Too bad for them, its those kind of idiots who refuse to teach their kids for which sex ed was made for.. I knew about sex, anyone whose parents understand proper parenting knows about safe sex... people like him and lula think utter ignorance is somehow more moral, and as such their children get teen pregnant and put more kids for adoption / abortion (or flat out dropout), and spread STDs around the student body.

The quote said SODOMY not HOMOSEXUALITY. I hate to break it to you but anal sex doesn't require two men. a man and a woman  can have anal too. The chance of infection from a single vaginal encounter is 3%, it is an order of magnitude higher from a single anal encounter. More over, anal sex doesn't carry a risk of pregnancy (gay or hetrosexual) so those unconcerned about STD but concerned about babies will not use a condom during anal but will during vaginal. the chance of infection from an anal / vaginal goes down to almost nothing as soon as you put on a condom.

If you're gay you're much more at risk of catching it than someone who is heterosexual, if everything else between them is equal (i.e. they both have the same amount of sex, are as likely to use a condom as each other, etc. etc.). It may not be the root cause, but that shouldn't  mean you don't teach children not to be gay so that they'll reduce their risk of catching it (or at the very least point out that if you are gay then you are more at risk and it is even more important that you practice safe sex).

The simple fact is that if you are straight then you don't have to be as careful. That is, you should still be careful, but the risk associated with not being careful is lower statistically speaking.

Note I'm not saying that straight people shouldn't be told to practice safe sex - IMO the dangers are so severe that everyone should be taught to have safe sex (i.e. use a condom unless you know that both you and your partner are free from infection). I just think that as part of that teaching it should be ok to point out that if you're gay then you're more at risk.

well, are you including where they put their dick in the "everything else is equal" thing?

If the have the same amount of anal sex and the same amount of condom use then no, there is not a single difference between the two, there is no magic in a gay mans arse that makes it more aidsy than a womans.

But if you are just comparing couples then NOT everything is equal, two things that are different can never be equal no matter how much liberals wish it so. In this case they aren't equal because the anatomy of the vagina is vastly different then the anatomy of the anus. None of the pregnancy stuff even occurs at the vagina, it occurs past the cervix, in the womb and tubes etc... the vagina is a 6 inch tract meant to milk a penis, feel goof for the man and the woman, and protect and prevent infectious diseases. deeper in you go past the cervix and you get into a variety of organs meant for actual reproductive purpose, the purpose of the vagina itself is SEX.

And free of cheating.

aldericjourdain posts:

Only in a perfect world. But we are discussing the deadly disease of AIDS and aren't you glad that the Red Cross takes into consideration the lives of homosexuals regarding their policies on blood donations?

EL DUDERINO POSTS:

Education you say....consider this by Rabbi David Eidensohn who writes that even though we have much medical knowledge, we can't stop the growth of HIV/AIDS......He says we have an Alice in Wonderland attitude about it mainly becasue of the homosexual lobby. That's why I say it's a politically correct disease.

Here's a snippet.... How does the government fight HIV? It asks the Gay Lobby what to do, and they demand money for "education." The gays then take the millions of dollars for "education," and "educate" their way. In the above newsletter is a separate article about the San Francisco gay organization called STOP AIDS, which received from the government $698,000 in fiscal 2000. It took this money to "educate," and it did so by promoting the opposite. The practice is now under the scrutiny of Inspector General Janet Rehnquist (daughter of the Chief Justice). She found that events they promoted were "inappropriate, potentially obscene and appeared to directly promote sexual activity." Paying the gays to "educate" about HIV was attacked by physician Congressman Dave Weldon (R-Florida) who asked, "Where's the data that all the billions we spent over the last 10 years have slowed or stemmed the spread of this disease?"

The entire report can be read here:

            http://www.sinaicentral.com/gendercentral/1_4_02_pr_Gay_Lobby_%20and_the_cost_of_AIDS.htm

It's not education....it's practicing chastity.

Granted, in a perfect world. The sense of keeping out of others business is a virtue most in the world do not have; however, just because others do not follow it, does not mean it shouldn't be followed. Besides, it is not about peer pressure, it is about doing what you wish with your life. To invade other peoples lives and try to tell them what to do, just goes to show that you don't care about that. (BTW, I mean "you" as in general you; not specifically you.)

Actually, I would rather see the policy as a blanket policy for anyone who has done drugs, etc... To do it as they do it only tends to be antagonistic.

Lula, I think we're all saying the same thing here in: Either practicing safe (educated) sex, or no sex at all - verus getting aids. I'm sure no one here wants anyone to wind up with AIDS. It's a horrible disease and  nasty way to died, and/or suffer. However,we all seem to be coming at this from different angles. It is obvious that you see such a task as being done through chastity; myself, and it seems, others, see it as becoming educated about the matter so that one can make the decions - whatever the outcome. This ties into the principle of living your life as you see fit, bad and good decisions included.

KINGBEE POSTS #148

TALTIMER POSTS:

Turns out it's classroom sex education that is putting children's lives in danger. ANd we cna thank in part Congressmen Dave Weldon who is also a physician. He asked the question "Where's the data that all the billions we spent over the last 10 years have slowed or stemmed the spread of this disease?"

We've known ever since 2001 that the public has been misled on Condoms, "Safe Sex" education.

When push came to shove, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) admitted that years after promoting "safe sex"  that there is very little scientific proof to back the claim of safe sex messengers. The New American, August 27, 2001, reported Dr. Weldon saying, "Sixty five million AMericans suffer today from incurable STDs, and there will be 15 million new STDs infections annually unless Americans are given the facts so they can change behaviors. (like stop premarital sex and practice chastity!...my addition) Most young people today have been misinformed and believe that condoms offer them significant protection. Unfortunately, millions have been misled and given bad information which will result in their making decisions which will cause incurable diseases,......" 

Around 1999-2000, Congressman Tom Coburn, also a practicing physician, had a scientific panel develop a report on the effectiveness of condoms cosponsored by the National Institute of Health, Food and Drug Admin. the CDC, and the US Agency for International Development. On July 20, 2001, Dr. Weldon was reported as saying that this report was kept under wraps for nearly a year. The report concluded that there is no scientific evidence to support the claims that condoms provide universal protection against 8 STDs....HIV, gonorhea, chlamydia, syuphilis, chancroid, trichomonaiasis, genital herpes and HPV, human appillomavirus.

Dr. Cobrun said, "This report finally exposes the safe sex myth for the lie that it is, for decades, the federal government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to promote an unsubstantiated claim that promiscuity can be safe. We all know for a fact that it's a lie. Who can ever know the true toll in human lives and health care costs that have resulted from misinformation that has been propagated by the CDC, Planned Parenthood, and the rest of the "safe sex" lobby?"  

What's more this report means that when condom use is discussed it is no longer medically correct or legal for the CDC to refer to sex as "safe" or "protected. As a medical doctor the best prescription I can give to avoid infection with a sexually transmitted disease is abstinence until marriage and a lifelong,mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner.

So, Kingbee, turns out that it was best afterall that Title V Abstinence only Education programs downplayed condom use and wanted to emphasize their failure rates. And the ones who are putting other lives in danger are the ones who push contraceptive sex education.

of course.  I agree.  and this whole thing about AIDS not being a gay disease is a ridiculous  It started out that way and has progressed but it did start out as a homosexual disease no matter what anyone tells you.  It's not PC to pick on the homosexuals or to insinuate anything about them.

 Taltimar, you weren't even born when the first cases came to light.  I was.  I saw the news.  I saw the movie that came out in the 80's (I think it was called "The Band Played On").  I saw the men (at first that was it) involved and the gay bathhouses that were being closed down all over the place as a result of this disease.  It put fear into the homosexual community BIG time.  But like any sin it has consequences and the innocent do get contaminated and unfortunately the Ryan Whites (remember him?) of the world get caught because of what the grownups were doing wrong. 

maybe you're just not understanding?  Could that be it?  Hmmmmmm?

I absolutely agree with you about the free will.  Lula and I are not infringing on that.  But the freewill is only one sided when it comes to secular governmental education.  Our kids were educated in a public school.  Why can't our views and voices be heard?  Why do our kids have to leave the classroom when comprehensive sex is being taught? 

We went to countless school board meetings trying to get an abstinence program going to give an alternative and let parents choose which program they'd prefer.  Guess what?  Shot down.  Why is that?  This goes alot deeper than surface level.  The funny thing is if you had given the parents the choice....I'm willing to bet most parents would have put their kids in the abstinence side of the health program.  The whole idea is to give the kids support and tell them it's ok to wait and not be like the kids who chose not to wait.  Tell them it's not a shame they didn't lose their virginity before they get their diploma. 

When my boys were in H.S. there were other Christian parents like me.  We all took our kids out of this semester course because it was laden with indoctrination and went against everything we believe in and teach our kids.  What people don't seem to understand is our kids were the kids not having sex at the parties and delving into risky behaviors and how it's all related.  My kids were home everynight usually in bed by nine if they didn't have a sports event.  They certainly were NOT given the green light to "be careful" cuz you're going to do it anyway speech.  The bar was raised a bit higher...and guess what they met the expectation and.....I went to a half dozen weddings (these same kids) who went to the altar as virgins. 

It can be done and abstinence can work....if given the chance and the support.  It's a pretty good thing when you can enter marriage and not be bringing a whole lot of baggage on the trip. 

I guess I should put a disclaimer. I don't mean the you as specifically you, it is meant as an in general you.

BTW, I'm not saying abstinance is wrong, or that it shouldn't be an option. I'm just saying that sex ed should be an option for those who wish to actually have the information, and then make decisions. I'm glad i was given the education, more than glad. Instead of just being told what to do, I made the decision to be careful. It helped me mature tons.

I'm just saying that with what you both are saying, and how you both are saying it tends to irk me. It comes accross like saying that cancer is a ______ disease, because it is easier to get it if you're whatever. (I think the percentage is high for blacks, maybe im wrong) That's what it is sounding like, that you're labeling it their disease, when it can end up with anyone, and kill anyone.

ok.

But that's not the problem.  The problem is we have a whole bunch of teens having sex starting now in the 5th-6th grade when this wasn't happening before.  What has changed?  The problem isn't that there's a lack of information out there is it?  No. The problem is they're not even considering telling these kids how beneficial it would be for them to wait.  The problem is it's only a one way street.  There isn't an option for parents like us who wish to teach the same biology but instead of hand out condoms encourage them to abstain for their own benefit but yet still tell them the risks involved.

BTW I didn't just "tell" my kids what to do.  I, as a parent, strongly encouraged them with information to wait until marriage.  Of course being a Christian I had backup.  I could tell them that it was God's best plan for their lives and that it was so because of great love for them and their future mates. 

I understand from a non-Christian viewpoint it's much harder because basically what you have to say is "I say so."  But in a classroom setting the teachers are not going to have an "I say so" attitude.  It would be filled with facts and information to encourage them to stay pure either until marriage or until they were at least old enough to either be married or take responsiblity fully for what could happen to them as a result of having sex before they really should.  They would be strongly encouraged as I did my kids to make sure they didn't put themselves into a position where a sexual encounter would be possible (like being alone with the opposite sex).   When my son, as a teen,  took a girl home in the car, we always made sure someone else was in the car with them.  Of course, if they are hell bent on having sex, they will.  They'll find a way.  This was only to help and encourage them by not giving them an opportunity when there could be one. 

Not sure why this wouldn't help you mature as well?  The only diff between one program and the other is one is either passing out condoms or showing you how to get pills and work the clinics and the other is strongly encouraging you to wait possibly until marriage.  The reason many aren't getting married nowadays is they don't have to.  It used to be marriage and then sex.  Now it's sex, babies and maybe if you want get married or even better just go from man to man.  See that alot nowadays.  Women having children from various relationships.  That's healthy and mature? 

well maybe because that's how it started and the blame is or should be there as that's where it originated.  Now, of course it's progressed outside of the homosexual community I agree.  But if I'm not mistaken (and I might be with the whole Africa problem) it's still very much a concern for those in the homosexual community more than the heterosexual one.   When this first appeared (in the 80's) it almost scared the homosexuals straight.........but like anything else  we get desensitized.  But for a while homosexual men were dropping like flies and they were very scared and committing to manogamy like never before. 

 I'm not positive but I suspect my homosexual uncle died of AIDS in the eighties.  Of course there was a stigma attached and I think they put down he died of pneumonia or something.  He wasn't that old. 

... lets put SMOKER in the blank... saying cancer is a smoker's disease is misleading, because non smokers can get cancer too. But smoking is a contributing factor...

The difference is that homosexuality isn't a contributing factor, there is no magic gay juice in a gay man's body that makes it more STD susceptable. It is simply that gays are more likely to engage in risky behaviour (condomless sex) because they have less to worry about (no pregnancy)

Technically though, isn't it actually something else that you die for with AIDS? Since it tears down your immune system.

Actually AIDS didn't come from gay males, at least according to one credible theory.

lula posts:

Concerning cases of rape of very young girls who then become pregnant...here is more on the story of the 9 and 5 year old girls who became pregnant.

Neonatologist Says Brazilian Nine-Year-Old Could Have Safely Brought Child to Term

March 17, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The horrific case of a nine-year-old Brazilian girl who was repeatedly raped by her step-father, and who subsequently became pregnant with twins has made headlines around the world in recent days. The case created widespread controversy after the girl had an abortion, an act that was condemned by the Catholic Church in the country due to the fact that doctors had originally refused to perform an abortion, stating that the girl's life was not in danger.

The doctors who later performed the abortion, however, claimed that the girl's life was indeed in danger, a claim that has been widely repeated in the mainstream media.

But in a recent interview with LifeSiteNews.com, Dr. Paul Byrne, a neonatologist and clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Toledo, Ohio, strongly refuted the assumption that the Brazilian girl's life was threatened by the pregnancy, simply because of her age.

Byrne told LSN that it is certainly medically possible for a young girl safely to carry a pregnancy of twins to term. He acknowledged that the circumstances are unusual, but said that the problem of giving birth with an undeveloped pelvic structure could be safely avoided by a caesarean section. 
 
Dr. Byrne cited the case of Lina Medina, a Peruvian girl from the Andean village of Ticrapo who made medical history when she gave birth to a boy by caesarean section in May 1939 at the age of five years, seven months and 21 days.
 
But he emphasized that no matter what the situation in the case, "abortion is not the solution." The girl, he said, "was sexually abused" and needed treatment. "Someone should have tried to help this girl."
  
"The mother and both babies should have had their life protected, preserved and defended. There is no reason to kill these babies," he said.
 
Dr. Byrne noted also that the girl now faces the usual long-term health risks associated with abortion, including possible future pre-term births and miscarriage due to an "incompetent cervix," a cervix that is too weak to stay closed during a pregnancy.
 
Much research has shown other serious long-term health complications of abortion, including increased risk of breast, cervical, ovarian and liver cancers. Other risks associated with abortion include such serious mental health issues as post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, eating disorders, suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.

I'm falling behind on reading these comments and apologize if I'm repeating something that has already been discussed.  

EL-DUDERINO POSTS:

C'mon...stop playing abortion propaganda word games. If you favor abortion or are for abortion, then you are pro-abortion.  

el-duderino posts #127

El-Duderino,

The problem with abortion isn't about people making choices, rather it's about the choice they make. In a choice to commit abortion, the baby always gets killed and it's fundamentally wrong, unacceptable and unjust to kill one's baby. If we continue the savagery of allowing big people to kill little unborn people by abortion, then where does killing stop?

First point: Becasue the mother isn't the only one that is under consideration in this circumstance...there is a baby's life to consider in the mix. To do as you suggest would be to take part in a big lie...and that is the mother has a right to make a personal decision over her unborn baby's right to continue living. Like anything else, we should not only focus on the mother's choice, but also on the concrete reality of the consequences that comes with it.

Second point: It's not only the mother who has to live with whatever the consequences of abortion, we too become complicit in the horrible act if we approve it, or take part in any way. We are answerable for the sins of others whenever we either cause them, or share in them, through our own fault. We may cause or share the guilt of another's sin in 9 ways:

By counsel....by command...by consent....by provocation...by flattery or praise....by concealment...by being a partner in sin...by silence...and by defending the ill done.

But when that child is born, all decisions are therein defaulted to the mother/parents. So...i guess, again playing devils advocate, how does that differ? Setting aside the issue of it being her body, technically she is still the mother.

((It's funny how there are those who are hypocrits because they accept other forms of body modification, sometimes even claiming religious nature in it. ))

~Alderic

Lula, sorry, but I have to be blunt; you're being a bit of a stingy bella on that. Tell me, why does a person have to be pro abortion, when they say they are pro choice, You're completely setting aside the humanity aspect there.

Myself: I would be considered pro-choice. However, I will never, ever, never "have" or agree to an abortion. I will flat out fight it. Still, that is a personal choice. (Key words: personal choice)

For me that is what it comes down to. I chose a year and two months, but that does not mean that I feel that because I'm agaisnt having an abortion (so to speak), that i will let my personal choice rule that of others.

That is, for me, what being pro choice is.

~Alderic