'Gay Plague' Nominee Leaves AIDS panel

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: 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.

Well, true. But if it were enacted, there wouldn't be anyone left in any government anywhere!!!!

 

[Moonbeam]

The AIDS plague is the fault of the Republican party. They don't and didn't want to help Africans out of poverty because they know people hate to spend money even when it's cheeper in the long run to do so. They use that hatural shortsightedness to get elected and reelected. So Africa experiences famine after famine and eat green monkeys to stay alive. Next time you wanna have sex but don't dare to, you can thank a butt-head Republican.

 

[Nocturnal]

I knew something like this was going to happen. With all that controversy and what not, it would just be a matter of time before he dropped out or stepped down.

 

[Stark]

Originally posted by: 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.

ya, conservative straight people should have no voice in determining policy over AIDS because it doesn't effect their lives!! No wait, it's not just a gay disease, it's a disease that kills anyone!! It has nothing to do with unprotected anal sex (haven't you ever seen Buttman's Big Adventures, none of them are at risk AIDS... they're too hot)!! It's all about blood transfusions!!

This guy has a wife and daughter who both have AIDS and he's seen the disease close up, but he shouldn't be on an AIDS panel because he's a religious bigot!! The only people who should have a say in AIDS policy are liberal, homosexual-supporting, non-religious people who clearly know how what everyone else in the country thinks. That guy was a fruit (but he better not ever say it AIDS is a "fruity" plague, the intolerant hatemonger)!!

I love PC logic.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Stark

Originally posted by: 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.

ya, conservative straight people should have no voice in determining policy over AIDS because it doesn't effect their lives!! No wait, it's not just a gay disease, it's a disease that kills anyone!! It has nothing to do with unprotected anal sex (haven't you ever seen Buttman's Big Adventures, none of them are at risk AIDS... they're too hot)!! It's all about blood transfusions!!

This guy has a wife and daughter who both have AIDS and he's seen the disease close up, but he shouldn't be on an AIDS panel because he's a religious bigot!! The only people who should have a say in AIDS policy are liberal, homosexual-supporting, non-religious people who clearly know how what everyone else in the country thinks. That guy was a fruit (but he better not ever say it AIDS is a "fruity" plague, the intolerant hatemonger)!!

I love PC logic.

Liberals only support free speech when they agree with it.

 

[Stark]

June 3 ? In the earliest days, it was known as the ?gay plague??a mysterious ailment affecting gay men, mostly in New York and San Francisco. When public health officials became alerted to this possible new epidemic in the spring of 1981, they began one of the century?s great medical detective stories. By 1984 scientists had identified the virus that caused AIDS, but effective treatments remained elusive.

In July 1982, Dr. James Curran, head of a CDC task force studying the disease, attended a meeting where the new epidemic received its official name.

Some physicians were calling it GRID, for ?Gay Related Immune Deficiency.? But by now there had been reports of cases in injecting drug users, and in women who were sex partners of men with AIDS, so it was time to describe it more broadly. The CDC task force was called the Kaposi Sarcoma and Opportunistic Infection Task Force. But that was awkward, and we were looking for something that would be more descriptive. The syndrome was really linked by immune deficiency, and what set this disease apart was that it was acquired, not congenital. This led us to ?Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.? It could be shortened to the acronym AIDS, which is how the government likes to do things... I think the name has actually stood the test of time pretty well.

Link

Quick, everyone boycott MSNBC!! These religious homophobe bigots have taken over their website!!

 

[Moonbeam]

"I love PC logic."

I love people think Hitler should advise the President on Jews.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
"I love PC logic."

I love people think Hitler should advise the President on Jews.

So you currently deny that this man has had family infected by AIDS or that AIDS still mainly infects the gay population?

 

[Peetoeng]

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.

Morality is NOT a treatment for AIDS, it's a preventive measure (the best one) from contracting HIV.

Too bad some people are hung up on the ideology--as long as the other side believes it, we don't want to do anything with it.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The AIDS plague is the fault of the Republican party. They don't and didn't want to help Africans out of poverty because they know people hate to spend money even when it's cheeper in the long run to do so. They use that hatural shortsightedness to get elected and reelected. So Africa experiences famine after famine and eat green monkeys to stay alive. Next time you wanna have sex but don't dare to, you can thank a butt-head Republican.

because the democrats wanted to go into africa and fix everything

 

[ultimatebob]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
"I love PC logic."

I love people think Hitler should advise the President on Jews.

So you currently deny that this man has had family infected by AIDS or that AIDS still mainly infects the gay population?

I could be wrong about this, but I think that the total number of heterosexual AIDS patients outnumbered the total number of homosexual AIDS patients a LONG time ago. Hell, I'd bet that there are more heterosexual people infected with AIDS in Africa alone than there are homosexual AIDS patients on the whole planet. I'll bet that someone else has the numbers to back this up, but I don't.

Anyway, my point is that the world does not need more "AIDS is a punishment from God" gay bashing religious types in a position to influence public policy. Asking this guy help create public policy on AIDS is like inviting David Duke to help create minority rights legislation.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
"I love PC logic."

I love people think Hitler should advise the President on Jews.

So you currently deny that this man has had family infected by AIDS or that AIDS still mainly infects the gay population?

I could be wrong about this, but I think that the total number of heterosexual AIDS patients outnumbered the total number of homosexual AIDS patients a LONG time ago. Hell, I'd bet that there are more heterosexual people infected with AIDS in Africa alone than there are homosexual AIDS patients on the whole planet. I'll bet that someone else has the numbers to back this up, but I don't.

Anyway, my point is that the world does not need more "AIDS is a punishment from God" gay bashing religious types in a position to influence public policy. Asking this guy help create public policy on AIDS is like inviting David Duke to help create minority rights legislation.

In the US it is still largely a gay issue. About 60% of new AIDS infections are from the 2-5% of the population that is gay. No one here has said it was Gods punishment.

 

[Stark]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
"I love PC logic."

I love people think Hitler should advise the President on Jews.

Hitler wasn't a jew, married to a jew, and didn't have a daughter who was a jew.

By your line of thinking Abraham wouldn't have been a good advisor to the President on Jews because he wasn't a zionist.

pwned.


I just re-read the article and noticed that the guy, not just his wife and daughter, has AIDS. He got it because his wife had it. And he gets the boot because he used a term that the medical community originally called AIDS.

 

[Stark]

Carlos nonchalantly asks whether his drink was made with whole or skim milk. He takes a moment to slurp on his grande Caffe Mocha in a crowded Starbucks, and then he gets back to explaining how much he wants HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. His eyes light up as he says that the actual moment of transmission, the instant he gets HIV, will be "the most erotic thing I can imagine." He seems like a typical thirty-two-year-old man, but, in fact, he has a secret life. Carlos is chasing the bug.
"I know what the risks are, and I know that putting myself in this situation is like putting a gun to my head," he says. Some of that mountain music that's so popular is playing, making the moment even more surreal as a Southern voice sings, "Keep on the sunny side of life" behind Carlos. "But I think it turns the other guy on to know that I'm negative and that they're bringing me into the brotherhood. That gets me off, too."

I met Carlos in New York's Greenwich Village, the neighborhood where he usually hangs out. He is tall, with a large build, and plenty of gay men find him attractive. His longish, curly-wavy hair is jet-black with golden highlights, and his face is soft and just a bit feminine. He has a very appealing smile and laugh, and he's a funny guy sometimes. The conversation veers from the banal -- his fascination with the reality show The Amazing Race -- to his desire for HIV. Carlos' tone never changes when switching from one topic to the other.

When asked whether he is prepared to live with HIV after that "erotic" moment, Carlos dismisses living with HIV as a minor annoyance. Like most bug chasers, he has the impression that the virus just isn't such a big deal anymore: "It's like living with diabetes. You take a few pills and get on with your life." Carlos spends the afternoon continually calling a man named Richard, someone he met on the Internet. They met on barebackcity.com about a year ago, while Carlos was still with his boyfriend. That boyfriend left because Carlos was having sex with other men and because he was interested in barebacking -- the practice of having sex without a condom. Carlos and Richard are arranging a "date" for later that day.

From that haven of conservatism:

Rolling Stone Magazine

Dispute over story in newsweek

 

[Kenazo]

Wasn't it about a year ago during the big AIDS convention when some African deligates wanted homosexuality placed on the list of potential "AIDS promoting lifestyles"? That got shot down quick. Perhaps the best way to approach the problem of the spread of aids it to promote monogomous relationships wheither it be between men and women, men and men, or women and women. WE know this is a problem, yet we really do little about it but to say if it feels good, do it, but use a wrapper. If, as a society we could do that for even a few generations the AIDS virus would be nearly irradicated, and for those who still have there would probably be a cure by then. I dunno, just a thought.

 

[Moonbeam]

Stark, why do you love PC logic when you seem to have none of your own to reference it by. The fact that Hitler wasn't a jew, married to a jew, and didn't have a daughter who was a jew isn't the damn reason he shouldn't advise the President on Jews. But then perhaps you thought you were being cleaver. You make a point that people's objections to this guy ar PC. How about you defend Hitler as an advisor on free speech considerations or some other non PC consideration. This guy wasn't chosen simplely because he has AIDS. There are millions of [eople who qualify on that criterion.

 

[ultimatebob]

Stark, I have two questions:

1) Do you think that Rolling Stone story accurately portrays the mindset that most homosexuals have towards AIDS?

2) If you do, can I have some of that crack that you're smoking? 🙂

 

[Stark]

Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Stark, I have two questions:

1) Do you think that Rolling Stone story accurately portrays the mindset that most homosexuals have towards AIDS?

2) If you do, can I have some of that crack that you're smoking? 🙂

I'll respond to yours first since I'm still not sure what Moonbeam said...

1) no, not most. but it is A mindset in the gay community towards AIDS. Of course, it's not going to be talked about by gay-rights activists, just as the historical fact that AIDS in America is the direct result of homosexual activity is downplayed to the point that people are labeled homophobic just for pointing it out (or for even using the medical terms doctors used towards the disease).

If someone (hypothetically) made the statement "many black people in Africa sold other black people into slavery," they would probably be labeled a racist by most black-rights/liberal thinkers, despite the fact that the statement is historically true. Of course there's more to the story than just that one statement, but to deny it and attack someone who says it because of a political agenda is insane. It seems to me that Jerry Thacker said something similar, only in his case he's "black" to boot.

 

[Stark]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Stark, why do you love PC logic when you seem to have none of your own to reference it by. The fact that Hitler wasn't a jew, married to a jew, and didn't have a daughter who was a jew isn't the damn reason he shouldn't advise the President on Jews. But then perhaps you thought you were being cleaver. You make a point that people's objections to this guy ar PC. How about you defend Hitler as an advisor on free speech considerations or some other non PC consideration. This guy wasn't chosen simplely because he has AIDS. There are millions of [eople who qualify on that criterion.

No, he was probably chosen because he was Christian and conservative and could lend some balance to the mostly pro-homosexual, liberal committee. So he was attacked and driven off the committee even though I see no evidence of hatred or bigotry towards any other person in anything he said.

Oh, and I was being facetious with the "I love PC logic" line. 😛

 

[Moonbeam]

To clarify:

I don't know, stark, what the guy said or didn't say. There was some presumption from the gay plague to just plague change that maybe there was some intention to blame gays for AIDS. I don't know, but my understanding of your facetious remark about PC was that you did not like it and felt the guy was removed because of PC. My point was that I don't see it as PC to remove a bigot from an advisory position just as I would not let Hitler advise on Jewish policy. It's an issue of morality, hard to define or defend, but real none the less in my opinion. In other words I don't want real issues swept away on the pretext it's just somebody's PC. I believe there are absolutes in the area of morality, old fashioned, you understand.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: Stark

Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Stark, I have two questions:

1) Do you think that Rolling Stone story accurately portrays the mindset that most homosexuals have towards AIDS?

2) If you do, can I have some of that crack that you're smoking? 🙂

I'll respond to yours first since I'm still not sure what Moonbeam said...

1) no, not most. but it is A mindset in the gay community towards AIDS. Of course, it's not going to be talked about by gay-rights activists, just as the historical fact that AIDS in America is the direct result of homosexual activity is downplayed to the point that people are labeled homophobic just for pointing it out (or for even using the medical terms doctors used towards the disease).

If someone (hypothetically) made the statement "many black people in Africa sold other black people into slavery," they would probably be labeled a racist by most black-rights/liberal thinkers, despite the fact that the statement is historically true. Of course there's more to the story than just that one statement, but to deny it and attack someone who says it because of a political agenda is insane. It seems to me that Jerry Thacker said something similar, only in his case he's "black" to boot.

Think about this... what if a heterosexual was the one who brought AIDS to America? Would it then be a straight plague?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Jellomancer

Originally posted by: Stark

Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Stark, I have two questions:

1) Do you think that Rolling Stone story accurately portrays the mindset that most homosexuals have towards AIDS?

2) If you do, can I have some of that crack that you're smoking? 🙂

I'll respond to yours first since I'm still not sure what Moonbeam said...

1) no, not most. but it is A mindset in the gay community towards AIDS. Of course, it's not going to be talked about by gay-rights activists, just as the historical fact that AIDS in America is the direct result of homosexual activity is downplayed to the point that people are labeled homophobic just for pointing it out (or for even using the medical terms doctors used towards the disease).

If someone (hypothetically) made the statement "many black people in Africa sold other black people into slavery," they would probably be labeled a racist by most black-rights/liberal thinkers, despite the fact that the statement is historically true. Of course there's more to the story than just that one statement, but to deny it and attack someone who says it because of a political agenda is insane. It seems to me that Jerry Thacker said something similar, only in his case he's "black" to boot.

Think about this... what if a heterosexual was the one who brought AIDS to America? Would it then be a straight plague?

It could have been. But so far it mainly affects the gay population in the US. If it did something else, it would probably be called something else.

 

[SnapIT]

It's a plague, plain and simple, it affect both heterosexuals and homosexuals, the key word is protection... (my key word because i don't believe in abstinence 😛)

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SnapIT
It's a plague, plain and simple, it affect both heterosexuals and homosexuals, the key word is protection... (my key word because i don't believe in abstinence 😛)

I agree with you, but it appears that heteros in the US appear to be protecting themselves better.

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SnapIT
It's a plague, plain and simple, it affect both heterosexuals and homosexuals, the key word is protection... (my key word because i don't believe in abstinence 😛)

I agree with you, but it appears that heteros in the US appear to be protecting themselves better.

Yup, but not good enough, the things that need to be done are education, free rubber for everyone who want's to have it and the search for a cure will continue...