a lower HIV incident rate.

    That such a group is NOT listed does not mean that, based on the statistics, such a group would have the lowest incited rate. Does it?

    Of course, this wouldn't fit with your belief that HIV is God's punishment for ALL homosexual behavior, including include women who only have contact with other women (excluding bisexuals) Would it?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Scott,

    There no dodge, it's only that you have no clue what your asking trying to make a point that not in question...Noone is questioning promiscuity or drugs...so it's a NON STARTER!

    The only thing at question is the immoral sexual behavior...HOMOSEXUALITY is immoral no matter who does it...CONCLUDED!

    You said:First, I'm pointing out that you're up to your usual technique of smearing anyone who doesn't agree with you

    No what you are doing is being ANNOYING! That's ALL that you are doing. I'm having a little fun at your expense too, you're kinda like a lab rat at the moment.

    You ask:Second, what does me being a non-theist have to do with this?

    And ABCK ATCHYA...What does me having to be a Christian have to do with it...YOU RAISE THE ISSUE not me! So it's fair, ARE YOU IN DISAGREEMENT because you're a radical atheistic/Buddhist or is there some moral reason...I spent the article talking about the MORAL, SOCIAL AND PHYSICAL REASONS and you claim it's because of my belief system...IS IT BECAUSE OF YOUR THAT YOU DISAGREE? In fact here's another of your references:

    You intentionally choose to present this matter as black and white, all or nothing, because it suits your theological agenda.

    Now YOUR opposition to men certainly CAN'T be based on the evidence that the homosexual lifestyle is both destructive to the body and harmful to society, or else we wouldn't be having this convo right? I mean the homosexuals in Canada even realize the condition they are in BECAUSE OF HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITIES and the effects of the disease...why DISCREDIT them in an effort to promote your ANTI-CHRISTIAN and Anti-Christ world view?

    You said:"Harvey, would you not consider a heterosexual man who had 8 sexual partners promiscuous?"

    That point obviously got by you YET AGAIN...the point was that these relationships normally allow the disease to spread and proliferate through the homosexual community as is evidenced today...even monogamy when one is committed and the other isn't doesn't stop the devastation associated with the disease...you're kind of off track and not too focused, although I'm amused I may shut you down because you are drawing individuals away from the point of the article with your sensational rants and ramblings...I'll think about it.

    Then you say this:"But if we use this same logic, women who ONLY have sex with other women (NOT BISEXUALS), would be "better" than even heterosexual relationships, because they would have a lower HIV incident rate."

    NO, if we use the correct "logic" as you state man and women faithful in a monogamous heterosexual relations DON NOT GET AIDS 100% of the time. Lesbians still get the disease...MARRIEDS FAITHFUL IN RELATIONSHIPS DO NOT that is ADMIRABLE, THAT'S what should be promoted!

    Now since the benefits are so great WHY SHOULDN'T monogamous heterosexual relationship be promoted?

    ReplyDelete
  9. There no dodge, it's only that you have no clue what your asking trying to make a point that not in question...Noone is questioning promiscuity or drugs...so it's a NON STARTER!

    Harvey, you know exactly what I'm referring to. You simply refuse to admit it.

    You intentionally choose to lump promiscuous behavior with same sex relationships because it suites your theologocal agenda.

    I wrote: First, I'm pointing out that you're up to your usual technique of smearing anyone who doesn't agree with you

    No what you are doing is being ANNOYING! That's ALL that you are doing. I'm having a little fun at your expense too, you're kinda like a lab rat at the moment.

    Harvey, I've clearly pointed out at least one example of misquoting or other disingenuous behavior in at least four of your posts. Just because you pretend they do not exist, doesn't mean they are not there for all to see.

    I wrote: You ask:Second, what does me being a non-theist have to do with this?

    And ABCK ATCHYA...What does me having to be a Christian have to do with it…

    Harvey, a non-theist is a NEGATIVE definition. It indicates the absence of a belief in Gods or God. To be clear, there simply isn't enough evidence to think a God like being has actually done anything in particular, let alone that he disapproves of same sex relationships.

    However, this wouldn't prevent me from having some other POSITIVE reason to think same sex relationships are wrong. In other words, just because I do not think a supernatural being created the universe, it doesn't mean I necessary think same sex relationships are moral.

    But what is my actual position? I'm a heterosexual. I do not go around suggesting straight people "try" homosexuality. It's not my thing. But do I think ALL same sex relationships are immoral? No. Why? Again, Obama's statement sums it up quite well.

    You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman.

    Again, because I know several monogamous, non-promiscuous, non-drug using homosexual couples that I conceder admirable.

    However, a fundamentalist Christian, you think homosexuality is wrong because "God said so."

    Now YOUR opposition to men certainly CAN'T be based on the evidence that the homosexual lifestyle is both destructive to the body and harmful to society, or else we wouldn't be having this convo right? I mean the homosexuals in Canada even realize the condition they are in BECAUSE OF HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITIES and the effects of the disease...why DISCREDIT them in an effort to promote your ANTI-CHRISTIAN and Anti-Christ world view?

    Again, your clearly attempting to redefine the term Homosexual to suit your theological agenda.

    First, Homosexuality is not just about men. Women who have relationships with women are also homosexuals. The term homosexuality is not defined by any prohibition the Christian Bible might have about men "lying" with other men.

    Second, the term homosexuality is NOT defined as promiscuous behavior, STDs or IV drug usage any more than the term heterosexuality is defined as promiscuous behavior, STDs or IV drug usage.

    I wrote: Harvey, would you not consider a heterosexual man who had 8 sexual partners promiscuous?"

    That point obviously got by you YET AGAIN.

    Harvey, I know the point your TRYING to make. And it's transparent.

    You're trying to redefine the term Homosexual to suit your theological agenda. The frequency in which a person has sex with other partners is NOT part of the definition of homosexuality.

    even monogamy when one is committed and the other isn't doesn't stop the devastation associated with the disease…

    So, by your "logic", two monogamous men who are not infected, would not become infected. Right? Yet, would these two monogamous men not still be homosexuals?

    Would these men only be homosexuals if they were NOT monogamous? Really?

    ReplyDelete
  10. man and women faithful in a monogamous heterosexual relations DON NOT GET AIDS 100% of the time. Lesbians still get the disease...MARRIEDS FAITHFUL IN RELATIONSHIPS DO NOT that is ADMIRABLE, THAT'S what should be promoted!

    Penetration of any kind, including those of a heterosexual couple has a higher risk of infection than NO penetration. The same drug use by a homosexual individual would also lower the immune system of a heterosexual person. Therefore, LESBIANS (not bisexuals) FAITHFUL IN RELATIONSHIPS, would be even lower than a heterosexual couple, given the same factors.

    Does this mean this behavior should be "admired"? i'm guessing you'd say no.

    If so, this represents another failure to realize the facts you've presented do NOT support your theological position.

    Examples? You attempted to show that Professor Behe's research "proved" that humans did not share a common ancestor with great apes and Behe's photo is clearly present on at least two of your articles.

    But, you failed to realize that Behe himself admitted we DO share a common ancestor with great apes!

    Again, I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried. And you say you're having fun at MY expense?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Scott,

    You said:You intentionally choose to lump promiscuous behavior with same sex relationships because it suites your theologocal agenda.

    Show me where I am unfactual. I provide the references that i didn't concoct for my inforamtion. Where are yours? Only in your mind...That's not good enough!

    There is no liumping, it's just a fact. In addition monogamous homosexual sex does not exist. Most homosexual aren't like a man and a woman who get togethe from childhood or high school and stay together until only age. I know MANY heterosexuals like that. Most homos experiment firsty to find out what they are and then move on to additional partners...it's not NATURAL or normal...

    You said:However, a fundamentalist Christian, you think homosexuality is wrong because "God said so."

    IDIOT...did you even read the article? Show me ONE reference otr appeal to the authority of scripture...YOU NUT!

    Homosexuality is wrong on a number of grounds and faith happens to be one of those grounds which is valid. If your nontheism or at least (non Christianity) after all Buddhism does make you at least a fake religious person...if that's a grounds for any of your assertions, then MINE is valid. the bible isn't outlawed or contraban, but I made NO APPEALS to it in teh article but you bring it up...

    What does this say? You HAVE AN AGENDA and as always that has nothing to do with the facts at hand only the points that YOU want to make without dealing with TRUTH...that's why I call you an IDIOT...if you're not one, stop acting like one...PLEASE1

    ReplyDelete
  12. Scott,

    You said this garbage also:First, Homosexuality is not just about men. Women who have relationships with women are also homosexuals.

    No kidding, tell me something that I DON'T ALREADY LAY OUT THOROUGHLY in the article.

    You said:"The term homosexuality is not defined by any prohibition the Christian Bible might have about men "lying" with other men."

    What kinda mess is that? Are you that illiterate or just that much of a relativist that nothing is outlined in the bible as being wrong? Well IF that's the case and you make such as startling claim, then HOW could I possibly be using the bible to condemn homosexuality? Since you know so much, I WILL DELETE every comment from you until you address that issue...Mr. bible literacy....

    Now you're some biblical authority and by your own admission know NOTHING about God's existence on down the line...

    So since you're an authority and you make an appeal to scripture to try to debunk my argument...have at it...You're OUTTA HERE until you do!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Until this jerk named SCOTT can support the biblical assertions taht he makes he won't be allowd to comment in this post.

    It's a shame that people like him are only interested in making assertions without even supporting what they say and then saying taht they don't have to. Well YOU have to and I'm tired of your garbage!

    Thoroughly answer before we put up with anymore of your mess....

    So brush off your bible scott and support at least ONE of the many assertions you make...That's will probably make at least TWICE out of over 200 or so comments that you've made on this blog...If you can do that and stay on focus you just may be able to add something to the conversation worthwile!

    ReplyDelete
  14. I said: The term homosexuality is not defined by any prohibition the Christian Bible might have about men "lying" with other men."

    What kinda mess is that? Are you that illiterate or just that much of a relativist that nothing is outlined in the bible as being wrong? Well IF that's the case and you make such as startling claim, then HOW could I possibly be using the bible to condemn homosexuality? Since you know so much, I WILL DELETE every comment from you until you address that issue...Mr. bible literacy….

    Harvey, what about my statement that you do not understand?

    Please pay careful attention. I'm not saying that the Bible approves of homosexuality.

    I'm merely noting the definition of the term 'homosexual' is neither defined by the Bible nor is it defined by your personal beliefs or opinions regarding the moral status of homosexuality.

    While you implied it in your post, you just explicitly stated this in the following comment.

    Harvey wrote: In addition monogamous homosexual sex does not exist.

    Either you're trying to redefine monogamous or your trying to redefine homosexuality.

    First, to be monogamous is to have one sexual partner. However, monogamy does NOT require that partner to be of the opposite sex. Just because you might consider monogamy to be morally good and homosexuality to be morally bad, this doesn't mean that homosexuals cannot be monogamous.

    Second, to be a homosexual is to be attracted to someone of the same sex. It does not require you to have sex with more than one partner, acquire STDs or IV drug use.

    Therefore, two homosexuals can be monogamous, without STDs or IV drug use, and would NOT be at risk for contracting or spreading HIV.

    Again, the term homosexuality is NOT defined as promiscuous behavior, STDs or IV drug usage any more than the term heterosexuality is defined as promiscuous behavior, STDs or IV drug usage.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Scott,

    The bible defines the term homosexual well. A man lying with man as with a woman is an accurate description.

    Lev. 18:22 ~ “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

    Lev. 20:13 ~ “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them”

    As I have noted in Homosexuality And The New Testament the term was (arsenes en arsenes)
    So there is a thorough and adequate description of an immoral and well condemned sexual act between men (which includes women as well) specified in the biblical text. Not to mentio the Romans 1 passage. It's not in the least bit ambiguous.

    NOW, aside from all that and as I stated, my article makes no appeal to any of that although appealing to the bible would be adequate and justified...It's a superb rule of faith and practice, but there's enough health and social reason that homosexuality is not a wise sexual choice, and that NOBODY should be calling it admirable under any circumstance because to say so is simply a LIE and deceit based on the stats...

    What else can shorten a person's life span on average of 20 years and end up being called ADMIRABLE?

    Name just one activity that is known to have adverse effects on the body and community at large that we hail as admirable?

    Obviously, you're trying to make homosexuality seem normal too..."boy meets boy, they get married and live in bliss" right? What a FARCE...In the homosexual community, boy meets boy, leans what homosexual activity is about, meets another boy, meets another boy on average about 8 times...

    IF boy settles down with another boy (or girl for that matter) they may be monogamous but usually MUCH later in life and years...Promiscuity happens in this community and the numbers of HIV/AIDS infections arising from that community are still at levels if not worse than they were 20 years ago, BEFORE this was advertised (falsely) as a disease for all sexually active individuals.

    There is NOTHING you can say to make it any differently as the stats don't even bear out an alternate scenario. So please quit your bellyaching.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The bible defines the term homosexual well. A man lying with man as with a woman is an accurate description.

    Actually, this is not a definition, it's a prohibition.

    Murder is the act of taking someone's life in cold blood. If I killed someone by purposely running them over in my car, this would be murder. This is in contrast to accidentally killing someone who jumps out in traffic. This is a definition.

    Thou shall not commit murder is a prohibition. It makes a moral judgment about something specifically defined.

    What else can shorten a person's life span on average of 20 years and end up being called ADMIRABLE?

    Of the two homosexual couples I mended, one is over 50. So, by your "definition", since this couple is monogamous, does not use IV drugs and are still alive, then I guess these men couldn't possibly be homosexuals. Right?

    There is NOTHING you can say to make it any differently as the stats don't even bear out an alternate scenario. So please quit your bellyaching.

    Harvey, imagine I said the all Judeo-Christian religions are morally wrong and that I could prove it using statistics?

    Out of all the prisoners surveyed in March of 1997, over 83% were of the Judeo-Christian faith. While, only 1.1% of the prisoners surveyed were atheists. population. Note that atheists, being a moderate proportion of the USA population (about 8-16%) are disproportionately less in the prison populations (0.21%).

    Furthermore, a recent study shows a disproportionate number of teen mothers and conservative religious beliefs. And these teens suffer a disproportionate number of problems in the areas of heath, education, abuse and crime.

    The children of teen mothers in the U.S., on the average, have worse outcomes in a number of ways. They score lower in school achievement tests, have a greater likelihood of repeating a grade, are rated more unfavorably by teachers while in high school, have worse physical health, are more likely to be indicated victims of abuse and neglect, have higher durations of foster care placement, and are almost three times more likely to be incarcerated during adolescence or the early 20 s than the children of mothers who delayed childbearing; the daughters of teen mothers are more likely to become teen mothers themselves

    Now, imagine I complained about these how much of MY tax dollars are being spent on prison housing, the additional health care cost, abuse and crime! Why should I have to pay for the result their Christian lifestyle?

    Next, imagine I claimed that, as a pastor who finds Christianity "admirable", your "pro Christian agenda" promotes crime, abuse and results in lower standard of education, which makes it harder for people to get jobs and impacts our economy.

    Despite these statistics being accurate, clearly, this is a BAD argument, wouldn't you agree?

    The term Christian is NOT defined as crime, teen pregnancies, or poor education, anymore than then term Atheist is defined as crime, teen pregnancies, or poor education. Right?

    Just because you think Christianity is admirable, this doesn't mean you think crime, teen pregnancies or poor health and education is admirable. Right?

    So, if this is a bad argument when I make it, why is it somehow a good augment when you make it?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Scott,

    At least thanks for staying focused on the issues this time. I appreciate dialogue like this so we can objectively look at the facts...

    What would be surprising about finding that most in jail or most mothers or (teen mothers anyway) were Christians or claimed to be Christian in the US? Don't the same stats say that about 80% of Americans claim to be Christians? A n even greater percent claim religion of some sort?

    So properly interpret the stats...We could quite reasonably expect to find the stats bearing out those facts when these people are asked about their beliefs...they never ask "are yo a practicing Christian" so you can't make the leap into saying as you're trying to say that practicing Christians are committing crimes and and becoming pregnant teen now can you?

    However I CAN say that based on the numbers MSM (men having sex with men) are the highest HIV/AIDS rate category in the country..now matter what they believe or practice that's a FACT...

    I can also say that the HOMOSEXUAL community claims more HIV/AIDS infections per year than the heterosexual community...no matter what they believe, which is aside from the point that is a FACT.

    What I can say is that transmission of HIV/AIDS in a heterosexual relationship is mechanically more difficult than in a homosexual relationship, no matter the belief systems that's a FACT.

    What I can say is that practicing homosexuals have per ca pita higher medical costs of both health care and Rx. No matter what they believe that's a FACT.

    What I can say is that on AVERAGE homosexuals live 20 years shorter life span than one who does not practice homosexuality, no matter what they believe, that is a FACT.

    Any exception is what can be expected from AVERAGES as actuaries would abide by the law of large numbers...This doesn't change because 1 couple or even a few thousand live longer, the FACT is that MILLIONS don't and many more MILLIONS never make it to any sense of a full life.

    All this I'm talking ASIDE from IV Rx use and hospital negligence etc...This is what happens and is happening to the homosexual community

    You display the ULTIMATE in unfeeling toward them by telling them they're fine and nothing to worry about etc...I display the MOST love for them by sounding the alarm and saying, Look at what you're doing to yourselves...THIS isn't worth it!

    ReplyDelete
  18. At least thanks for staying focused on the issues this time. I appreciate dialogue like this so we can objectively look at the facts…

    Harvey,

    First, my point here is that you're not objectively looking at the facts.

    You're only allowing me to comment because you think it's an opportunity to further prove your point. When this "dialog" no longer benefits your position, I will have "lost focus," etc.

    Don't the same stats say that about 80% of Americans claim to be Christians? A n even greater percent claim religion of some sort?

    If you look closely, you'll see the study clearly shows a disproportionate number of atheists in prison.

    Compared to the number of atheist in the US population, 8-16%, the number of atheist in prison is only 0.12%. So, if we use your logic that lower incident rates are "better" we'd conclude that Christianity is somehow "undesirable"

    Again, this is NOT my argument. I'm merely using it as an example.

    Furthermore, it's likely that a higher rate of teen pregnancy among conservatives and religious families is because when their daughters get pregnant, they choose to carry the chid to term, rather than abort it.

    However, this does not change the fact that these same teen mothers have lower scores, worse physical heath and are nearly three times more likely to be incarcerated during in their early 20's. It's all there is black and white.

    Is the abortion the solution? Of course, not. These risks go down when women wait to have children. We should also provide better support for teen age mothers. Right?

    Again, I'm NOT suggesting this is an good argument, as I think abortion is an extremely poor form of birth control. I'm using it for illustrative purposes only.

    However I CAN say that based on the numbers MSM (men having sex with men) are the highest HIV/AIDS rate category in the country..now matter what they believe or practice that's a FACT…

    And I've just used statistics to show that a Christian is roughly 133 times more likely to be in prison rather than a atheist. See how this works?

    Harvey, let's look at this from the opposite perspective. What's the solution?

    What do we have to do to prevent the spread of HIV? Well, that depends on the details of how the disease is spread. Right?

    But is the specific "cure" you're suggesting for this problem (obey God's prohibition against homosexuality) actually based the facts?

    To be specific, I'm guessing that you think taking any action prohibited by God is irresponsible. Therefore, you think any homosexual behavior, including that which is not at risk of spreading HIV is "irresponsible."

    You said "In addition monogamous homosexual sex does not exist." because you think monogamy is defined a single sexual partner between one man and one woman, which you think is a Christian virtue. Therefore, homosexuals cannot be monogamous.

    But do the statistics you've presented agree support this claim ? No, they do not.

    In reality, monogamy is defined as the practice of having a single sexual partner. And two uninfected homosexuals who practiced monogamy would NOT be at risk of spreading HIV. Right?

    What if I said the solution to crime is putting everyone in a medically induced coma? Could I not use statistics to show this would be a highly effective way to reduce crime? Sure. But would this be making a good argument? Of course not.

    Furthermore, by appearing to heath and well being, you're appealing to secular interests. A theist could claim that God is punishing these people using HIV. Anyone who would have any kind of contact with these people deserve whatever the get. Who are you to question God's judgment?

    Higher taxes is could be God's way of punishing us as a nation. Since we do not deserve God's grace, we should praise God for merely being alive.

    Again, I'm not saying this is a good argument. I'm using it for illustrative purpose only.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Scott,

    you said:You're only allowing me to comment because you think it's an opportunity to further prove your point.

    I've been more than gracious in allowing you to post because you don't stay on topic and you have no clue when to step away from a bad argument. My point is already set forth and an honest reading against what you're trying to perpetrate makes what I'm talking about PROVEN at least against your viewpoint which does the greatest damage to the homosexual community by attempting to make it seem as if homosexuality isn't as physically, mentally and emotionally damaging as the evidence states that it is...

    That's the ultimate dishonor to the homosexual crowd as I've already stated...what do you want them to do? Continue to suffer and die as the studies show that they do at much earlier stages and ages than the general population of the country?

    Give the homosexual a chance to live! Get enough backbone to tell them the truth that the SCIENCE which you value and regard so highly (isn't that a trip?) doesn't support their choice in life...Get the NERVE to contribute to society Mr. Need No God To Be Moral...help your fellow man and woman by encouraging them to a better life free of illness that proliferates within their community and is fueled by their activities...SHOW SOME COMPASSION that you have in such great abundance without God!!!

    Where's it at now? HELP your fellow man instead of pushing him down further letting them believe that everything is OK...DON'T EVER talk to me about your moral goodness when YOU can't even put yourself in the WAY to potentially save a life...all you can do is talk and criticize and display ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of value to this segment of America that's getting infected at a rate of almost 55% per year out of all HIV/AIDS infections...Homosexual MEN becoming infected by the droves and all you can criticize is why I say something...You WEAK, SPAGHETTI BACKED, humanist..,.GET A LIFE AND GET A CLUE!

    Yes I know I'm not being nice..it's not time for nice, people are dying and all you can think about is what a Christian is saying about it. Truth of the matter is if we waited for humanists like you to get involved based on you "purely altruistic" motives it would be MUCH worse than what it is today.

    It's time for battle and time to HELP SOMEONE besides yourself!

    Yea so this ddialogue does BENEFIT my position, because my position is to SERVE those that suffer homosexual or otherwise and the best way to serve them is to ask them to reconsider their ways and look at what they are actually up against in life and ask the question, is it worth it, when things can be som much better?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Scott,

    You said:"If you look closely, you'll see the study clearly shows a disproportionate number of atheists in prison"

    Now why do I find that easy to believe? A person that's told they have no moral basis EXCEPT for what they give themselves and find agreement on in society and also told that their genes control their actions an proclivities are probably going to end up in prison or at least in conflict with others including others who also believe like them in surprising numbers even against the grain of the culture...

    The question is where do atheists come from anyway? Hume taught this cultural commensurable model, and I've questioned, IF most of the culture is Christian, and people are supposed to follow what is culturally commensurate, then how does atheism even EXIST in America...How does Buddhism the ultimate humanist religion even exist in a Christian culture? I guess you're just an anomaly all the way around.

    You said and asked:In reality, monogamy is defined as the practice of having a single sexual partner. And two uninfected homosexuals who practiced monogamy would NOT be at risk of spreading HIV. Right?

    WRONG! That will not happen my friend for obvious reasons. the BODY is not made to function the way homosexual men have sex. The rectum does not facilitate safe sex. I placed this in the article:

    "Thus, sexually active persons should be cautioned that, to our knowledge, there are no nonsusceptible persons and that any single sexual encounter may lead to HIV transmission. Research into biologic factors that modulate HIV transmission continues to be hampered by difficulties in identifying HIV transmitters and nontransmitters, infective and noninfective variants of HIV (if the latter exist in vivo), and persons relatively more or less susceptible to HIV infection.

    That's to all right? Heterosexual and homosexual right? That's what science says right? Why don't you respect what science says regarding this issue? Let's get more specific. I also stated this:

    The increased risk of HIV infection for those homosexuals (and heterosexuals) who engage in anal sex is described by Root-Bernstein as follows:
    "Immunological contact with sperm, or material carried in sperm, is increased in anal, as contrasted with vaginal or oral, intercourse. On reason has to do with the physiological differences of the rectum, vagina, and upper gastrointestinal tract. Vaginal tissue differs markedly from rectal tissue."


    Look at what else I point out that the SCIENCE (your previous to now god) says:

    The rectal tissue presents an entirely different picture. The rectum is comprised of an extremely thin layer of tissue, densely entwined with capillaries. It lacks the thick layers of epithelium that protect the vagina and its ability to produce a protective mucus. Moreover, the intestines are studded with Peyer's patches. Located along with the Peyer's patches are concentrations of M cells, which apparently function as portals through which the resident lymphocytes constantly sample the contents of the rectum for foreign material. These M cells have been shown to permit viruses such as HIV to gain access to the immune system from the rectum. Thus, unlike the vagina, the rectum represents a place in the body through which the immune system can easily be reached, even under normal conditions. Since microscopic tears and bleeding can accompany anal intercourse and infections but are rare in vaginal intercourse, anal exposure confers another means for semen components (and viruses) to enter the bloodstream, there to be immunologically processed."

    What's wrong now? you don't AGREE with the science? You say you think science can help make us BETTER? Why won't you communicate this to the homosexual to help make them BETTER now? Simply because a CHRISTIAN is speaking it? Isn't that a low down dirty rotten BIAS Scott?

    I men ignore EVIDENCE that could save a life because someone feels uncomfortable when it's communicated?

    Get a life Mookie!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Scott,

    And since you persist soooo much in this, I can't forget that I pointed out this...or should I say the SCIENTISTS pointed out this:Root-Bernstein then goes on to list a number of diseases that may develop in the rectum as a result of the various anal sexual practices engaged in by homosexual men. It is no wonder that, even apart from AIDS, homosexual men who engage in anal sexual activity have a higher incidence of immunosuppressive disease than heterosexuals.

    WHAT? WHAT? WHAT?...you mean homosexual men even have OTHER DISEASES that are at HIGHER RATES than their heterosexual counterparts??? WHAT? WHAT? WHAT?

    That CAN'T be the science, because SURELY Scott would be on the FRONT LINE championing the cause!!! WOULDN'T YA, Mr. science is your god!!!

    Then the ARTICLE, which I put together, NOT IM MY WORDS BUT IN THEIRS SAID: More recently, Scottish researchers found transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) among heterosexuals slower than among homosexual men.

    You MEAN there IS A BENEFIT to doing things God's way??? I NEVER HEARD THAT OUT OF OUR RESIDENT SCIENTIST SCOTT'S MOUTH! I WONDER WHY???

    C'mon, I know I'm over the top, but this stuff is WHAT'S IN THE ARTICLE and you CARE LESS!!!

    WHO HAS THE AGENDA AND BE HONEST!!! Because you're sure not being helpful to the cause!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Scott,

    then I'll leave you alone to recover from this OBVIOUS shame. You said:A theist could claim that God is punishing these people using HIV. Anyone who would have any kind of contact with these people deserve whatever the get. Who are you to question God's judgment?

    Anyone COULD CLAIM anything, but in the article AS I STATE, I make no special appeal to God, his judgement or his authority...so what does that prove...It proves your inability to be intellectually homoset regarding this issue...

    You and I disagree over evolution but at least you're true to your beliefs...Here you're a yellow-belly waffler! You're understating and misstating the facts and trying to construe the facts with everything BUT the real issue.

    The science that you have so much value and respect for when it comes to evolutionary science, you throw out the window on this argument as I've said...I'll digress, BUT step to me CORRECTLY and PLEASE don't underestimate my intellectual abilities by INSULTING me with the horrible obfuscation and diversionary tactics that you've tried...

    I say BECOME a part of the solution! HELP and care for these people enough to tell them that their practices are placing them in danger...I know this because God tells me so through his word and SCIENCE backs it up...Since you can't speak in the name of my God, then speak in the name of yours...tell then that not even SCIENCE is on their side!!!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Harvey wrote: you have no clue when to step away from a bad argument.

    That's been my argument all along. You're making bad arguments. And I've been providing concrete examples based on your own posts and comments. You just don't know when to "Step away" from your own bad arguments.

    homosexual community by attempting to make it seem as if homosexuality isn't as physically, mentally and emotionally damaging as the evidence states that it is…

    Again, this is only when you attempt to redefine define homosexuality as having multiples sex partners, doing IV drugs, etc. Which are all behaviors you do not find admirable in heterosexual couples either.

    This is the bad argument I'm referring to.

    That's the ultimate dishonor to the homosexual crowd as I've already stated...what do you want them to do? Continue to suffer and die as the studies show that they do at much earlier stages and ages than the general population of the country?

    What do I want them to do?

    Get tested regularly for ANY STD. Practice monogamy. Do not do IV drugs. These are the very same prescriptions I would make to EVERYONE, not just homosexuals. And, based on YOUR OWN STATISTICS, this would prevent the spread of HIV.

    But you want to go BEYOND this, which is not supported by your statistics. Instead this is a THEOLOGICAL position.

    SHOW SOME COMPASSION that you have in such great abundance without God!!!

    Harvey, do I need to spell this out for you?

    First, I don't even know if God exist, let alone that he would prohibit same sex relationships.

    Second, I think two people can have a meaningful same sex relationship. And I think they have the right to such a relationship just like everyone else. This is my compassion.

    But you ultimately think God will send these people to hell for ANY homosexual relationship, even if such relationship would NOT pose risk to their health and others. Therefore, you think your acting compassionately by prohibiting homosexuality completely. But, again, this is based on YOUR theological position.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I wrote: If you look closely, you'll see the study clearly shows a disproportionate number of atheists in prison

    Now why do I find that easy to believe?

    Harvey, do you know what the word 'disproportionate' means? It means Out of proportion, as in size, shape, or amount.

    But does it specify any particular direction? No, it does not.

    So when I say disproportionate number of atheists in prison it doesn't necessarily mean more, it could mean less. If you actually looked at the statistics, you'd know that. Furthermore, I give the specific statistic in very next sentence, which shows it is disproportionately LESS, not more.

    Are you even reading my comments?

    Compared to the number of atheist in the US population, 8-16%, the number of atheist in prison is only 0.12%. This shows that the number of atheists in prison is disproportionally lower by a very significant margin.

    But if Judeo-Christians make up 80% of the US population, but make up 83% of the prison population, then the number of Judeo-Christians in prison is disproportionally higher, by a small amount.

    The question is where do atheists come from anyway?

    Harvey, I'm NOT following you down this rabbit trail, only to have you later accuse me from running off topic. Nice try.

    I wrote: In reality, monogamy is defined as the practice of having a single sexual partner. And two uninfected homosexuals who practiced monogamy would NOT be at risk of spreading HIV. Right?

    WRONG! That will not happen my friend for obvious reasons. the BODY is not made to function the way homosexual men have sex. The rectum does not facilitate safe sex. I placed this in the article:

    Harvey, HIV can only be sexually transmitted from another person who has HIV. It does not lurk in every man's rectum. If a man only have sex with a single male partner who is also monogamous and has tested NEGATIVE for HIV, then it's 100% positive he could not cannot catch HIV from sexual contact.

    This is a fact, whether you choose to ignore it or not.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Harvey wrote: Root-Bernstein then goes on to list a number of diseases that may develop in the rectum as a result of the various anal sexual practices engaged in by homosexual men.

    The key word here is MAY. Root-Bernstein is an HIV skeptic as the cause for AIDS. Apparently being a skeptic is OK, just as long as it supports YOUR position.

    Please see Duesberg's Dismal Failure, which discusses the issue of HIV skepticism in detail.

    To summarize, it's not clear that Root-Bernstein's hypothesis is correct.

    ReplyDelete
  26. then I'll leave you alone to recover from this OBVIOUS shame. You said:A theist could claim that God is punishing these people using HIV. Anyone who would have any kind of contact with these people deserve whatever the get. Who are you to question God's judgment?

    First, what part of the words " I'm not saying this is a good argument. I'm using it for illustrative purpose only." don't you NOT understand?

    Do you think you can ignore parts of my comment so you can attempt to discredit me? This is just another example of your disingenuous tactics.

    Second, if this entire post is NOT appealing to biblical authority, then you're entire argument is based on SECULAR values, of heath, physical well being, etc.

    Where was your "compassion" for the Cannontes who God ordered to be completely destroyed, including women and children, due to their "wicked ways?" Was he not justified in committing genocide?

    So, how do you know these homosexuals are not SUPPOSED to die?

    In our discussion on evil in an earlier thread you wrote: Other parts of God's nature include his justice, yet [none] says that when God exacts vengeance that it's too much…

    If you suggest God DOESNT want them to die, how do you know this? Wouldn't this be the equivalent of saying God's vengeance is too much?

    You commented Secondly, I hate being used as a taxpayer to help fund (in a vicarious manner) immorality..but what can we say...it seems to be the American Way. But what it it's really "God's Way" instead?

    Again, God ordered the entire Cannonte culture to be wiped out completely. Each and every one of them.

    Shouldn't you be praising God that he "only" increased our taxes and healthcare costs, instead of wiping out the entire US population? Do you not think he would be justified in doing just that? (Wipe out the entire US population based on what you consider "immoral behavior.")

    If God is in control, and if God is never surprised, then if you pay higher taxes, it's because he allows it. Just like God supposedly "allowed" Obama to become president. It's part of his plan.

    If this is the case, then you're be the one who is belly aching when you said Secondly, I hate being used as a taxpayer to help fund (in a vicarious manner) immorality. Just as you complained we were "belly aching" on the thread regarding the gang rape of a teenager.

    Again, I'M NOT SAYING IS A GOOD ARGUMENT any more than when you made it earlier. I'm merely noting that you're appearing to secular ideas when you say suffering should be reduced and that you're making assumptions about God's "vengeance", which you claimed was wrong in a different situation.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Scott,

    You said:Furthermore, I give the specific statistic in very next sentence, which shows it is disproportionately LESS, not more."

    Well Scott the problem is that there's not a lot of them anyway and if out of the near 14 million that say they are (that also believe in an afterlife and angels and some other stuff in the bible) then there's you, who's a pretend atheist Buddhist? What are you scott an anomaly?

    You said:"Harvey, HIV can only be sexually transmitted from another person who has HIV. It does not lurk in every man's rectum. If a man only have sex with a single male partner who is also monogamous and has tested NEGATIVE for HIV, then it's 100% positive he could not cannot catch HIV from sexual contact."

    Look scott, have you ever used your common sense to question this:

    HIV is thought to have originated in non-human primates in sub-Saharan Africa and transferred to humans early in the 20th century. The first paper recognizing a pattern of opportunistic infections was published on 4 June 1981[Worobey M, Gemmel M, Teuwen DE, et al. (October 2008). "Direct evidence of extensive diversity of HIV-1 in Kinshasa by 1960". Nature 455 (7213): 661–4.]

    This somehow got all the way down to 5 homosexual men in California where this epidemic broke out and ran through the homosexual community[Gottlieb MS (2006). "Pneumocystis pneumonia--Los Angeles. 1981".]

    Now you mean to tell me out of ALL the groups that could get AIDS the homosexuals were somehow predispositioned for the spread of this disease that somehow and for some reason that it just decides to "jump" on homosexuals and pick on them because??? I don't know...just because???

    I mean if this came from chimp meat, didn't heterosexuals eat chimp meat too?

    Why do you think, that this disease initially and radically attacked homosexuals specifically as it continues to do today???

    Any thoughts as to WHY it has proven to be most virulent through, let's say homosexual contact as opposed to let's say, heterosexual sex???

    In all your tirade, you NEVER address the issue. You feel it better to condemn people to a totally expected and unhealthy lifestyle INSTEAD of advising them to change because you KNOW and the stats bear out that HIV/AIDS is a killer primarily to the homosexual community...

    Like I said where's your anti-God, humanist morality in that? Answer IF you could.

    ReplyDelete
  28. BTW,

    The destruction of the Cannanites had nothing to do with physical illness, it had to do with a total moral breakdown after over about 800 years of opportunity to change...and it also had to do with a whole community of individuals rejecting what was good, right and true.

    Aside from taht, that wasn't too good of a deflection from the topic at hand...

    the question is why don't YOU and other humanists and those full of anti-God morality avail yourselves to the cause of advising homosexuals that their lifestyle not only dangerous but also destructive and hrmful to themselves and to society in general.

    Why Scott? I beginning to believe that it's because your subjective brand of morality just doesn't have the nerve...

    ReplyDelete
  29. I wrote: Furthermore, I give the specific statistic in very next sentence, which shows it is disproportionately LESS, not more."

    Well Scott the problem is that there's not a lot of them anyway and if out of the near 14 million that say they are (that also believe in an afterlife and angels and some other stuff in the bible) then there's you, who's a pretend atheist Buddhist? What are you scott an anomaly

    Huh? I'm referring to the % of the US population to the % of the prison population. It's an example of the term is disproportionate, to be out of shape or proportion, which you used in your original post. Yet you don't even seem to know what the word means. Trying to call me anomaly doesn't change that.

    The destruction of the Cannanites had nothing to do with physical illness,

    If I look though the Bible, I won't find God punishing people using physical illnesses? God wouldn't or couldn't use physical illnesses to punish people in the future?

    it had to do with a total moral breakdown after over about 800 years of opportunity to change...and it also had to do with a whole community of individuals rejecting what was good, right and true.

    Homosexuality has been going on for thousands of years. As such, they've had thousands of years to change. And, based on this post, you seem to think that homosexuals are rejecting what is good, right and true.

    the question is why don't YOU and other humanists and those full of anti-God morality avail yourselves to the cause of advising homosexuals that their lifestyle not only dangerous but also destructive and hrmful to themselves and to society in general.

    Harvey, I'm NOT saying that the lifestyle that many homosexuals are living is NOT unhealthy. I'm saying that it's possible for homosexuals to change their lifestyle to be healthy and still be homosexuals. This is evident by the fact that there are a number of individuals who are homosexuals but who do not fit these statistics.

    But you claim the statistics show this is impossible. This is based on YOUR theological position. Furthermore, you're using the logical fallacy of redefinition in an attempt to support your theological beliefs. This is the Bad argument I've been referring to.

    ReplyDelete
  30. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Supt. Burnett - I hope this is not too late, there's no need to reason with atheists and the reprobate, because they CAN'T understand the Word of God.

    You're wasting your time with Scott. His last post is a dead giveaway -- he said "If I look through the bible" which means he has not "looked through." Also, books are not to be "looked through". They are to be read and/or studied. His point makes no sense because God placed boils (skin lesions) on the Egyptians for not releasing the people of God from bondage.

    Exodus 9:9 And it shall become small dust in all the land of Egypt, and shall be a boil breaking forth with blains upon man, and upon beast, throughout all the land of Egypt.

    That's only the 2nd book in the bible, and he didn't get that far. YOU GAVE HIM THE TRUTH, from the Center from Disease Control and other references. He doesn't believe the facts of the CDC, nor the facts of the bible. The lake of fire (Hell) was created for a reason. Unfortunately every body is not going to heaven.

    Perhaps it's best to focus on people who want to BE SAVED!

    Blessings and best wishes for a prosperous new year!

    ReplyDelete

Please send me an email if you try to post a comment and cannot do so. Dunamis1@netzero.com. Thanks.