'Gay Plague' Nominee Leaves AIDS panel

[Queasy]

Link

'Gay Plague' Nominee Leaves AIDS Panel

A Christian activist today withdrew from a presidential AIDS advisory panel after his remarks angered homosexual groups and AIDS researchers.

White House press secretary Ari Fleischer would neither confirm nor deny the withdrawal of Jerry Thacker but said: "The views that he holds are far, far removed from what the president believes. The president has a total opposite view. ... The president's view is that people with AIDS need to be treated with care, compassion."

Thacker and other new members of the Presidential Advisory Commission on HIV and AIDS were to be sworn in next week by Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson.

A graduate of Bob Jones University, Thacker contracted the AIDS virus after his wife was infected from a blood transfusion during childbirth. Their daughter also has HIV.

Thacker's biography on the Web site for his Scepter Institute once described AIDS as the "gay plague" but now merely refers to it as a "plague." He has called homosexuality a "deathstyle," a sin that Christianity can cure.

Activists had denounced Thacker and today welcomed his departure. "There's very good science supporting programs like education and condom use, and to have someone on the commission making statements based on morality and not on science is disturbing," said Tom Coates, director of the UC-San Francisco AIDS Research Institute.

 

[BDawg]

peeroast!

Edit: N/M I misread the title!

Cool...too bad Bush never saw a problem with him.

 

[notfred]

He didn't last very long

 

[nord1899]

N/M, slightly different.

Cool that they took him down already.

 

[Stark]

homosexual groups who are offended at being blamed for AIDS in this country are like RJ Reynolds employess who are offended at being blamed for smoking related lung cancer.

His wife and daughter have a death sentence because of homosexual activity in the 70s and 80s. It's a historical fact. When did "tolerance" equate with ignoring history and only holding a PC point of view to make people feel warm and fuzzy about themselves.

 

[notfred]

Originally posted by: Stark
His wife and daughter have a death sentence because of homosexual activity in the 70s and 80s.

His family has AIDS because of poor handling of donated blood. YOu have no idea if it came from from a homosexual or not.

 

[justint]

Originally posted by: Stark
homosexual groups who are offended at being blamed for AIDS in this country are like RJ Reynolds employess who are offended at being blamed for smoking related lung cancer.

His wife and daughter have a death sentence because of homosexual activity in the 70s and 80s. It's a historical fact. When did "tolerance" equate with ignoring history and only holding a PC point of view to make people feel warm and fuzzy about themselves.

How is it a historical fact ? Straight people contract, and spread HIV just as well as homosexuals.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

That guy needs to be shown that AIDS wasn't invented by the homosexuals and doesn't get passed only by homosexual sexuality. He also needs to have his head examined. If he's going to be on a Presidential committee, he also needs to learn how to be politically correct -even thought I despise PC-ness, he needs to learn how to be tactful when he speaks.

...idiot.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: Stark
His wife and daughter have a death sentence because of homosexual activity in the 70s and 80s.

His family has AIDS because of poor handling of donated blood. YOu have no idea if it came from from a homosexual or not.

Not trying to be overtly politically incorrect here, but AIDS did explode in the US through homosexual activity. Remember the movie about the start of the AIDS epidemic "The Band Played On"? They traced the origins in the U.S. to homosexuals and bathhouses.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: Stark
homosexual groups who are offended at being blamed for AIDS in this country are like RJ Reynolds employess who are offended at being blamed for smoking related lung cancer.

His wife and daughter have a death sentence because of homosexual activity in the 70s and 80s. It's a historical fact. When did "tolerance" equate with ignoring history and only holding a PC point of view to make people feel warm and fuzzy about themselves.

I'd like to read where you got your info. AIDS coming from homosexuals of the 70's and 80's? What... did AIDS just *POOF* apear?

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: Queasy
have someone on the commission making statements based on morality and not on science is disturbing," said Tom Coates, director of the UC-San Francisco AIDS Research Institute.

i can't agree with that part

i think everybody includes their own morality when they make decisions throughout their life, at work etc

why does everybody want no one to have/use morality ?

morality is considered "Bad" by so many people

mo·ral·i·ty
The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct
A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct
Virtuous conduct

since when does "Virtuous conduct" conflict with science?

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: Stark
His wife and daughter have a death sentence because of homosexual activity in the 70s and 80s.

His family has AIDS because of poor handling of donated blood. YOu have no idea if it came from from a homosexual or not.

Not trying to be overtly politically incorrect here, but AIDS did explode in the US through homosexual activity. Remember the movie about the start of the AIDS epidemic "The Band Played On"? They traced the origins in the U.S. to homosexuals and bathhouses.

Or so they would have you think.

 

[notfred]

Originally posted by: FoBoT

why does everybody want no one to have/use morality ?
morality is considered "Bad" by so many people

No one thinks morality is bad, or that people should not have any sense of morality. They simply think that morality is a really poor treatment for AIDS.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: Queasy
have someone on the commission making statements based on morality and not on science is disturbing," said Tom Coates, director of the UC-San Francisco AIDS Research Institute.

i can't agree with that part

i think everybody includes their own morality when they make decisions throughout their life, at work etc

why does everybody want no one to have/use morality ?

morality is considered "Bad" by so many people

mo·ral·i·ty
The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct
A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct
Virtuous conduct

since when does "Virtuous conduct" conflict with science?

When it comes down to the man having a religious background so conservative that when the word "morals" comes into perspective, it's automatically guilty by association with his illogical and irrational rantings. Also taken down with it is the reputation of his religion.

 

[justint]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: Stark
His wife and daughter have a death sentence because of homosexual activity in the 70s and 80s.

His family has AIDS because of poor handling of donated blood. YOu have no idea if it came from from a homosexual or not.

Not trying to be overtly politically incorrect here, but AIDS did explode in the US through homosexual activity. Remember the movie about the start of the AIDS epidemic "The Band Played On"? They traced the origins in the U.S. to homosexuals and bathhouses.

So should we track down the straight people who imported syphillis, ghonorrhea, and who knows how many other diseases into this country. Should we blame all those heterosexuals who couldn't be bothered to use condoms for continuing to spread it? Just because a disease first entered the US in a particular population doesn't allow you to blame that population for it.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: justint

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: Stark
His wife and daughter have a death sentence because of homosexual activity in the 70s and 80s.

His family has AIDS because of poor handling of donated blood. YOu have no idea if it came from from a homosexual or not.

Not trying to be overtly politically incorrect here, but AIDS did explode in the US through homosexual activity. Remember the movie about the start of the AIDS epidemic "The Band Played On"? They traced the origins in the U.S. to homosexuals and bathhouses.

So should we track down the straight people who imported syphillis, ghonorrhea, and who knows how many other diseases into this country. Should we blame all those heterosexuals who couldn't be bothered to use condoms for continuing to spread it? Just because a disease first entered the US in a particular population doesn't allow you to blame that population for it.

Blaming them for bringing it in, yes. Blaming them for widespread epandemic like AIDS, no.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: justint

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: Stark
His wife and daughter have a death sentence because of homosexual activity in the 70s and 80s.

His family has AIDS because of poor handling of donated blood. YOu have no idea if it came from from a homosexual or not.

Not trying to be overtly politically incorrect here, but AIDS did explode in the US through homosexual activity. Remember the movie about the start of the AIDS epidemic "The Band Played On"? They traced the origins in the U.S. to homosexuals and bathhouses.

So should we track down the straight people who imported syphillis, ghonorrhea, and who knows how many other diseases into this country. Should we blame all those heterosexuals who couldn't be bothered to use condoms for continuing to spread it? Just because a disease first entered the US in a particular population doesn't allow you to blame that population for it.

I'm not blaming anybody. It could have just as easily started with heterosexuals if it was a hetero who had come from overseas and began infecting his/her lover(s). I'm just stating a fact as to what population it started in.

As a side note, if the disease had started in the hetero population, it probably would not have exploded as it did in the gay community because being homosexual was still taboo at the time. Lots of people didn't want to deal with that and there were gays who were reluctant to reveal their homosexual activities. Completely different story if the original carrier had been heterosexual.

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: FoBoT

why does everybody want no one to have/use morality ?
morality is considered "Bad" by so many people

No one thinks morality is bad, or that people should not have any sense of morality. They simply think that morality is a really poor treatment for AIDS.

ok

that actually makes sense

thank you

 

[jahawkin]

But the panel is still stocked with Bush apointees who think that homosexuality can be "cured" through religious experiences, and that everyone should be abstinent until marriage. Gone are the people who confront AIDS as health issue. Instead we have a bunch of fanatics who will base their decisions on dogma and preach to everyone that abstinence is the only way. Such a head in the sand approach will not work when dealing with health issues like AIDS.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: jahawkin
But the panel is still stocked with Bush apointees who think that homosexuality can be "cured" through religious experiences, and that everyone should be abstinent until marriage. Gone are the people who confront AIDS as health issue. Instead we have a bunch of fanatics who will base their decisions on dogma and preach to everyone that abstinence is the only way. Such a head in the sand approach will not work when dealing with health issues like AIDS.

What's wrong with abstinence? ...yeah, that's what I thought: nothing. If you want to teach abstinence, what's the problem? If you're expecting a government run by either everyone who agrees with your opinion or robots with no opinion at all, you'd better step into a time machine and move to Nazi Germany. Researching and treating AIDS is one thing. Saying that the homos are responsible for it is another. What the guy said was wrong, but only because he said it in the position that he held. I would just as easily say the same thing if I held the opinion, but wouldn't nearly be massacred for it simply because I'm not a publicly-sensative government official. Let them teach what they want. If nobody wants to listen, they won't.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: jahawkin
But the panel is still stocked with Bush apointees who think that homosexuality can be "cured" through religious experiences, and that everyone should be abstinent until marriage. Gone are the people who confront AIDS as health issue. Instead we have a bunch of fanatics who will base their decisions on dogma and preach to everyone that abstinence is the only way. Such a head in the sand approach will not work when dealing with health issues like AIDS.

What's wrong with abstinence? ...yeah, that's what I thought: nothing. If you want to teach abstinence, what's the problem? If you're expecting a government run by either everyone who agrees with your opinion or robots with no opinion at all, you'd better step into a time machine and move to Nazi Germany. Researching and treating AIDS is one thing. Saying that the homos are responsible for it is another. What the guy said was wrong, but only because he said it in the position that he held. I would just as easily say the same thing if I held the opinion, but wouldn't nearly be massacred for it simply because I'm not a publicly-sensative government official. Let them teach what they want. If nobody wants to listen, they won't.

Preaching abstinence is not sound public policy when dealing with AIDS (or when teaching kids about sex).
So, calling AIDS "the gay plague" is only wrong when you're in a public position. You don't find anything wrong with that statement??

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: jahawkin
But the panel is still stocked with Bush apointees who think that homosexuality can be "cured" through religious experiences, and that everyone should be abstinent until marriage. Gone are the people who confront AIDS as health issue. Instead we have a bunch of fanatics who will base their decisions on dogma and preach to everyone that abstinence is the only way. Such a head in the sand approach will not work when dealing with health issues like AIDS.

What's wrong with abstinence? ...yeah, that's what I thought: nothing. If you want to teach abstinence, what's the problem? If you're expecting a government run by either everyone who agrees with your opinion or robots with no opinion at all, you'd better step into a time machine and move to Nazi Germany. Researching and treating AIDS is one thing. Saying that the homos are responsible for it is another. What the guy said was wrong, but only because he said it in the position that he held. I would just as easily say the same thing if I held the opinion, but wouldn't nearly be massacred for it simply because I'm not a publicly-sensative government official. Let them teach what they want. If nobody wants to listen, they won't.

Preaching abstinence is not sound public policy when dealing with AIDS (or when teaching kids about sex).
So, calling AIDS "the gay plague" is only wrong when you're in a public position. You don't find anything wrong with that statement??

Hmmm...I'm going to have to hunt for the article I found it in, but I remember reading where one country in Africa(can't remember which) is promoting abstinence over condoms to help with their AIDS problem. They are having success reducing the rate of AIDS infections unlike countries like South Africa where they promote condom use.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: jahawkin
But the panel is still stocked with Bush apointees who think that homosexuality can be "cured" through religious experiences, and that everyone should be abstinent until marriage. Gone are the people who confront AIDS as health issue. Instead we have a bunch of fanatics who will base their decisions on dogma and preach to everyone that abstinence is the only way. Such a head in the sand approach will not work when dealing with health issues like AIDS.

What's wrong with abstinence? ...yeah, that's what I thought: nothing. If you want to teach abstinence, what's the problem? If you're expecting a government run by either everyone who agrees with your opinion or robots with no opinion at all, you'd better step into a time machine and move to Nazi Germany. Researching and treating AIDS is one thing. Saying that the homos are responsible for it is another. What the guy said was wrong, but only because he said it in the position that he held. I would just as easily say the same thing if I held the opinion, but wouldn't nearly be massacred for it simply because I'm not a publicly-sensative government official. Let them teach what they want. If nobody wants to listen, they won't.

Preaching abstinence is not sound public policy when dealing with AIDS (or when teaching kids about sex).
So, calling AIDS "the gay plague" is only wrong when you're in a public position. You don't find anything wrong with that statement??

WTF! ROFL!!



Teaching abstinence isn't sound public policy? Who cares? No sex = no STDs! And, right now, AIDS is most commonly transfered via sexual relations. So... I don't know what you're smokin, but it's pretty damn strong!

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: jahawkin
But the panel is still stocked with Bush apointees who think that homosexuality can be "cured" through religious experiences, and that everyone should be abstinent until marriage. Gone are the people who confront AIDS as health issue. Instead we have a bunch of fanatics who will base their decisions on dogma and preach to everyone that abstinence is the only way. Such a head in the sand approach will not work when dealing with health issues like AIDS.

Well if the other 34 are just a bad, why have we not heard anything about them? And would you want to have a panel of 35 members that all have the same opinion(no matter which opinion it is).

 

[ultimatebob]

Originally posted by: nord1899
N/M, slightly different.

Cool that they took him down already.

What I want to know is why on earth was this fruitloop chosen for this council in the first place?!? The LAST thing that this country needs is another intolerant bigot helping the president make policy decisions.