Yeah, JU's wonkiness didn't eat my previous response!

KFC POSTS: #96

Dynamaso Posts:

Dynamaso,

KFC is 100% correct and given that she has indicated that she'll be away from JU traveling, I've decided to respond.

Doctors came across a case of what we now call AIDS in NYC in 1981. A young man in his 30s died of an illness that had ravaged his nervous system which had been diagnosed as an unusual fungal infection but he also Kaposi's sarcoma (purple welts that covered his arms, and sides toward his back). None of the most potent medications were effective becasue he was in a state of severe supression of his immune system.

This man's story appeared in a landmark report in one of the world's premier medical journals along with nearly 7 other nearly identical stories. AIDS had appeared but was known then as GRID..."gay-related immune disorder". The name, GRID, reflected that fact that in Europe, America, and Asia, AIDS was then, as it remains today, dramatically disproportunate among male homosexuals.

1981 was 2 decades following the 1960s countercultural sexual revolution (Sex, drugs and rock n' roll) which lifted all constraints on human sexuality. By the 80s, young men started showing up in medical centers with purple splotches and rare infections and the scientific literature showed a startling increase in gay-related conditions like Hepatitis B causing fatal liver diseases. Along with "gay related bowel syndrome", GRID began to spread, the condition fatal but with a long, incubation time.

It was thought that by this time, the fledgling "gay liberation movement" would have reacted to the danger to health and survival...but instead the 'gay' community mobilized to attack GRID by ensuring that GRID would not be perceived in any way related to homosexuality. AIDS was on its way to becoming a politically protected disease. The priority was to keep homosexuals from disapproval and to protect homosexuality itself as a acceptable, normal and safe sexual practice.

A massive campaign was set---and the #1 risk factor---practicing homosexuality--was not allowed to be targeted. The first move was to eliminate GRID as the name of the condition and becasue under the right circumstances, the virus is transmissable to anyone, GRID was changed to AIDS, Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome".

Even though the connection to homosexuality is universally understood to be valid and medical literature speaks of homosexuality as the major risk factor of AIDS, the fact that homosexuality and promiscuity created the American reservoir for HIV, the pathogen that causes AIDS quickly became an unspeakable truth.

According to the American Psychiatric Assoc., those who practice homosexuality have paid the highest price and a huge body of well researed medical and sociological data bears this out..the median age of death for male homosexuals is with AIDS is 30, without AIDS is 42. It's time, no pass time for homosexuals and their advocates to stop the denial, the delusion and false excuses.

 

Laws are based on morals.  If nobody had the "right" to "impose" their morals, there would be no law.  Ans, my morals are far from being unique.  And, if they aren't, then I fear for my daughter's future in this world.

How does it alter my rights?  It alters my rights to have marriage maintain marriage and not just a union of two people who want to be bound together.  It alters my rights to teach my child the sanctity of a bond between man and wife.

For the health care issue, with all due respect, you don't understand how insurance rates work.  Insurances base a rate on how many men and women are employed.  It does NOT provision for gay employees, and it is illegal to ask a person if they are gay.  Now, if gay people can be "married", laws will change.  they will be able to ask if you are married to a man or woman for insurance underwriting.  They will then know if you are gay or not.  This will raise not only base rates (since being gay can now be a factor in the actuary behind the base rate) but will also cause group rates to increase due to somebody simply being gay. 

To be clear- "gay" is not something that is underwritten.  So, yes, it will cause everyone's base rates to go up once it can be recognized, and it will cause group rates to go up if you employ a gay person.  Say 5% of all men are gay.  The insurance will now assume that 5% of every man employed is gay.  They will raise everyone's base rate due to that.

 

With all due respect, I don't buy it. Do you really think that if that were the case they wouldn't already have raised rates based upon the assumption that a certain percentage of the employees are likely to be gay? It just doesn't wash.



How so? You can still view marriage any way you please. Are you saying you allow the government to dictate to you how you view marriage?



Not at all, you will still be able to teach your children anything you please. I don't recall any law being proposed that would make it illegal to do so.

I apologize Maso if it came across that way....but actually I thought (my mistake) I was referring to the answer next to yours....Phoenix.



That's because it's not politically correct anymore to say so. Back then it was obvious before the rampant spread thru the blood donations that it was homosexuals who were affected.



but see AD I don't think you see what's happening. Textbooks all over the country are being changed. No more moms and dads anymore. Now we have to pussyfoot around what "family" means. And our kids are going to these schools. That's where my right to have my child taught comes in. In some places we are starting to see an "outlaw" of homeschooling. That's what happened in CA and another state. They said they will not recongize home schooling and kids are (will be) being forced to go to the public schools.

So what about our rights AD? Our kids, now starting in Kindergarten, are being indoctrinated that alternative lifestyles...men with men and women with women are ok to society when it's a lie. You wait until you have kids. By then let's see what choices you have.

Yes, my kids are grown. But that doesn't mean I won't fight for your kids and my grandkids. Who said.... "all that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to say nothing?"

As far as insurance is concerned....with more and more acceptance of this lifestyle more and more HIV/AIDS will be documented and who will pay these claims?

This is a lose-lose situation all around. Morally, emotionally, spiritually, and physically. We are doing no one any good in shutting our eyes and ears and putting on a good face and trying to swallow what they are trying to convince us is a good thing.

Nothing good about all this. Nothing.

This is a separate issue but precisely points out my point. You don't like the fact that these kids are (will be) being forced to do something you don't believe to be right.

In this issue I will agree with you. It is wrong to be forcing all kids to go to public school and eliminating choice.



This too is a separate issue. The imposing one's belief in schools is again the reverse of what you are talking about. This time it just happens to be against your moral guidelines. You don't seem to think it's okay to have someone impose their values on you but again it's okay to impose it on others.

Everything was just fine and dandy while the world you lived in and everyone was forced to live by the laws of your moral code. You don't like it imposed upon you but yet you continue to impose it on others. The biggest problem I have with this arrogance is the idea that 'I'm Right' and everyone should do as I think. This wreaks of arrogance and bigotry.

JMO

AD posts:



Even though your comments are directed to KFC, I'm sure she won't mind my jumping in..if she does, well, I'll hear about it sooner or later!


Today, moreso than ever with the culture war, we see both individual people, (like the atheist, Michael Newdow, sueing to get "under God" stricken from the Pledge of Allegiance) and special interest groups (like the "gay rights" lobby) trying to get laws that legislate their particular morality.

When you think about it all laws declare directly or by implication that one behavior is right another is wrong. Just laws contain the morality of an action.

One of the most famous examples of legislating morality came in the form of a constitutional amendment that outlawed slavery. Said another way, slavery was declared morally wrong by the 13th amendment. Just laws legislate morality on self-evident moral grounds...such are murder, rape, theft, child abuse, etc. So, to legislate justice is to legislate morality.

All laws, good and bad ones, legislate someone's morality....they impose a moral code.

There is an overriding principle behind this which establishes the morality of good over evil or right over wrong as the ethical absolute. This is known as the Natural or sometimes called Moral law of which marriage as a union of a man and woman is naturally understood.

Some of the larger questions we must ask are:
Is homosexuality equalivant to heterosexuality?
Why have virtually all civilizations throughout history condemned homosexuality?
Should we legislate the morality that kills people by the median age of 42 or the one that preserves them until they are in their 80s?
When the empirical data is taken into consideration, shouldn't public policy discourage homosexuality?
Is advancing sexual behavior of homosexualiy by placing it on par with bona fide minorities unchangeable (innate) characteristic (like skin color or ethnicity) the right or the wrong direction for our country?

This is an extreme although this is the attitudes that come from the vilification of gay people in society.

 

"The Gambia is a country of believers ... sinful and immoral practices (such) as homosexuality will not be tolerated in this country," the president told a crowd at a political rally on May 15, local journalists said today.

He went on to say he would "cut off the head" of any gay person caught in The Gambia.

The anti-gay campaign continued in the Gambian pro-government media this week with the Daily Observer publishing a virulent editorial.

"We have said it before and we will say it again. This is a Muslim and Christian country. Both the Koran and the holy Bible condemn homosexuality - pure and simple," the paper wrote on Monday.

and I would venture to guess that most genuine Christians feel much the same way I do. It might be hard to understand but our disagreement or admonition or what have you is motivated by love not hate. We love you too much to leave you in your sin of homosexuality and it would be no different for us if we were talking about drinking or gambling.

Well said, well said! Unconditional love is what Jesus taught, oh soon do we forget!

Well, in all fairness it has been 2,000 years

I don't know how you can make this statement when most of the websites point out that researchers are still trying to figure out where AIDS originated.  The case you're referring to was the first in America.  There were other cases of GRID reported in other countries prior to the initial case in America.  Calling it a 'gay' disease doesn't cut it.

KFC,

S'okay and thank you.  I was feeling very defensive at the time.  I still don't agree with the assumption that AIDS is a gay disease, but I guess we have our own ways of looking at this, don't we?

 

KarmaGirl posts:

Exactly. It sure would.

The relentless push for legislation for homosexual "marriage" by homosexual activists and their advocates and allies is not about "equality", rather it's a stepping stone to eliminating all societal restrictions on sexuality...and punishing those who disagree by loss of freedom---as in being fined, sued, or charged with a "hate crime". "Live and let live" and "tolerance" weren't ever enough...full blown acceptance of the practice of homosexuality as respectable, equivalent even good has been a goal from the start.

They'll start by changing the definition of marriage state by state and words like wife and husband will have no meaning. Homosexual activists aim is a whole new national policy saying no longer is a mom and dad any better than 2 moms or 2 dads...and you will be punished if you even think otherwise. If this passes, all the school and library books will be revised and our children will be given the option of marrying a person of the opposite sex or one of the same gender.

Our children will be taught that gender and sexual differences become nothing.

Foreverserenity Posts:


Yes, there is no doubt that Christ was the greatest model of love. Love the homosexual person and the person caught in adultery..for that matter we are told to love all sinners, even our enemies.

Love each one for who he is...BUT...don't get trapped into focusing love on sexuality. We can be compassionate without being permissive.

Remember Christ told the woman caught in adultery to "go and sin no more".

And didn't Christ indicate some condition on loving when He said, IF you love me, you will keep my commandments". One of the Commandments is thou shalt not commit adultery.

We find in the Gospels that Christ speaks of only one right use of sex and that begins with the gender difference in a marriage union of male and female. He declares that the male-female relationship was created and willed by God Himself.

The only alternative lifestyle that Christ approved was the one that abstains from the use of sex, perfect chastity, although He said not everyone can accept this teaching. Read St.Matthew 19:11-12. The general rule He taught is chastity before marriage and fidelity afterward.

Furthermore Christ put sexual purity very high on the list of moral responsibilities. Scriptures condemn not only adultery but all other forms of sexual immorality as fornicaton and homosexuality. So, if Christ wanted to change this condemnation He would have to tell us about it, but He didn't.

Yes, Christ did not condem homosexual acts by name. St. Paul gives us the reason which goes back to love...

"Follow the way of love, even as Christ loved you...As for lewd conduct or promiscuousness or lust of any sort, let them not even be mentioned among you; your holiness forbids this." Eph. 5:2-3.

 

You are missing something here- you CAN'T legally charge more on the assumption of somebody being Gay.  It's illegal.  But, the moment that Gays can marry, it WILL be pushed through to be legal to ask if somebody is Gay, just like it is now legal to ask if you are married, have kids, etc.  They can't underwrite for homosexuality, but they will be able to if Gays can marry.  If you don't want to believe it, that's your problem.  I deal with this stuff all the time on the administrative side.  I know what rates are based on and what actuaries can take into account. 

So, how exactly do you teach your children that Marriage is sacred as a bond between man and wife if it could also be between man and man or wife and wife?  I try not to lie to my daughter, so I really can't see your reasoning.

http://www.avert.org/statsum.htm

59% of Men get AIDS by having sex with other Men in the US.  77% of people living with AIDS in the US are Men.  1.1 million people in the US have AIDS.  Do the math, it's not pretty.

People don't know where it started, and we may never know. 

Parents teach their children their values. There is no law against that and they do it every day. Well, except for those that leave it up to television and the school system to do it for them that is. Somehow I doubt that you're that sort of parent from what I've read on these forums.



Ok, now I understand your point, but you're basing it on the assumption that legislation will be enacted to allow that to happen. That's not a certainty and I suspect that the exact opposite may take place.