AIDS is a gay disease just as cancer is a smoker's disease
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
Tye Porter
New member
Wiseman
I could care less.
Would I like to see homosexuals and whores repent of their ways and come to Christ?
Yes.
Had I been able, would I have tried to stop AIDS before it migrated to Homosapiens?
Yes.
Is there anything I can do now?
I can preach to homosexuals, whores and normal people.
If the homos and whores repent and come to Christ, we can slow this down.
If normals repent of their fornicating, drug taking and adulterous ways, then we can really slow down the spread.
But it is already into innocent blood supplies, into innocent babies and into innocent relationtionships.
It is only important that you understand that it is a homosexual virus that began as such, even though now it is into the normal/mainstream population.
I could care less.
Would I like to see homosexuals and whores repent of their ways and come to Christ?
Yes.
Had I been able, would I have tried to stop AIDS before it migrated to Homosapiens?
Yes.
Is there anything I can do now?
I can preach to homosexuals, whores and normal people.
If the homos and whores repent and come to Christ, we can slow this down.
If normals repent of their fornicating, drug taking and adulterous ways, then we can really slow down the spread.
But it is already into innocent blood supplies, into innocent babies and into innocent relationtionships.
It is only important that you understand that it is a homosexual virus that began as such, even though now it is into the normal/mainstream population.
wiseman
New member
As a practicing physician I am pretty certain that I don't need a layperson telling me what I need to understand about infectious diseases. What the average person needs to know is that just because you are not homosexual does not mean that you are at no risk of contracting this disease...
Tye Porter
New member
Shame
Shame
That's great.
See, it was begun by a homosexual and brought into the general population by homosexuals, and now the mainstream normal population is at risk of contracting the virus.
Yes, Yes, Yes I understand that today, the homosexual "disease" can be contracted by even normal people.
But you seem to misunderstand what the average person is.
The average person is a Christian wo/man.
Not engaging in fornication.
Adultery.
Drugs and needles.
Homosexuality.
Prostitution.
What's that?
We're still at risk through blood transfusions?
Then by all means, please Mr. Practicing Physician, do your job correctly and screen out the "bad blood" so that the normal/average peopla are at a lower risk because of the lack of vigilance in the medical field.
If I don't engage in the perverse lifestyles choices such as homosexuality, prostitution and drug use, I have a significantly lower risk of contracting that homosexual "disease", correct?
Shame
That's great.
See, it was begun by a homosexual and brought into the general population by homosexuals, and now the mainstream normal population is at risk of contracting the virus.
Yes, Yes, Yes I understand that today, the homosexual "disease" can be contracted by even normal people.
But you seem to misunderstand what the average person is.
The average person is a Christian wo/man.
Not engaging in fornication.
Adultery.
Drugs and needles.
Homosexuality.
Prostitution.
What's that?
We're still at risk through blood transfusions?
Then by all means, please Mr. Practicing Physician, do your job correctly and screen out the "bad blood" so that the normal/average peopla are at a lower risk because of the lack of vigilance in the medical field.
If I don't engage in the perverse lifestyles choices such as homosexuality, prostitution and drug use, I have a significantly lower risk of contracting that homosexual "disease", correct?
wiseman
New member
Re: Shame
Re: Shame
I doubt your description of the average person is accurate, but I will leave that alone...
I think you have unreal expectations of what is possible with any screening system...anyways your risk of contracting HIV in the Canadian Blood system are currently 1 in 5,000,000, I believe the American statisitics are similar. The lifetime risk for hemophiliacs is substantially higher simply because of the sheer volume of transfusions they will undergo. I welcome any suggestions you may have to improve my vigilance or apparent lack thereof.
I am still puzzled at your insistence that this is a homosexual disease (given the worldwide epidemiological data), and quite frankly worried by comments that Pastor Enyart makes concerning the acronym HIV (heterosexuality is vindicated). This is an irresponsible comment to make given that the most common mode of transmission world wide is through promiscuous heterosexual contact.
That you personally do not engage in any of the immoral risk factors is commendable and no doubt reduces risk to a level probably close to zero. But it interesting to note that marriage was at one time the biggest risk factors for married Thai women contracting HIV-- this comes out of a study at Johns Hopkins (1996) not the American loathed UN
Oh, by the way I like your new font choice this year, its easier to read
Re: Shame
I doubt your description of the average person is accurate, but I will leave that alone...
I think you have unreal expectations of what is possible with any screening system...anyways your risk of contracting HIV in the Canadian Blood system are currently 1 in 5,000,000, I believe the American statisitics are similar. The lifetime risk for hemophiliacs is substantially higher simply because of the sheer volume of transfusions they will undergo. I welcome any suggestions you may have to improve my vigilance or apparent lack thereof.
I am still puzzled at your insistence that this is a homosexual disease (given the worldwide epidemiological data), and quite frankly worried by comments that Pastor Enyart makes concerning the acronym HIV (heterosexuality is vindicated). This is an irresponsible comment to make given that the most common mode of transmission world wide is through promiscuous heterosexual contact.
That you personally do not engage in any of the immoral risk factors is commendable and no doubt reduces risk to a level probably close to zero. But it interesting to note that marriage was at one time the biggest risk factors for married Thai women contracting HIV-- this comes out of a study at Johns Hopkins (1996) not the American loathed UN
Oh, by the way I like your new font choice this year, its easier to read
Tye Porter
New member
Shame
Shame
Shame
Originally posted by wiseman
First you say:
I am still puzzled at your insistence that this is a homosexual disease... This is an irresponsible comment to make given that the most common mode of transmission world wide is through promiscuous heterosexual contact.
Then you say:
That you personally do not engage in any of the immoral risk factors is commendable and no doubt reduces risk to a level probably close to zero.
You answered your own question.
Oh, by the way I like your new font choice this year, its easier to read
Thank you, Sir.
Tye Porter
New member
Gerald said:Descendent of baboons.
(Just thought I'd get a shot in. Nothing personal...)
Thing is, Gerald, Jefferson is stating an empiracle fact whereas you're stating a religious point of view!
Berean Todd
New member
The fact that 2-5% of the population (that portion of it which is homosexual) accounts for nearly half of all AIDS cases worldwide pretty much makes for a simple conclusion. Yes, non-homoseuals contract the disease (primarily through promiscuity and whore-mongering), but it is still basically a homosexual disease.
Tye Porter
New member
:thumb:
Tye Porter
New member
wiseman
New member
Tye Porter said:
I did... but it appears you may have read my question too quickly
My question was more general i.e. what criteria do you use to define the features of a disease? Please note: criteria is plural. Please note "a disease" not specifically AIDS. I was hoping by establishing global criteria applicable to any disease I could illustrate why calling AIDS a homosexual disease is not helpful. As I am sure you can appreciate if you identify defining features of disease you make the treatment of it more readily obvious or the corollary can obscure the treatment if ill defined.
You gave an example that speaks to mode of transmission (although you gave one example of transmission for HIV).
So yes, mode of transmission is one critrerion used to define the features of disease. In the case of HIV/AIDS the mode of transmission is intimate contact with bodily fluids (blood, semen, saliva). So, one defining feature of the disease is that it is primarily sexually transmitted. Is it only homosexually transmitted? NO. Do homosexuals get it -- yes they can, because they are often very promiscuous which increases their exposure risk. Is it helpful to restrict the definition to homosexuals -- I'm not convinced. I do recognize that homosexual activity is a risk factor (this should be evident from my previous posts)
Can you generate any other criteria?
Tye Porter
New member
wiseman said:
Well, if we eliminate fornication, adultery, prostitution, homosexuality and blood transfusions, we've pretty much narrowed our risk of contracting the virus.
You said that blood transfusions are 1 in 500,000 and even that is not a sure thing.
Have you heard of mononucleosis?
It's called the kissing disease.
Can you guess why?
Now you've heard of AIDS.
It's called the homosexual disease.
Can you guess why?
wiseman
New member
Tye Porter said:
Yes, you are right identifying mode of transmission is helpful in generating prevention strategies.
Yes I have heard of mononuleosis. I am also aware that it is colloquially called the kissing disease. Do you want to debate this as well?
I certainly understand why AIDS is colloquially considered a homosexual disease, I have never denied it as an important risk factor.
You have now given me two plebian definitions of
mono and AIDS. They are great one liners; but is this how you expect the "vigilant medical system" to function? As "Mr. practising physician" I can generate all kinds of one liners for diseases -- But how this is helpful in maintaining the high standard of health care people now expect in the developed world, is outside of my understanding.
I was hoping to elevate the discussion above the colloquial level. It appears I have failed.
Berean Todd
New member
wiseman said:
It's really simple w-man, since we see here that there is major risk involved with homosexual behavior, and in light of other evidences and proofs, one would hope that we could discourage our quickly disintigrating society from participating in such dangerous behavior.
Just as we discourage smoking because it causes throat and lung cancer (even though there are those who have both without being smokers themselves), so too we should discourage the dangerous, high risk behaviorism involved with homosexuality.
wiseman
New member
Berean Todd said:
Oh I understand that it's simple. I'm just worried that it's too simple.
I think your faith in people's ability to take from the statement "AIDS is a homosexual disease" and "HIV = heterosexuality is vindicated" that people will refrain from all types of promiscuous activity is perhaps naive. Who are these statements intended to help?
Your comparison of the relationship with smoking and lung cancer and homosexuality and AIDS does not bear out. I believe I dealt with this in an earlier post. Briefly 99% of patients with lung cancer are smokers, therefore smoking is one of the defining features of the disease -- this does not mean all smokers get lung cancer. By contrast, 70% of the patients with AIDS worldwide are NOT homosexual. Homosexuality, while an important risk factor (and I have never argued that it isn't), is not a defining feature of the disease.
Tye Porter
New member
Well then.
Let's cut out the risk factors which we are able to identify:
Homosexuality
Prostitution
Drug usage
And deal with what is left after that.
Baby steps, right?
Let's cut out the risk factors which we are able to identify:
Homosexuality
Prostitution
Drug usage
And deal with what is left after that.
Baby steps, right?
Gerald
Resident Fiend
No, I'm posting an insult; I don't really believe that Jefferson is descended from baboons...Tye Porter said:Thing is, Gerald, Jefferson is stating an empiracle fact whereas you're stating a religious point of view!
...after all, that would be an insult to baboons...
:chuckle:
- Status