But what if I told you that I am not the one spreading this message? What would you think if I told you that it was a message being spread by a homosexual advocate organization? Would you even believe it? To be honest with you I would not even believe it....if I had not seen it for myself.
A new ad campaign being sponsored by the Gay and Lesbian Center is now going back on it's original position of the last 25 years that AIDS is not a gay disease and now claiming that it is.
I am not going to rub this in anyone's face with childish "I told you so" retorts. Because that would not be conducive to discussing a very serious fatal illness. Nor do I accept that it is entirely true. HIV is not soley a homosexual disease. It is, however, and always has been predominantly found in homosexuals, mostly gay and bi-sexual men. The facts support the reality that AIDS and the practice of homosexuality are closely linked. Which is why I do not find it a contradictory statement to suggest that HIV is indeed a gay disease.
Let's review, not my own findings (I would just be accused of looking up research that favored my view anyway) what Lorri L. Jean, Chief Executive Officer, of the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center has to say regarding this campaign that his organization is spearheading.
"In Los Angeles, the data are very clear: though gay and bisexual men make up less than 7% of the population, they account for more than 75% of those living with HIV and AIDS. The hugely disproportionate impact of the epidemic on our community is undeniable and unacceptable, and has been so for 25 years."
Yikes! Those are indeed scary statistics. But it is not just in L.A. alone that we find this trend. For example, in my own home country of Canada where the entire population of the country is 32,650,175 (still a million and half less then the entire population of the state of California) the numbers are very similar.
In Canada homosexuals make up less then 2% of the population (although we will just round it off to 2). 57,780 Canadians are infected with HIV. 55% of infected Canadians are homosexual men. Once again, clearly in the majority. It is also suspected, although not proven, that a number of those in Heterosexual/endemic category (individuals with an origin in a country where HIV is endemic (mainly sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean) engaged in same sex encounters in their own homeland but never viewed this as something they needed to share with their wives. A common practice within certain African cultures that is never spoken about among it's citizens only known that it does indeed go on. This of course, if proven, could inflate the numbers.
(Canadian statistics, MSM representing male gay sex)
Why such high numbers within the gay community? For one thing, anal penetration is not conducive to natural design. Linings in the human body are torn, sometimes beyond repair. This certainly allows for higher chance of infection to occur. The other reason has to be the intentional behavior of some within the homosexual community. These are not people who are not educated on the dangers of sexual promiscuity. The practice of "so-called" safe sex has permeated society to the point that you would have to be dead not to have heard about it at least 5 times within your life time.
Yet there is a continual, intentional, rebellion to all the warnings that go with this lifestyle. A practice known as "Bare backing" where gay men literally throw caution to the wind to engage in unprotected sex with a complete stranger because of the supposed "rush" they get from knowing they could be having sex with an HIV positive male. Potentially playing the proverbial game of "Russian roulette" for the sake of a few fleeting moments of sexual climax suggests that their is something more to it then just two people wanting to engage in same sex.
This is a dangerously psychological problem as well. To know that your sexual lifestyle is a high risk even with protection and yet to willingly choose to throw even that away to have unprotected sex, to the point of looking for it, with a complete stranger has me questioning one's mental stability. The following is taken from the About: Aids/HIV website:
But what of the positive man who infects the willing. What drives them to knowingly give an illness to an otherwise healthy man? One "gift giver", as positive men are often called, reported,
"It was the most incredible feeling of power. I was going to take something from him, and that power gave me a rush I'd never known."
This is truly disturbing and sad. I applaud the Gay and Lesbian center for it's very bold, and I am quite sure controversial, approach to addressing this epidemic especially among the gay community. Their response was mature after 25 years of denying what was reality. They have now stepped up to the plate to take a degree of ownership. And I say good for them. As I reviewed statistics at various sites the trend , every four years, continues to rise rapidly within the homosexual community. The facts are there. This indeed is a dangerous sexual activity to engage in. HIV, for the most part, is a gay man's disease.
Until next time...
37 comments:
The accepted theory for the origins of HIV affecting humans is from hunters killing, eating or coming into the contaminated blood of monkeys infected with SIV, a simian version of HIV.
As HIV primarily affects gay men because of the transfer of the virus via semen it was always going to cause the greatest harm to people with this lifestyle.
The homosexual population is the victim of AIDS rather than the cause and i have heard it put forward as vengence by God on homosexuals which is of course nonsense and dangerous.
To imply that it is a gay mans disease is also dangerous because it is not just gay men that contract this, it is capable of gripping anybody with any lifestyle that involves an exchange of bodily fluids although it is primarily strongest in the homosexual community (reasons of anatomy), but not confined to it.
The county I live in was recently featured in a study as having one of the fastest-growing black female populations infected with HIV in the US.
We're a small, very poor rural county in eastern North Carolina. Many, many people never leave the county their entire lives, except to go perhaps to neighboring counties.
These women aren't getting HIV from hoomosexual men, at least not all of them are.
I think it's a good idea for the Gay and Lesbian Society to encourage their members to take accountability and raise awareness for their potential nvolvement in the HIV/AIDS crisis.
I also think it's a mistake to run a campaign that gives the appearance at first galnce that this is just a homosexual issue. There are many who will use that to further their deial that it is also a heterosexual problem. It is EVERYONE's problem.
The "gift giving" you speak of occurs in heteros also. Please don't think that gays are the only ones who do such things.
Also remember that anal sex is not limited to the gay community.
Lucyp is very correct. It is speculatory in nature, but that it was a bite or contaminated meat that passed the virus along. Viruses jump interspecies. That means they mutate. Hmmm...what's the name for that 'theory' again? ;)
This is a dangerously psychological problem as well. To know that your sexual lifestyle is a high risk even with protection and yet to willingly choose to throw even that away to have unprotected sex, to the point of looking for it, with a complete stranger has me questioning one's mental stability.
A lot of this is due to men: we don't like using condoms (gay or straight) - the old saying, "Shower w/a raincoat" springs to mind. Some of it (IMHO) is a self-esteem issue: gays aren't treated like normal folk (that's changing, but slowly). Some of it's education: Africa is teeming w/the virus, most (not all) 3rd world countries have no idea, or substandard protection (I heard that condoms in China don't have the same quality as US ones). There's a lot of factors in the equation. I read somewhere years ago, that 'barebacking' became popular due to the advent of AZT.
& the sexual revolution: in the 70's, all the old ills (gonorrhea, syphilis aka the 'pox') became treatable via penicillin. What happened then? The viruses mutated due to....3 guesses. They became resistant.
But you are right - it is primarily a gay disease. Also transmittable via needle use, blood transfusion (not via saliva or mosquito bites). Also via pregnancy.
Now Siam (Thailand) has significantly lowered their %'s w/education and saturation of condoms. Most of that country is composed of sex workers.
The practice of "so-called" safe sex has permeated society to the point that you would have to be dead not to have heard about it at least 5 times within your life time.
Why do you qualify it as 'so-called'? You realize there are multiple practices, not just wearing a condom, right?
Lucy,
"As HIV primarily affects gay men because of the transfer of the virus via semen it was always going to cause the greatest harm to people with this lifestyle."
Hence the title and the promotional release of the Gay and Lesbian Center's new slogan.
"The homosexual population is the victim of AIDS rather than the cause and i have heard it put forward as vengence by God"
Victims? I am not too sure I would agree with that. Nobody forces the gay man to continue indulging in his sexual choice's. If he is aware that continued indulgence of gay sex leads to higher risk of becoming HIV positive and willingly chooses to pursue it anyway then he has become the perpetrator of his own demise. If you want to call him a victim then I would say he is a victim of his own "choices".
This would tie in with this Vengance by God you mention. The term I often hear is "God's judgment". I would like to lend some clarity as a Christian to this situation. You do not have to agree but I hope you will come out with at least some clearer understanding behind statements such as these.
First off there are three types of judgement. There is a supernatural/divine judgment where God literally intervenes. Another would be the Great White Throne judgement where the entire human race will be judged by God at the end of time. The third type of judgement is the one I believe these types of statements refer too. It is not so much a God imposed judgement but is a "self" judgment the individual imposes upon themselves when they violate the natural order of God. In a sense they heap judgment upon themselves by their own choices. For example, if I were to engage in a sexual affair (adultery) while married, the judgement I have brought upon myself is not only the betrayal that brings on the loss of trust and complete vulnerability between two people but it also ends up tearing apart the entire family apart where the children who are the most innocent become the most affected. One single act can do that much damage. The Bible speaks about how God deals with homosexuality in the same manner:
And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. 22 Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. 23 And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. 25 They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. 26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.
28 Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done.
Romans 1:21-28
Like a child who refuses to listen to the parent that tells them not too touch the stove because they will get burned, God says the same thing. If one violates the natural sexually designed order of His creation, as much as He loves them, He will not force their hand but instead allows them to choose to burn themselves.
"To imply that it is a gay mans disease is also dangerous because it is not just gay men that contract this"
I am sure you will agree that I did not actually do that. The Gay and Lesbian Center did. Although we both agree that it is in fact very dominant with in the gay community. The facts and stats support the reality.
Karen,
I am glad to see you joined in on this one. I know this is a sensitive area for you. I actually hesitated posting this article but then I thought "There is a reason they love me for my intolerance." But more then anything when these slogans are coming from gay advocates it is a clear indicator that it is time to stop the political correctness of not offending and start tackling the reality of a very serious and deadly disease that is obviously and aggressively predominant in the homosexual community.
"The "gift giving" you speak of occurs in heteros also. Please don't think that gays are the only ones who do such things.
Also remember that anal sex is not limited to the gay community."
You are correct regarding the "gift giving". Last year a heterosexual man was charged and arrested up here for doing just that to an unknowing female. This, of course, is another fine example of the dangers of pre-marital/casual sex, but that is a debate for another day.
My goodness Karen, what would make you think that I would think gays are the only ones? The stats I provided do not even show that. The Gay and Lesbian Center is using the slogan that it is a gay disease. I agree that it is a gay disease but I do not believe that is soley a gay disease.
"Also remember that anal sex is not limited to the gay community"
Agreed but I would suggest that it is practiced far more often (for obvious reasons) within the gay community then within the hetro.
KA,
Aren't you supposed to be losing an election for a democrat? (LOL)
Viruses jump interspecies. That means they mutate. Hmmm...what's the name for that 'theory' again? ;)
Don't get all excited old man. Viral micro genetic mutations do not evolve into complex intelligent creatures. They are more like a friggin annoying little mosquito.
"we don't like using condoms (gay or straight) - the old saying, "Shower w/a raincoat" springs to mind."
Valid point. But not entirely substantiated. In many cases with a heterosexual the man will most likely share these sentiments BUT the woman will not. The "raincoat" is often worn at her insistence or it's "Hit the cold shower" time. Now when you are dealing with two men who are going to think the same way then the temptation to throw caution to the wind is far more attainable as neither one will want to wear one. And the other justification used is that they do not need to concern themselves with an unexpected pregnancy.
"Why do you qualify it as 'so-called'? You realize there are multiple practices, not just wearing a condom, right?"
I refer to it as "So-called" because the very term “Safe“ is misleading. Straying off the sole focus of AIDS here there is also another serious and sometimes fatal virus known as Human Papilloma Virus (HPV). Are you familiar with it? Cancerous warts of the genitals obtained simply thru skin on skin contact. Condoms are ineffective. There is no protection at all against this particular disease. It is a sexually transmitted one and to lead one to believe that using some form of “protection” will keep them safe is deceptive.
Teenagers often take the advice of medical “adult” professionals as infallible and believe that they will never be harmed as long as they wear or apply certain protections because that‘s what they were told. There are a number of other STD’s that are either difficult to protect against or cannot be protected against at all. (Herpes being another one). I will agree that there are means to engaging in “Safer” sex but you and I both know that unless you are celibate or are in a very committed strictly monogamous sexual relationship “Safe sex” is just a myth.
ITO:
Aren't you supposed to be losing an election for a democrat? (LOL)
Hey, I'd vote 3rd party, but for the propaganda of 'a wasted vote'. Not working right now, if that's what you're referring to.
Don't get all excited old man. Viral micro genetic mutations do not evolve into complex intelligent creatures. They are more like a friggin annoying little mosquito.
Old man? I'm going to have to post my morning workout sometime soon - I'm more limber than most kiddies. I'll let the micro/macroevolution thing go fer now: not on topic.
Besides, you might sic the Blog Patrol on me again. ;)
Valid point. But not entirely substantiated. In many cases with a heterosexual the man will most likely share these sentiments BUT the woman will not. The "raincoat" is often worn at her insistence or it's "Hit the cold shower" time. Now when you are dealing with two men who are going to think the same way then the temptation to throw caution to the wind is far more attainable as neither one will want to wear one. And the other justification used is that they do not need to concern themselves with an unexpected pregnancy.
I don't know if THAT much thought goes into it: moments of passion tend to be...spontaneous as a rule. It's a learned reflex.
I refer to it as "So-called" because the very term “Safe“ is misleading. Straying off the sole focus of AIDS here there is also another serious and sometimes fatal virus known as Human Papilloma Virus (HPV). Are you familiar with it? Cancerous warts of the genitals obtained simply thru skin on skin contact. Condoms are ineffective. There is no protection at all against this particular disease. It is a sexually transmitted one and to lead one to believe that using some form of “protection” will keep them safe is deceptive.
What's that quote from the General's Daughter? "Hey this is the 20th CE. Nowadays, you have to boil people before you sleep w/them."
Teenagers often take the advice of medical “adult” professionals as infallible and believe that they will never be harmed as long as they wear or apply certain protections because that‘s what they were told. There are a number of other STD’s that are either difficult to protect against or cannot be protected against at all. (Herpes being another one). I will agree that there are means to engaging in “Safer” sex but you and I both know that unless you are celibate or are in a very committed strictly monogamous sexual relationship “Safe sex” is just a myth.
Yeah, but 'precautionary measures' just doesn't have the same ring to it, does it? In most cases, it's probably better NOT to teach kids that there are absolutes. & I'm sure that there's 1 or 2 ways to have 'safe sex' (barring a full body condom).
Condoms (in N. America) are about 99% effective. Abstinence programs have an 87% failure rate.
As to teenagers taking advice: most of them don't. All you can do is educate them. Throw as much info at them, & hope it sticks. I think the best thing to do is disabuse them of the notion that somehow they're invincible/immortal. Flesh is fragile.
"Youth is a wonderful thing - too bad it's wasted on the young." G. B Shaw.
Nobody forces the gay man to continue indulging in his sexual choice's. If he is aware that continued indulgence of sex leads to higher risk of becoming HIV positive and willingly chooses to pursue it anyway then he has become the perpetrator of his own demise.
You could exchange the words gay man for just man or women and condemn them as perpetrator fo their own demise. ANYONE can catch Aids, not just gay men and to imply that it is just a homosexual problem is dangerously wrong.
I am sure you will agree that I did not actually do that.
The title of your post 'HIV:A Gay Mans Disease' and the last line 'HIV, for the most part, is a gay man's disease.' heavily implies and all but states it out loud that you think that HIV is a gay mans disease.
TIO
First of all, I don't think you should hesitate about writing on any subject you wish. Sensitive subjects in particular will never be resolved if they aren't discussed. But thanks for thinking of me anyway. :)
My goodness Karen, what would make you think that I would think gays are the only ones?
Not that I seriously thought you did, but arguments about gay sex often include "and they do this or that" like it's something peculiar to the gay community, when in reality, it happens across the board. Some people don't get out much and don't realize the range of practices in the hetero community.
It's the same with the barebacking and the very casual sex. They are not uncommon in hetero sex. Hookers will charge more for barebacking. There are several mental disorders that contribute to otherwise sensible people engaging in reckless sex. Drunkeness and drugs contribute also, as do misinformation among youth and a common Russian roulette-type, "I can get away with it just this once" attitude.
Being a Christian doesn't put a stop to any of this. Look at your numbers, and think of the number of supposed Christians there are on the planet.
As KA says, abstinence fails---both as pregnancy prevention and against the spread of disease.
It is sad what the gay man said about the feeling of power and gift-giving. I wonder if he would be so angry with himself and abusive toward other gay men if homosexuality was more widely accepted and not openly condemned?
lucyp:
The title of your post 'HIV:A Gay Mans Disease' and the last line 'HIV, for the most part, is a gay man's disease.' heavily implies and all but states it out loud that you think that HIV is a gay mans disease.
I'm sorry, I'm gonna have to side w/TIO on a few points here:
He did qualify it properly in a number of instances, like so:
"HIV is not solely a homosexual disease." Also w/ "for the most part."
& for the most part, it boils down to numbers. That's hard to argue with. He also provided a chart breakdown, & he's echoing the commentary of a GLBT organization.
I understand your point, but I don't think he did that. Maybe implied it, but w/qualifications.
I remember when the Terrence Higgins Trust in London joined forces with the government, and spent millions promoting the idea that hetrosexuals were just in as much risk of contracting HIV as a gay man. Tens of millions of pounds was spent on advertising this idea.
The campaign has only been successful in diverting precious resources away from the very people who really need it - gay men. That is why I opposed the governments 'safe-sex' campaign at the time.
The statistics in the UK during the 80's bares the resemblance as the statistics in Canada - but in order to justify the 'safe-sex' campaign, the government and the THT seized on the numbers of hetrosexuals that had died due to having the virus - what they failed to mention was these cases originated from Africa, they had come to the UK for treatment and died - these cases were thrown into the mix.
As TIO has rightly said, there's no point in shouting 'we told you so' - but, we still need to be highly critical of 'well-meaning' government campaigns that do more damage in the long run than they could imagine.
Well said TIO...
I'm not convinced ka, despite the qualifications, i'm still reading in the post and in these comments how Aids is a gay thing. My argument is that it is wrong to focus on one section when it is something that effects everyone. It only demonises that particular section.
Then again, maybe i am just reading it all wrong but this piece just feels lopsided.
I'm hanging with lucy here.
There are the qualifiers, but the overall tone is that it's a gay thing, and that's based on the fact that the G/L Center came up with the "Own It" ad campaign, and some stats.
The reality is that we heteros need our own "Own It" campaign, because we are neither exempt nor unaccountable for HIV/AIDS, or any othe sexually transmitted problems. The stats back that up.
lucyp:
I'm not convinced ka, despite the qualifications, i'm still reading in the post and in these comments how Aids is a gay thing. My argument is that it is wrong to focus on one section when it is something that effects everyone. It only demonises that particular section.
Sure, it is something that affects everyone, but again, numbers don't lie. Until the plague is wiped out, how do you make an impact on its spread? By educating the majority demographic on its dangers.
Once it becomes recognized as a normal behavior instead of a disorder, I'd be willing to bet the numbers go down.
karen:
The reality is that we heteros need our own "Own It" campaign, because we are neither exempt nor unaccountable for HIV/AIDS, or any othe sexually transmitted problems. The stats back that up.
Can't argue w/that.
KA,
"Not working right now, if that's what you're referring to."
I was. Thought you landed a temporary three month term (or something like that). I was going from memory from one of your recent postings.
"Besides, you might sic the Blog Patrol on me again. ;)
??? Blog patrol came after you? I may be many things to many people but I ain't no Rat!!!
"Hey this is the 20th CE. Nowadays, you have to boil people before you sleep w/them."
LOL I forgot about that one. Yet such a measure of truth in a statement like that.
"Condoms (in N. America) are about 99% effective. Abstinence programs have an 87% failure rate."
WHAT?!?!!? Where do you get those figures from? Planned Parenthood? The pill has a 99% effectiveness rate condoms have an 18% failure rate. And Abstinence programs, which ones would you be referring to? The city of Calgary, Alberta, for example, implemented them in their inner city schools where pregnancy rates were high. In one year their pregnancy rates declined by 50%. I understand similar programs ran quite successfully in Florida several years ago.
Abstinence programs, at least the ones up here, do not withhold any educational information. There are in fact more informative regarding sexually transmitted diseases and the dangers of promiscuity. They explain the dangers to a young females body with early teen pregnancies (16 and under) such as 60% greater chance of getting cancer of the uterus in later life. They offer more then planned parenthoods version of promoting "lifestyles and positions." Apparently banging a wooden penis on a desk and demonstrating how to put a condom on (like that's rocket science) is somehow "informative" and educational. Seems more promotional then anything else. They also seem to think children as young as 5 years of age need to be introduced to their sexuality. They are a twisted organization. (Doh! You got me going on a bunny trail)
"As to teenagers taking advice: most of them don't. All you can do is educate them. Throw as much info at them, & hope it sticks."
I agree with this statement in principal but explaining the dangers of sexual promiscuity to a teenager while handing a condom to them sends a very mixed message. (Which is what a lot of schools do these days). Alot of kids do drugs as well and we don't hand them the "safer" ones to do. We tell them too "Abstain".
"Youth is a wonderful thing - too bad it's wasted on the young." G. B Shaw."
Amen.
Karen,
" I wonder if he would be so angry with himself and abusive toward other gay men if homosexuality was more widely accepted and not openly condemned?"
Are you saying that because he may not feel accepted by society he punishes gay men for that? That makes absolutley no sense. It sounds like a blame game.
Although many still do not (and will continue) to not accept homosexuality they are more accepting of homosexuals as people.
Sorry, but I am not convinced. I think this type of power he refers to is similiar to the description I have heard from murderer's I have ministered too. Their is something psycologically wrong for a person to want to inject a slow death into another person for the "Rush of power" they get from it.
Not to mention those who specifically request for it to be done to them.
Lucy & Karen,
Without repeating KA's words, he read the article in the context it was intended. The facts are out there. With the high majority numbers out there behind gay sex this does make it a gay man's disease BUT not solely.
"My argument is that it is wrong to focus on one section when it is something that effects everyone. It only demonises that particular section.
Then again, maybe i am just reading it all wrong but this piece just feels lopsided.
Why is that? The statistics are focused on the majority which point to the gay community. If this were to be "everyone's" disease (not that nobody cannot get it) I think the percentages would balance out far more evenly like they do with other STD's. However that is not the case. They are predominant within gay men. That is reality. And the Gay and Lesbian Center is acknowledging that reality.
It does not demonize anybody or particular group. It stipulates fact. You can't just brush the reality of this situation under the carpet because the focus is on the majority who just happen to be gay. To do so is just to be "politically correct". I don't believe you would share that opinion if the majority were heterosexuals as opposed to homosexuals.
ITO:
I was. Thought you landed a temporary three month term (or something like that). I was going from memory from one of your recent postings.
I did, but it went kablooey. About 20 people lost work.
??? Blog patrol came after you? I may be many things to many people but I ain't no Rat!!!
It was a joking reference to ole BF going a little batshit in another thread.
WHAT?!?!!? Where do you get those figures from? Planned Parenthood? The pill has a 99% effectiveness rate condoms have an 18% failure rate.
I might ask the same of you. Note that you emphasized the failure rate on the condoms. 82% is still pretty good. & what’s wrong w/Planned Parenthood?
Here’s 1 link: http://www.avert.org/condoms.htm -
“There is no one answer to this, as different studies have shown different results. Many studies of condom effectiveness have counted how often women have become pregnant when their partners have used condoms for birth control. This "failure rate" includes cases where the couple did not use a condom every time they had sex, or they did not use the condom correctly. Some studies have included the times the condom was torn accidentally by people using it.18
The main reason that condoms sometimes fail to prevent HIV/STD infection or pregnancy is incorrect or inconsistent use, not the failure of the condom itself. Using oil-based lubricants can weaken the latex, causing the condom to break. Condoms can also be weakened by exposure to heat or sunlight or by age, or they can be torn by teeth or fingernails. Also, remember to check the expiry date of your condom!19”
And Abstinence programs, which ones would you be referring to? The city of Calgary, Alberta, for example, implemented them in their inner city schools where pregnancy rates were high. In one year their pregnancy rates declined by 50%. I understand similar programs ran quite successfully in Florida several years ago.
I’m referring to the American, now-defunct Abstinence Now program (religion-based, no less), that had an 87% failure rate, & propagated a pile of nonsense about contraception.
Abstinence programs, at least the ones up here, do not withhold any educational information. There are in fact more informative regarding sexually transmitted diseases and the dangers of promiscuity. They explain the dangers to a young females body with early teen pregnancies (16 and under) such as 60% greater chance of getting cancer of the uterus in later life. They offer more then planned parenthoods version of promoting "lifestyles and positions." Apparently banging a wooden penis on a desk and demonstrating how to put a condom on (like that's rocket science) is somehow "informative" and educational. Seems more promotional then anything else. They also seem to think children as young as 5 years of age need to be introduced to their sexuality. They are a twisted organization. (Doh! You got me going on a bunny trail)
Oh, stop. Where on earth do you get this sort of stuff? Down here, I’m fairly sure they’re a lot different. I even helped an xtian friend of mine put up a Planned Parenthood site in N. Carolina. Maybe you should perhaps drop by their site(s), and actually do some research? I really don’t believe this ‘5 year old’ crap. Sorry, that sounds way too much like propaganda. Maybe you should actually request to sit in on 1 of these instructional classes.
These conspiracy theories seem…I dunno, somewhat beneath you.
I agree with this statement in principal but explaining the dangers of sexual promiscuity to a teenager while handing a condom to them sends a very mixed message. (Which is what a lot of schools do these days). Alot of kids do drugs as well and we don't hand them the "safer" ones to do. We tell them too "Abstain".
Hey, there’s nothing more powerfully compelling than telling a teenager: “Don’t DO this!” w/o explanation. Or even WITH an explanation. How’d Bill Cosby put it? “Best way to open a tough jar, is to tell the kid NOT to do it.”
As I understand it, a child will come to you & ask about it when they’re ready to learn. Down here, you have to sign a permission slip to let the child be instructed. Back when I was a kid, my folks wouldn’t talk to me about it. I read medical encyclopedias, but mostly I learned about it from my nitwit friends, who had even less of a clue than I.
As to karen's statement: "I wonder if he would be so angry with himself and abusive toward other gay men if homosexuality was more widely accepted and not openly condemned?"
This is very common as I understand it, to most minorities. Lack of acceptance in society, abuse, ostracization, hey, these things will clobber anyone's self-esteem. Self-loathing comes to some. Especially when treated as less than human.
Sometimes the blame game has merit, sometimes not.
Well,
Lots of have been said by great thinkers above.I respect each opinion.
My take is that HIV/AIDS is a global cricis.It affects everyone.The political shifts of gears on who is affected by HIV/AIDS,Where,How,When should now be left to research methodologies which in most cases they just rub reality.We are all vulnerable and the disease bears no citizenship,identity,race,color,shape,ego,name the rest.Politics should be thrown out of the den.
But most important.YOU AND ME.What are we doing to end this cricis?
Kristy,
“It was a joking reference to ole BF going a little batshit in another thread.”
When you offer reasoned responses you get one in return. However, when you add underhanded remarks and statements to your responses it takes away from your points and deteriorates the conversation. My responses to you came out of your own pocket (so to speak).
It was quite evident that you set the tone of the exchange and had a knee jerk reaction when you were on the receiving end. I can verbal joust with the best (or worst), but I much rather have a civil conversation that everyone can learn from, including myself.
Perhaps that’s just my own narrow perspective on the issue; I don’t know how others perceived the dialogue or even care to weigh in. Nevertheless, I don’t see any reason to carry any feelings of resentment. But if you want to make references about me, that’s your prerogative.
KA,
Sorry for the delay. I have been busy trying to build up my motorcycle club's website over the last few days.. Before one even notices two or three hours have flown by and by then I am just too computered out to respond. I decided now is a good time.
"I did, but it went kablooey. About 20 people lost work."
Eeeeee. Sorry to hear about that. I hope something else comes together for you.
"82% is still pretty good. & what’s wrong w/Planned Parenthood?"
That does not make it safe. Only "safer". My argument is the term "Safe sex" is misleading. Planned Parenthood? Maybe they do things differently down there but up here they pretty much encourage kids to have sex and fail to educate them on the dangers. They have made the news twice this week already. Tell you what, I will make them a near future posting and you can weigh in on that.
"The main reason that condoms sometimes fail to prevent HIV/STD infection or pregnancy is incorrect or inconsistent use,"
Still does not address the disease's that wrapping five condoms on still do not prevent. Again, "Safe" is misleading the masses of the youth.
"I’m referring to the American, now-defunct Abstinence Now program (religion-based, no less), that had an 87% failure rate"
Our abstinence based programs have no "religious" overtones. This is Canada KA! Just because our Charter of Rights and Freedoms "says" we have religious freedoms does not mean we actually do. Supreme court judges overruled our own declaration in 1984 stating that , according to them, we are now a secularized nation (under God). No they did not say the "Under God" part but they could not remove it from our constitution. Kind of an oxymoron that gives me the giggles.
The few schools that have agreed to implement these programs have experienced favorable results. These other programs that continue to see teen pregnancies and STD's escalate is because they keep applying the same friggin methods they have been for over 25 years. Sending the same old mixed message "Sex can get you pregnant kiddies so you should try abstaining. However you are to stupid and incapable of self control at your half brained ages so here is how you should do it and here is your condom. Stay Safe!"
Right, give a kid a candy and then tell him not too eat it. Real logic behind that ideology. These sex ed practices are failing miserably up here and yet they continue to be the only ones available. It's all about the funding. Playing politics with the kids.
" Maybe you should perhaps drop by their site(s), and actually do some research? I really don’t believe this ‘5 year old’ crap. Sorry, that sounds way too much like propaganda."
KA, you insult me. You have kids? I have three. I sat as chairperson for a parents committee a few years ago and we were addressing this very issue in our school division. Although it was not happening in our division it was happening in the inner city school division and there was concern that it was coming our way. Ever hear how they introduce kindergarten children too the gay and lesbian lifestyle? Heather has two mommies is one of a number of Gay and lesbian books geared towards children. Can't read about Noah's Ark or Jonah and the Whale at school but we can read about Daddy's roomate and discuss same sex relationships with 5 year olds?!?!
I believe we will continue this debate in a future post.
TIO
Right, give a kid a candy and then tell him not too eat it. Real logic behind that ideology.
Like Adam, Eve, and the candy apple?
Heehee. OOOps. Sorry. Bunny trail.
Can't read about Noah's Ark or Jonah and the Whale at school but we can read about Daddy's roomate and discuss same sex relationships with 5 year olds?!?!
Noah's ark and Jonah aren't pertinent to any 5 year olds, but having two daddies or two mommies very well might be. And if the other kiddies accept it as kindergarteners, perhaps they won't go beating up the kid with two dads when they're all in 3rd grade.
TIO:
Sorry for the delay. I have been busy trying to build up my motorcycle club's website over the last few days
Hey, no sweat. Most of us have real lives, as opposed to virtual ones.
Eeeeee. Sorry to hear about that. I hope something else comes together for you.
They called me, want me back. So it’s cool. Thanks.
That does not make it safe. Only "safer". My argument is the term "Safe sex" is misleading. Planned Parenthood? Maybe they do things differently down there but up here they pretty much encourage kids to have sex and fail to educate them on the dangers. They have made the news twice this week already. Tell you what, I will make them a near future posting and you can weigh in on that.
Well, you could apply ‘safe’ & ‘safer’. Maybe the label change isn’t a bad idea.
Still does not address the disease's that wrapping five condoms on still do not prevent. Again, "Safe" is misleading the masses of the youth.
Wait: what? 5? You’re embellishing a bit here, aren’t you?
Our abstinence based programs have no "religious" overtones. This is Canada KA! Just because our Charter of Rights and Freedoms "says" we have religious freedoms does not mean we actually do. Supreme court judges overruled our own declaration in 1984 stating that , according to them, we are now a secularized nation (under God). No they did not say the "Under God" part but they could not remove it from our constitution. Kind of an oxymoron that gives me the giggles.
Yeah, I know it’s Canada, big guy. I usually qualify that, don’t I?
All governments should be secularized (you don’t want them run the way some churches are, do you?). But hey, it’s your country, you guys decide. ‘Tain’t my beeswax, really.
The few schools that have agreed to implement these programs have experienced favorable results. These other programs that continue to see teen pregnancies and STD's escalate is because they keep applying the same friggin methods they have been for over 25 years. Sending the same old mixed message "Sex can get you pregnant kiddies so you should try abstaining. However you are to stupid and incapable of self control at your half brained ages so here is how you should do it and here is your condom. Stay Safe!"
Well, when I had the talk w/my stepson, I told him flat out: “You shouldn’t do it. But if you do, wear a rubber.”
Right, give a kid a candy and then tell him not too eat it. Real logic behind that ideology. These sex ed practices are failing miserably up here and yet they continue to be the only ones available. It's all about the funding. Playing politics with the kids.
Well, as I understand it, they’re doing a good job down here. Maybe they could take a page or 2 from our organizations.
KA, you insult me. You have kids? I have three. I sat as chairperson for a parents committee a few years ago and we were addressing this very issue in our school division. Although it was not happening in our division it was happening in the inner city school division and there was concern that it was coming our way. Ever hear how they introduce kindergarten children too the gay and lesbian lifestyle? Heather has two mommies is one of a number of Gay and lesbian books geared towards children. Can't read about Noah's Ark or Jonah and the Whale at school but we can read about Daddy's roomate and discuss same sex relationships with 5 year olds?!?!
Hey, I didn’t know any of that. Didn’t even know you had kids, honestly. Just assumed, sorry.
Yes, I’ve heard of all that kindergarten stuff before. I think Karen addressed that point nicely, so I won’t add to it, except that as long as it’s promoting tolerance of an alternative lifestyle and not providing explicit sexual content, it should be okay.
Well, in my country, the Supreme court ruled (rightly, I think), that religion was up to the parents to instruct their kids, not the school.
I believe we will continue this debate in a future post.
That’s fine, but I can’t say when I’ll have any time in the near future, so don’t take my silence as assent. ;)
Oh, P.S, I have a new post up on abortion (off topic, I know, sorry):
http://biblioblography.blogspot.com/2006/10/quickening.html
Turns out us godless heathens didn't invent the practice.
Karen,
"Like Adam, Eve, and the candy apple?"
Cute. You gave me a good chuckle. However the difference is God never gave them the "candy" (apple). Like a hot stove, He pointed it out to them that they were not to touch. In other words He clearly said to "abstain" form there it is not for you. They made the choice to disobey.
"Noah's ark and Jonah aren't pertinent to any 5 year olds, but having two daddies or two mommies very well might be. "
But they would be pertinent if they were considered fantasy as opposed to Bible stories? I certainly disagree that teaching children an "alternative" lifestyle thru these stories is pertinent. How so? Is it fair to impose what only some believe to be is a normal lifestyle when there would be obvious conflict with the teachings of other children who come from a home of different values? If you your going to impose one set of values then you impose them all. Otherwise stick too writing, reading, and arithmetic.
" And if the other kiddies accept it as kindergarteners, perhaps they won't go beating up the kid with two dads when they're all in 3rd grade."
Oh please. Why would they beat them up? They would be to bloody confused by the whole thing to think about beating someone up. I agree kids can be mean and they would more then likely tease and taunt. Maybe. But speaking as someone who grew up without his biological father and for a year and a half lived with my mother and her best friend (like two mommies only they were not gay) I can tell you from a little boy's heart, even without the teasing it sucks to go thru life without a dad. Every child needs both parents from each gender.
That is why MANY disagree with gay marriage especially where children are involved. The best interests of the children are not the deciding factor. Even pro gay marriage advocates are now starting to acknowledge that reality.
KA,
"They called me, want me back. So it’s cool. Thanks."
Oh great! That is good news.
"Wait: what? 5? You’re embellishing a bit here, aren’t you?"
I am not sure you understood what I was pointing out here. If you wrapped 5 condoms around your (ahem) that would still not prevent you from contracting HPV (for example) from an infected partner. There is absolutely zero protection against some STD's. Therefore, condoms are prevenitive for some things (provided they do not break) but they are not in many cases Safe!. The term provides a false sense of security.
"“You shouldn’t do it. But if you do, wear a rubber.”
I think with my boys I will just qoute the good book. "You will reap what you sow." You'd be better off "sowing" your seeds in marriage. (LOL)
"That’s fine, but I can’t say when I’ll have any time in the near future, so don’t take my silence as assent. ;)"
Never do. You post quite often that I spend more time reading and realize I have to "pick and choose" my battle points. Otherwise I would spend all my time on your site and pay no attention to my own. So my comments are often few on your sight as well.
I will be by to check out your "abortion" post.
Jeff,
Thanks for the input.
"We are all vulnerable and the disease bears no citizenship,identity,race,color,shape,ego,name the rest."
Yes you are correct that we are vulnerable. BUT it is obviously being recognized in the world, medical, and now the gay community that AIDS is indeed far more prevalent in the homosexual community. Pointing this out is not about politics. It is quite simply the reality. It does not that homosexuals are responsible for AIDS it says that the sexual lifestyle gives a person a far greater chance of contracting the virus. The medical and gay community have an obligation to bring this to the attention of others. To withhold it because it may be offending to some would be immature, selfish, and irresponsible.
"But most important.YOU AND ME.What are we doing to end this cricis?"
I, for one, am not going to have sex with anyone and everyone in order to do my part in not spreading this disease. Speaking from a western cultural perspective there is already far more then enough "education" on this matter. After 20 years of informing the masses it appears that many people throw caution to the wind and think with their sex organs as opposed to their brains. They have become a victim of their own selfish desires.
Most people who obtained AIDS thru sex did not get it by being misinformed. Having full knowledge they placed the priority of an orgasm over the risks of a deadly disease.
What more can we do Jeff when many people are making stupid choices?
TIO
Cute. You gave me a good chuckle. However the difference is God never gave them the "candy" (apple). Like a hot stove, He pointed it out to them that they were not to touch. In other words He clearly said to "abstain" form there it is not for you. They made the choice to disobey.
Ah, but with a child, you don't merely point out the hot stove, then turn your backon the child, expecting them to obey. And you don't leave a bowl of candy within reach and say they can't have any and look away. Especially if you're omniscient and KNOW that they will choose to touch the stove or take the candy.
Adam and Eve may have been adults with the ability to reason, but they had little to no experience to make decisions upon.
But they would be pertinent if they were considered fantasy as opposed to Bible stories?
If they fulfilled some part of the curriculum, yes. Shapes, colors, counting, etc. Community awareness, safety, health. Letter and word recognition, patterns, motor skills.
I certainly disagree that teaching children an "alternative" lifestyle thru these stories is pertinent. How so? Is it fair to impose what only some believe to be is a normal lifestyle when there would be obvious conflict with the teachings of other children who come from a home of different values? If you your going to impose one set of values then you impose them all. Otherwise stick too writing, reading, and arithmetic.
One area kindergarten and 1st graders focus on is family and community. In this day, chances are there will be at least one kid in the class with 2 daddies or 2 mommies. That kid needs to feel inclusion when the topics are discussed. The other kids need to be aware that these situations exist and are in fact, normal. Just as it is normal for all the kids who have only one-parent homes, almost always just a mommy.
Oh please. Why would they beat them up?
I think you already know the answer to that. They're "different". Because their parents are "queer"...which is the explanation they'll get, by and large, at home of the 2 daddies/mommies situation, the child in question might also be "queer". And that goes against the majority religion. And guess what that religion says to do to "queers"?
Sure it sucks to go through life without one parent or another. It sucks to go through life having been repeatedly raped while supposedly under the watch of one or both loving parents. But even the "best" situations don't guarantee anything.
And sometimes that parent is physically there, but you still go through life without him/her. Usually him. So I'll take two loving parents over two indifferent parents or one loving parent over two incompetent parents, etc.
That's where the love and support of extended families can be so important.
For families of any flavor.
You're an idiot and a disgrace to Christian Bikers. I see why you cover your face. Because, you're wrong.
Hey Anonymous,
My first question is did you even read the post?
The message of HIV being a gay mans disease is being spread by The Gay and Lesbian center. Not me.
If you were capable of reading more thouroughly as opposed to seeing thru your "Rage of red" you would also take note that although I do not recognise AIDS as the "Sole" reason for AIDS there is no getting around the reality that it is predominant in gay men.Those are not my homemade facts.
Your comment:
"Because, you're wrong."
OK, Prove it! I did not make these statistics up. Nor did I make the slogan up. Do your homework before flapping your gums.
"You're an idiot and a disgrace to Christian Bikers."
My how tolerant of you. Are Christians not allowed to have opinions on the matter? Are we not afforded the Right to freedom of expression? Or are the only "Rights", "Gay rights"? BTW you will notice I did not make any Biblical reference in the post so taking a slam at my faith is a mute point.
"I see why you cover your face."
Riigghhhtt! And your name again is? Oh yeah ANONYMOUS! Come back when you have an intelligent rebuttal. I choose to allow your comment to stand (this time)
This site welcomes all points of view and is open to correction. I welcome mature and healthy debate. The post you whine of is "factually" supported. Refute the claims (if you can) but leave your tantrums at the door.
Yes it is controversial. It is meant to be. Any further insults will be removed.
Intolerant:
You seem to believe that being gay is an "option". I do not think that a gay person "decides" to like same sex individuals. The answer to what sex are we oriented is hormonal, biochemical, neuropsychological, but not volitional.
Marco,
I am not sure what your comment has to do wiht the post as "option" was not something I was eluding to. I think the post speaks for itself. However it has been awhile and I need to take advantage of your presence/time as I know you have been a busy man and I have missed our discussions.
Actually a bi-sexual would agree with it being an option. However I prefer the word "choice".
I do believe they "decide" other wise it suggests they are incapable of decision.
It is no different then the married hetreosexual man. Although we have chosen a mate we have every intention of being faithful and monogamaus with we still face "urges" at times when we are around other attractive females.
We are then in a position to make a "decision" to "choose". We can choose to follow thru on those urges or we can exert self control and deny them (the urges) even though they are there.
"The answer to what sex are we oriented is hormonal, biochemical, neuropsychological, but not volitional."
Sounds like a medical explanation. The "gene" theory it self (I know you do not mention it) is in the toilet as science cannot explain two identical twins with the same genetic (DNA) make up can have diverse sexual preferences.
But what never seems to be explained is how an individual who lived as a practising homosexual espousing that "they were born that way" 20 years later stops engaging in it. Gets married to a woman and even has children and remains a monogamous hetrosexual the rest of their life.
The only explanantion you seem to hear from the gay community (and it is a weak excuse) is that "they were never really gay in the first place!"
That is like saying because I have not had a drop of alchohol in 9 years I never really was an alcholic.
i thoght that your article was very informative and helpful and it was one of the only sites that i could find that actually back up what they said,so in the future keep on keep'n on!!!
TO THE INTOLLERANT ONE- IT IS ABOUT TIME PEOPLE WERE REAL AND HONEST ABOUT THE GAY ISSUE. I'M SICK OF THE RADICAL LEFT DEEMING EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT AGREE WITH THEM AS BIGOTS. ANYWAY, IN DUE TIME THEY WILL REAP WHAT THEY SOW AND HOPEFULLY DISSAPEAR OFF THE FACE OF THIS PLANET
BrookTrout says:
I'm a left-winged gay monogamous godless man yet I believe you have very good valid and educated points. However...
All of this blog is pointing at gays as the problem.
Well I've had sex with my boyfriend for seven years and no brutal judgement has been placed on me. No suffering as I wither up and die while christians say it was my fault for the "choices" I made. Not even any frogs raining from the sky, is that because god likes monogomous gays or just that he can't get at me without using a seductive apple dressed up in leather rather than the snake I sleep with nightly. This may have once been a gay issue when only gay men were getting it but it's past that point now and it's not going to get any smaller as more straight people get it. It is a "safer sex" issue and a monogomy issue.
I haven't seen this advertisement anywhere in Seattle, WA. Hopefully because, like our kindergardens and Planned Parenthood seem to be stricter on our approaches to teaching, our GLBT organization isn't going to lump everyone who has same sex relationships in with unsafe sex, drugs, and transfusions. There are logical explanations for why this happens and to drag "god" or gays into this is in deed playing the "blame game". I'm sure a few kindergarden teachers somewhere have read those widely available books you mention and I'm sure some people at planned parenthood really suck. So if, whatever religion you are, has a few priests that perform gay marriages does that mean the religion has been corrupted by gays? No, only possibly the priest if you believe such an action to be truly corrupt. You're talking about a few people as if they represent the whole. The quote from the guy getting a power rush from infecting someone is the words of one person, period. All I'm saying is they are wrong to generalize in that poster, I don't have to own and embrace that my culture harvests a disease. I have to own and embrace that anyone who has sex before they settle down into a relationship has to be as safe as possible or abstain until monogomy. They have to get tested before before going into monogomy and they have to be able to trust their partner afterwords. Gay or straight, what point is it to point the finger at gay people when I could pick up a woman tonight and get AIDS when I've lived my whole life, and yes my whole life as a gay person. Thanks for a informative blog but why not point a finger at a group that is actually made it to the top ten(commandments).
Brook Trout's Response to Anon's quote above,
We won't disappear until straight people stop giving birth to us.
Hi Brook,
First I would like to welcome you here. I obviously have my own opinions, views, and values but I have never "Closed" my mind to hearing what other's have to say and contribute. Even when two differing side's state their cases, compromise is not always an option , BUT I always seek to come out with a better understanding not necessarily an agreement. I was glad to see you contribute to this article. I respect your approach as I always do my very best to all who come by to keep it mature, respectable, and civil.
Secondly I must say that I continue to be surprised (although pleasantly) that this piece still generates comments from time to time considering it was written almost 10 months ago.
I would like to take this opportunity to respond to some of the things you had to say:
"All of this blog is pointing at gays as the problem."
I would have to disagree with you here. If you were to re-read my entry I do believe that I was quite clear when I stated:
"HIV is not soley a homosexual disease. It is, however, and always has been predominantly found in homosexuals, mostly gay and bi-sexual men."
I feel in fairness, that I clearly established that neither do I accept that HIV stem's only from homosexuals but I do point out the reality that it is does in fact dominate within the gay community. Nowhere did I actually point a finger at homosexuals as the sole contributor. The intent behind this article was to demonstrate that it was the Gay and Lesbian Center that took this approach.
At the end of my article I stated: "HIV, for the most part, is a gay man's disease." This, again was not in the context of "pointing" as you suggest. It is an assessment based on statistical findings. There is no getting around the reality that HIV is found most commonly within the homosexual community.
"Well I've had sex with my boyfriend for seven years and no brutal judgement has been placed on me. No suffering as I wither up and die while christians say it was my fault for the "choices" I made. Not even any frogs raining from the sky, is that because god likes monogomous gays or just that he can't get at me without using a seductive apple dressed up in leather rather than the snake I sleep with nightly"
I am not exactly sure why your bringing "judgement" and God into the equation as I made absolutely zero reference about God in this article. Is it possible your having conviction? I know it could not have derived from what I wrote. I did not even hint at the things you are speaking of.
But since you bring it up I will note one thing to you. God allowed Egypt to wallow in their own sin for over 400 hundred years before He dropped the writ. The graceful God that He is was allowing time for people to turn to Him. I suspect you have heard this all before. I also suspect (and I may be wrong) that you have already passed judgment on myself as you appear to have made an assumption about me based on something I did not even write about (God/judgement) So before you continue to do that which you accuse other's of, please take the time to read a little more about "My" Christian views in the following post that I wrote taking to task a man who claims to be a brother in Christ.
"This may have once been a gay issue when only gay men were getting it but it's past that point now and it's not going to get any smaller as more straight people get it."
We could debate this statement till the cows come home but I am going to suggest to you something that has become far more prevalent in our society that on one hand would back up your point but to a degree the reality or truth of it all is somewhat distorted. That would be the rise of bi-sexualism. It is no secret that unprotected sex between two men hold a far higher risk of contracting this awful virus but there are men who have contracted it thru a same sex encounter. (Again not placing the all the onus on gay men) These men have then had heterosexual encounters with women who then in turn have passed it on (and so on and so on..) So it is certainly fair of you to suggest that it will affect more heterosexuals but you make an assumption on how it is achieved.
You said it yourself, that it had once been an issue where only gay men were contracting the virus. So who is too say they did not spread it into the hetrosexual community. ( I am NOT suggesting that, it is just food for thought)
"It is a "safer sex" issue"
I was encouraged to see your reference to it as "Safer". "Safe" is a misleading title that allows for a false sense of security to permeate one's choice's in whether or not they will be sexually active.
"There are logical explanations for why this happens and to drag "god" or gays into this is in deed playing the "blame game"."
Again, I am not sure where you are going with all this. Although I certainly have my own Christian perspective on things I made no reference to them in this article. I would suggest you have "dragged" God into it at this point.
"So if, whatever religion you are, has a few priests that perform gay marriages does that mean the religion has been corrupted by gays?"
No. It means the "Priests" have allowed sin to flourish within the church. Ultimately it is the Church leaders who will be brought to account for misleading the masses. It is recorded in the book of Jude:
But now I find that I must write about something else, urging you to defend the faith that God has entrusted once for all time to his holy people. I say this because some ungodly people have wormed their way into your churches, saying that God’s marvelous grace allows us to live immoral lives. The condemnation of such people was recorded long ago, for they have denied our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
The word immoral does NOT single out homosexuality. It refers to the many sins we are all capable of committing. Stealing, murder, lying, and cheating. I think even you would be appalled with a church that would condone this activity when the scriptures clearly declare they are sins against God. When it comes to sexual sin, again homosexuality is not singled out (but it is there), it also includes adultery, fornication, pedophilia, incest, bestiality, and rape. If a church is going to embrace one sexual lifestyle that clearly contradicts the word of God then do they not obligate themselves to embrace them all? You can't cherry pick the Bible. Either you accept the word of God or you don't.
"You're talking about a few people as if they represent the whole."
How's that? Again, my words have been very clear and your statement is false. Re-read what I wrote. I would suggest your eagerness to defend how you live is fudging your thought process. I do not mean that maliciously.
" I have to own and embrace that anyone who has sex before they settle down into a relationship has to be as safe as possible or abstain until monogomy. They have to get tested before before going into monogomy and they have to be able to trust their partner afterwords."
Although I disagree with homosexuality and pre-marital sex I must give credit where credit is due. Your words here are good counsel. How nice it would be to see many more people make this particular decision with their heads as opposed to their hormones.
"Thanks for a informative blog but why not point a finger at a group that is actually made it to the top ten(commandments)."
Thank you for the compliment. For the record, I did not point the finger. I pointed to the organization (Gay and Lesbian Center) pointing the finger. Maybe you should take your concern up with them.
Please come by again Brook. You are most certainly welcome here. Just know that you may not like everything I write.
Post a Comment