The increased violence, severe depression and suicide mostly stem from people being beligerant towards homosexuals.  You try not lashing out at people when you are constantly told that you are evil and going to hell.  It's fine if someone wants to believe that homosexuality is a sin but to constantly berate people for how they live their lives is going too far.  As for GRID, there's a very good reason that it was renamed because AIDS has nothing to do with homosexuality.  It was the myth that it was a "gay disease" that led to it being ignored for far too long causing it to grow to the global epidemic that it now is.  Had research into it started when it was first found we might have been able to discover better treatments and maybe even a cure by now.

I will agree that information about the potential increase in disease should be discussed but that has less to do with homosexualtiy as it does with anal sex so it should be part of the comprehensive sex-ed anyway.

That's not true Lula and you know it.  Parents have to sign permissions slips for their kids to join in the sex-ed classes so you have just as much right to pull your kid out of the class and I would imagine that if a parent wanted to meet with the instructor prior to signing the slip arrangements could be made (there are parent teacher conferences after all).

Because it's not related to their lifestyle any more than it's related to anyone elses lifestyle.  AIDS is spread through fluid exchange which means heterosexuals are just as likely to contract it from unprotected sex as homosexuals.  The reason it may have been seen in homosexuals more was most likely because they didn't see the need to use protection when having sex since there was no risk of pregnancy.  With education that has changed.

This doesn't support your position Lula it supports the other side and actually supports the need for comprehensive sex ed to inform kids of the dangers out there related to sex and drug use.  In fact the entire article that you cited works against your argument.  Yes homosexual sex may increase the chances of contracting AIDS but it is followed very closely by heterosexual sex and IV drug use.  This means that EDUCATION is the key.

The school that my daughter goes to has a night that parents can sit in on exactly what will be shown/discussed with your child in sex ed.  I doubt my school is the only one that does that.  After that, you can decide if your child attends the class or goes to a study hall instead.

~Lula~

First, that is in the D.C. area, not the United States, and not the world.

Secondly, that news report shows:

1.Multiple sexual partners

2. "D.C. also has a high number of gay men, and HIV is high among gay black men."

That is statistically skewered because since DC has a high number of gay men, it is then more than likely that a study of the DC area would show that gay (black) men have a higher risk, etc... The findings are too slanted to be worthwhile.

3. The document is an update of a breakthrough 2007 report, which brought into clearer focus a picture of a city in the grip of a complex and "modern epidemic" that had traveled from a mostly gay population to the general one and disproportionately hit blacks

Right there it states that it has shifted to being a general and black issue. (Or "disease" as you put it.)

It should also be noted that men, whether gay or not, tend to be more promiscuous. It's a sad but unfortunate truth. That being said, if it is accepted that gay men also tend to be more promiscuous - then it can be said that they have a higher chance (hence a higher rate) of AIDS.

However, most health organizations agree that AIDS/HIV is an equal opportunity killer, and anyone can get it - no matter if you are gay or straight or even purple and blue.

good question Kingbee.  I would say that would vary from individual to individual but in all cases there is usually a mourning period just like any other death.  I miscarried a child after my third child was born.  Even though I had three babies already and was not happy about being pregnant again, I mourned for this child.  It hit me like any other death in the family. 

and what would that be Ock? 

we only had this when the kids were in grade school because it was pretty touchy then about having sex-ed for grade school kids.  At the time I'm talking maybe about 3rd-4th grade.  The funny thing is this video night that the teachers from the various schools in the district put on was barely attended.  I remember looking around and seeing maybe less than 10 parents and the district was one of the biggest in the state.  How sad. 

My kids never had to sign any slips and sex-ed was very comprehensive.  Most of the time my kids were taken out of the classes during those times because I requested it. 

Lula posts:

AldericJourdain,

I said that proportionately speaking, male homosexuality (specifically sodomy) results in higher rates of HIV/AIDS.

You made the assertion in #142 that HIV/AIDS is not primarily a homosexual disease.

I provided a news story that clearly states otherwise...and  what's happening in the Washington, DC area is what's happening in the rest of the US and around the world. Washington, DC happens to be where the interest and study is being done.

Let me reiterate.

The first case of AIDS and the first isolation of the HIV virus in the US occurred in 1981. In its origins, it was entirely a disease of sodomites, generated in and by anal intercourse. I don't know what the statistics are now, but in the early 90s, 85% of the AIDS cases were sodomites. HIV/AIDS was contracted by women from bisexual men and they in turn spread it to other men and thereby to other women. Infected women may transmit it to their unborn children and intravenous drug users may contract it by sharing needles with infected persons. Innocent persons may contract it by transfusions of infected blood.

So, while the proximate cause of HIV/AIDS is not in every case sodomy, it can't be denied that the etiology of every case leads back to sodomy as its point of origin.

HIV/AIDS is a disease, a deadly venereal disease. It's way past time that we demand that this pandemic be treated as one rather than a civil or equal rights issue.

In all the public discussion of HIV/AIDS the connection between the "Gay Rights" or "Gay Pride" movement which started in the early 70s, and AIDS is never mentioned. Yet, that connection is as evident as smoking is to lung cancer. Why do public officials, (including school teachers) tell people to stop smoking, (Just say No), but will not tell them to stop sodomizing is incomprehensible.

But then again, I shouldn't be surprised  for we live in an age when, as the Holy Bible says, "reason has become unreason."

Here we have an HIV/AIDs pandemic that threatens billions of lives with no effective treatment in sight. We know what steps are necessary to contain the AIDS pandemic, but we refuse to take them. Other plagues have been checked by identifying and forthrightly addressing the root causes as well as attempting to treat the victims. But HIV/AIDS is different; it's not treated so much as a disease but as a cause..AIDS is a symbol of sexual freedom born out of the 1960s sexual revolution.

The number one defense against getting AIDS is practicing chastity, not living "alternate lifestyles".

That's the thing lula, sodomy is not the point of origin. It just is not. There are many other cases of people getting AIDS, and they are not gay, nor do they practice any form of sodomy. They ended up finding out they got it from needles through blood transfusions.

Also, you used a small sample...the District of Columbia...as proof for the entire country? Sorry, that is a bad way to support any argument. It is also a hasty generalization, which is a logical fallacy.

I will agree practicing smart/safe sex is a good thing, but who am I to tell others how to live their life? You talk about us having free will, and the right to choose or not choose your Gods preferred way, but I feel you fail to expand this into other areas. This goes for smoking in my opinion. I do not smoke, but I have no right to tell others to not smoke.

Btw, there is a difference being promiscuous and living an alternative lifestyle. Just because you are homosexual does not mean that you are promiscuous; vice versa, just because you are promiscuous does not mean you are homosexual.

That being said, it comes down to how you live your life; you, and you alone have the right to say how you live your life. What others do with their lives is their own business. Of course, that is just my opinion.

in its origins, hiv was--and remains--a viral infection common to non-human primates, specifically chimpanzees. while there's no conclusive evidence proving how this virus was first transmitted to humans, most authorities theorize (hold onto your mitre) this virus "evolved" to exploit human hosts.  it's a process known as zoonosis, one familiar to anyone whose contracted so-called asian flu.

it's not a one way street; human virii take advantage of animals--usually pets or those in close contact with humans.

of all the scenarios so far put forward, it seems most likely blood was initial vehicle of transmission and contamination the result of butchering chimps for food.

dunno bout you but i've never seen a recipe for chimp requiring (or suggesting) anal intercourse as step in preparation.

i sincerely sympathize with you and your loss.  i've no doubt it was painful and you grieved.

i won't presume to tell you how or what you felt. 

still, there are significant differences between any other death and a miscarriage. most obvious of which would be a total dearth of existential experience.  in many ways the most apt analogy is between we the living and those no longer here with us.  we are by no means dead although we all have that potential. 

kingbee posts:

Kingbee,

First, I posted the Heritage Foundation Report as a rebuttal to Taltimer's claim that EVERY observation, statistic and empirical study shows abstinence ed doesn't work causing less abstinence and increases the rate of teen pregnancy and STDs, etc.

Second, the answer to your question is yes. The Heritage Foundation provided a study that showed 15 Abstinence programs were effective in helping kids understand the importance of their physical, emotional, mental and moral health of delaying sexual activity. If they would have helped only one kid, it would have been a success....that's how important kid's lives are.

Kingbee posts:

Over the years, there have been 3 types of Abstinence Education that I am aware of...abstinence-plus education, abstinence-only education, and abstinence until marriage education.

 In general, public schools aren't serious about teaching Abstinence...why, being into secular humanism, they are "value free" as in amoral, and abstinence-only and abstinence-until-marriage education programs are laden with moral values.

So, in order to get federal funds, and in order to appear to be effective in promoting abstinence for those parents who clamour for it, sex education became known as "comprehensive sex education" and included abstinence-plus programs in its curriculum.  Comprehensive sex ed promotes abstinence and responsible (using birth control) sexual behavior at the same time. However, the abstinence part amounts to...so abstain from sexual activity until you are ready, its' consensual, and condoms and contraceptives are available and being used consistently.

lula posts:

My kids were in Catholic School during this time and I didn't pay too much attention to what public schools were doing as far as sex ed was concerned. I've been actively involved ever since 2004 and that's the period of time I was addressing my remarks as that is my first hand experience. A group of us tried to get this same abstinence-only education program into our school district and the answer from 22 school board members was NO.  

Now, I have to ask are you sure that every state except California complied with Title V mandates? That would surprise me becasue first, Title V wasn't implemented until 1997 and second, in order for the state to get the federal funds, it required matching funds from the state..and besides that all these 8 conditions had to be satisfied in order to receive the abstinence money.

the reason

Both of you are wrong.

lulu is just spouting bullshit. But the counter that HIV is reported higher because men are more likely to ADMIT to having anal sex is wrong. The reason is simple. There are only two reasons to wear a condom:

1. Prevent STD

2. Prevent pregnancy

Pregnancy is NOT AN ISSUE with for homosexuals!

If a hypothetical X% of the population is willing to use a condom to prevent only pregnancy, Y% to prevent only STD, and Z% to prevent both. Then the percentage of gays / exclusively anal/oral sex hetrosexuals using protection is Y+Z while the percentage of hetrosexual vaginal intercourses where a condom is used is X+Y+Z.

However that has absolutely nothing to do with the rediculous claims lula makes.

The article fails to debunk the myth because it just spews politically correct BS instead of actually correct information. And we already established that lying to push your agenda just makes you look stupid and hurts this very same ajenda (be it abstinance or equality for gays).

I am still waiting for a proper response for this post I made lula. I apologize if you did and I missed it. But all I saw is you claiming that non abstinance sex ed = teaching that homosexuality is awesome (what does homosexuality have to do with mentioning proper condom use?) = is "wrong" because homosexuality leads to suicide and depression.

Then your school system, and any similar school system, is dropping the ball.  Permission slips should be required for sex-ed simply because some parents, like you and Lula, wouldn't want their children in the class.  The school should do a better job of educating the parents about what is going on in the school.

Just because the first recorded case in the US was from a homosexual doesn't mean that it all stems from homosexuality.  The disease itself came from Chimps although I don't recall exactly how it made the jump in species.  You are misconstrewing (sp?) the facts.  The fact of the matter is that AIDS is transmitted by fluid transfer which means that it can infect anyone.  If it was truly a homosexual disease then it would only impact homosexuals or only be transfered by anal sex (and even that isn't exclusive to homosexuals).

Again it isn't a homosexual disease.  It is transmitted by fluid exchange and the message getting out there is educating everyone to that fact.  We should be encouraging needle exchanges so that the disease is less likely to spread through the sharing of needles (since there will be less needle sharing).  We should also encouraging abstinence and condom use so that it isn't spread through sexual contact.  It is NOT a gay disease so mentioning that doesn't do any good and in fact would put straight people at risk because they might think that they don't have to be as careful.

Well said.  And the adendum to that is that we all have to live with the consequences of our actions, whatever they may be.  With something like AIDS the key is education.  Educate the public on how it is transmitted so that people at least have the information to make better decisions, if they choose to ignore the information that is their choice and they must deal with whatever the consequences may be.

Precisely.

Lula and KFC seem to talk from one side about how their God gives us free will to make decisions on how we live our life and then deal with the consequences, but then they do not seem to apply this to other things like this case. What is the point of God given free will if you are unable to use it?

~Alderic