Monday, June 09, 2008

Heterosexual AIDS Pandemic Not Expected

I am posting this news story so our anonymous commenters can take it the wrong way. You know that the African continent is being decimated by an AIDS epidemic that hits the heterosexual population mostly. HIV has spread to the straight population in the US and Europe, but still predominantly hits gay men and IV drug users. Some early models had predicted that it would explode among heterosexuals in our society, but according to this story in The Independent that isn't now expected to happen.
A quarter of a century after the outbreak of Aids, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has accepted that the threat of a global heterosexual pandemic has disappeared.

In the first official admission that the universal prevention strategy promoted by the major Aids organisations may have been misdirected, Kevin de Cock, the head of the WHO's department of HIV/Aids said there will be no generalised epidemic of Aids in the heterosexual population outside Africa.

Dr De Cock, an epidemiologist who has spent much of his career leading the battle against the disease, said understanding of the threat posed by the virus had changed. Whereas once it was seen as a risk to populations everywhere, it was now recognised that, outside sub-Saharan Africa, it was confined to high-risk groups including men who have sex with men, injecting drug users, and sex workers and their clients.

Dr De Cock said: "It is very unlikely there will be a heterosexual epidemic in other countries. Ten years ago a lot of people were saying there would be a generalised epidemic in Asia – China was the big worry with its huge population. That doesn't look likely. But we have to be careful. As an epidemiologist it is better to describe what we can measure. There could be small outbreaks in some areas."

In 2006, the Global Fund for HIV, Malaria and Tuberculosis, which provides 20 per cent of all funding for Aids, warned that Russia was on the cusp of a catastrophe. An estimated 1 per cent of the population was infected, mainly through injecting drug use, the same level of infection as in South Africa in 1991 where the prevalence of the infection has since risen to 25 per cent.

Dr De Cock said: "I think it is unlikely there will be extensive heterosexual spread in Russia. But clearly there will be some spread." Threat of world Aids pandemic among heterosexuals is over, report admits

I think their use of the word "admits" here is a little strange. I guess that's because the earliest models had predicted otherwise. I don't think there is any embarrassment though when a researcher finds that some parameters have to be adjusted as the data come in.

Hmm, interesting...
Aids still kills more adults than all wars and conflicts combined, and is vastly bigger than current efforts to address it. A joint WHO/UN Aids report published this month showed that nearly three million people are now receiving anti-retroviral drugs in the developing world, but this is less than a third of the estimated 9.7 million people who need them. In all there were 33 million people living with HIV in 2007, 2.5 million people became newly infected and 2.1 million died of Aids.

This story is a little confusing, in that it talks about two different populations of people. They talk like AIDS won't hit the heterosexual population, but they mean the heterosexual population outside Africa. The numbers in the preceding paragraph include the African continent, where heterosexual sex is the main vehicle of propagation of the virus. In the countries where AIDS mainly hits men having sex with men, drug users, and sex workers, it has not killed more people that "all wars and conflicts combined." So it is important to be a little careful with the conclusions you draw here.

Skipping through this story ...
[de Cock:] "Aids still remains the leading infectious disease challenge in public health. It is an acute infection but a chronic disease. It is for the very, very long haul. People are backing off, saying it is taking care of itself. It is not."

Critics of the global Aids strategy complain that vast sums are being spent educating people about the disease who are not at risk, when a far bigger impact could be achieved by targeting high-risk groups and focusing on interventions known to work, such as circumcision, which cuts the risk of infection by 60 per cent, and reducing the number of sexual partners...

The biggest puzzle was what had caused heterosexual spread of the disease in sub-Saharan Africa – with infection rates exceeding 40 per cent of adults in Swaziland, the worst-affected country – but nowhere else.
"It is the question we are asked most often – why is the situation so bad in sub-Saharan Africa? It is a combination of factors – more commercial sex workers, more ulcerative sexually transmitted diseases, a young population and concurrent sexual partnerships."

"Sexual behaviour is obviously important but it doesn't seem to explain [all] the differences between populations. Even if the total number of sexual partners [in sub-Saharan Africa] is no greater than in the UK, there seems to be a higher frequency of overlapping sexual partnerships creating sexual networks that, from an epidemiological point of view, are more efficient at spreading infection."

Low rates of circumcision, which is protective, and high rates of genital herpes, which causes ulcers on the genitals through which the virus can enter the body, also contributed to Africa's heterosexual epidemic.

But the factors driving HIV were still not fully understood, he said.

"The impact of HIV is so heterogeneous. In the US , the rate of infection among men in Washington DC is well over 100 times higher than in North Dakota, the region with the lowest rate. That is in one country. How do you explain such differences?"

Personally, I am not finding it amazing that there is more AIDS in Washington DC than in North Dakota, how about you?

I am posting this story provocatively. I know that for some readers, every negative stereotype will be activated by the finding that maybe HIV isn't going to spread through the heterosexual population outside of Africa. Every demographic group has its bane, whether it's alcoholism or prostate cancer or high blood pressure or whatever, the fact is that being alive is a health risk. In our society, because of the way HIV was introduced and because of the long latency between when you get infected and when symptoms appear, and because physicians weren't watching for it when it became prevalent in the eighties, it got a stronghold in the gay male population and that group has had to struggle with it ever since. If you remember, the first groups identified were gay men and Haitians.

This is good news, of course. The epidemic has been devastating on the African continent, and terrible elsewhere but it has not reached the proportions -- imagine a country where forty percent of people are infected -- in our society that has been seen in other places.

81 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"because of the way HIV was introduced and because of the long latency between when you get infected and when symptoms appear, and because physicians weren't watching for it when it became prevalent in the eighties,"

and because homosexuals tend to be more promiscuous than heterosexuals

June 09, 2008 4:39 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Somehow I thought that would take longer. I'm just not cynical enough, I guess.

I am posting this news story so our anonymous commenters can take it the wrong way.

JimK

June 09, 2008 4:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting. He now thinks he can negate the obvious if he points it out himself.

It's not a coincidence, Jim. The gay community rejected traditional morality and monogamy was part of it. Facts are facts.

June 09, 2008 4:51 PM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

AnonFreak said:

"and because homosexuals tend to be more promiscuous than heterosexuals"

That's interesting... and bigoted.

When you keep telling yourself negative stereotypes, they eventually become real in "your little world".

How about this, AnonFreak: I think straight people (not all, of course... the sane ones don't take such things for granted--if I were to imply that "all" straight people take this for granted, I would be a bigot) take equality and marriage rights for granted.

Oh, on another note. I heard a student call one of the members of my Gay-Straight Alliance a "faggot" today. I can't wait for the meeting tomorrow with the other student's mother. It's always interesting to see how far the bigot apple falls from the hateful branch.

So, it's finals week and my GLBT students have to worry about being bullied rather than studying for their final exams. PRETTY SICK!!

I am a firm believer that no one is born with feelings of hate--they are taught hate by society and,s adly, their parents.

I mean, take a look at the pictures of children wearing "God hates fags" at www.godhatesfags.com.

It is sad that a small pocket of parents in Montgomery County are raising their children to be the next generation of the Westboro Baptist Church.

Thanks for the post, Jim!

June 09, 2008 4:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"it's finals week and my GLBT students have to worry about being bullied rather than studying"

So, you think they are all sitting around worried because someone called them a name?

Doesn't that happen to all kids every now and then?

You're more immature than the average student. You call people a name all the time. Should we call your mother?

Probably not. In the words of Merle Haggard:

don't go blamin' momma 'cause she tried...

June 09, 2008 5:19 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, if that was supposed to be a quote from "Mama Tried," you got it way wrong.

JimK

June 09, 2008 5:39 PM  
Anonymous Joe said...

One of the primary reasons why HIV has generalized in the African population is that many groups in Africa have a tendency to form large concurrent sexual networks. A guy would have his wife and a few girlfriends. Those girlfriends might also have a few other boy friends on the side. Most cultures outside Africa practice serial monogamy. Serial monogamy doesn't necessarily mean you've only had one partner but generally they are spread out over time and if you are say cheating, your mistress isn't as likely to have a few more on the side besides you.

Time is really the important thing too. A newly infected individual is much more contagious than someone who has had HIV for say a year, even if they don't know it. This period of being very contagious plus the sexual concurrency networks allowed HIV to spread very rapidly in Africa.

Even poverty didn't have quite as much to do with it. HIV hasn't been nearly the problem in other third world countries, such as Thailand with their thriving sex trade never posted an infection rate of more than 2%

June 09, 2008 6:27 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

I posted here a couple of years ago about Social Networks and AIDS. You hear people say, for instance, that anal sex is risky, you're more like to get HIV that way, but the fact is -- there is no risk of getting HIV if the person you're having sex with doesn't have it. And if they do, you can get it through oral or vaginal intercourse nearly as easily.

JimK

June 09, 2008 7:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Joe above is probably correct. Straights in most parts of the world don't have "large concurrent sexual networks", even the promiscuous. It was the rule for gays in this country immediately before AIDS surfaced. It still is common, if not ubiquitous, especially among young adult gays.

Also in Africa, the social stigma against homosexuality is strong. Even in America, one can see that the greater the tolerance of homosexuality in a local community, the higher the AIDS rate.

Truth is, gays have always, since the advent of homosexuality a century and a half ago been promiscuous in any society where they are tolerated. Concerning sexual morality, intolerance saves lives.

June 09, 2008 9:26 PM  
Anonymous Merle said...

Anon, did you notice in what you just said, the AIDS rate is disastrously high in the countries that are intolerant of homosexuality? Your argument doesn't stick together, cowboy.

June 09, 2008 9:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry, partner, but I agreed it is high when "large concurrent sexual networks" are common. It disappears where social intolerance of this is present.

"large concurrent sexual networks" are found commonly among gays anywhere they are tolerated.

June 09, 2008 9:40 PM  
Anonymous Merle said...

You've got 40 percent of the people in an African country with AIDS, where you yourself said they are not tolerant of homosexuality. No Western country comes anywhere near that. You've got your head in the sand, hoss.

June 09, 2008 9:44 PM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

Back up your claims, AnonFreak!

Without proof, they are just your opinions... which mean next-to-nothing here.

June 09, 2008 9:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's because they also don't tolerate the type of heterosexual promiscuity described by Joe. Homosexuals, however, who do practice it when tolerated, are a fraction of the population. Hard for 2% of the population to make up 40% of the population. Are you saying better to have gays engage in dangerous behavior because there are fewer of them?

You act like someone who just sat on a hot brandin' iron, cowpoke.

Settle in among the sagebrush and ponder what type of behavior you've been advocating. Upon reflection, you will see- it's dangerous and you're not making the world a better place.

June 09, 2008 9:57 PM  
Anonymous Merle said...

Dangerous behavior? Not sure what kind of bronc you're riding there, pardner.

June 09, 2008 10:01 PM  
Anonymous Joe said...

Wow JimK, that is one hell of a post. I'll have to page through it tomorrow but a quick read tells me it says essentially the same thing. I am not sure but I was under the impression that getting it by anal intercourse was easier than vaginal which was easier than oral but I don't have documentation on hand to back that claim up.

To Merle: Western countries don't come close to the high prevalence in African countries because of radically different sexual mixing patterns in Africa (Concurrency Network) within the heterosexual population. Also HIV tends to be most infectious for the first few weeks and months after the initial infection.

June 10, 2008 12:02 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

Stunning said…
"since the advent of homosexuality a century and a half ago"

Which, I believe, was the same year that black cats invented the number 13 - without which, the discovery of idiocy would never have occurred.

June 10, 2008 1:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Idiocy will always be with us, emslob.

Right now, we have people trying to claim it's just a coincidence that the AIDS seems most prevalent in the gay population.

Examples like that happen all the T I M E, time.

June 10, 2008 6:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"...that the AIDS seems most prevalent in the gay population."

Anon, AIDS "seems" most prevalent in the gay population because where you live, it is. In the world in general, it is not, by a long shot. There is a targeted epidemic in Western society, a small epidemic in a couple of subpopulations, but where it has caught on in the heterosexual population it is gigantic, wiping out entire countries.

Your point depends on a parochial worldview. Luckily for you, you don't know what that means.

June 10, 2008 6:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Africa is the only place where it is significant in the heterosexual community. The reason why is discussed above.

Can you tell us parochial types which countries have been wiped out?

Truth is, simple adherence to Judeo-Christian sexual mores would wipe out AIDS like a surfin safari. Random promiscuity among a population is dangerous. Mankind received this message millenia ago. Your worldview could be called hedonistic denial.

June 10, 2008 7:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What are you opposed to, Anon, homosexuality or promiscuity?

June 10, 2008 7:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm opposed to the lies told to teenagers by irresponsible groups that either are safe practices.

For all practical purposes, homosexuality is a subset of promiscuity.

In any case, both are against community standards in virtually every society on Earth.

June 10, 2008 7:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, Anon, what do you say about two women in a committed monogamous relationship?

Or does that upset your worldview so much that you have to deny our existence?

Friend in VA

June 10, 2008 8:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't think lesbians are contributing to the AIDS epidemic, if that's what you mean.

June 10, 2008 9:18 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anonymous said:

“The gay community rejected traditional morality and monogamy was part of it.”

Hmmm… I think the perspective of many gay people is different. For many of them the first rejection was that of their family and friends. They were then left to fend for themselves without the supportive social network they once enjoyed. Coalescing together with other rejects of the same variety, they tried to find their way with the love, support, guidance, legal and social institutions that would have helped them build a more traditional family.

Countless gay couples are chomping at the bit to legalize their marriages. In two states (for now at least) they’ve managed to be successful. What would the U.S. be like now if it had legalized gay marriages 50 years ago? With numerous gay couples enjoying the benefits and social responsibilities of marriage (including the expectation of monogamy) would there even have been enough “promiscuous gays” to fuel a large breakout of AIDS? Would a large number of faithful and married gays slowed the spread enough so that it was only limited to the sexually active singles who hadn’t yet gotten married? Would this have allowed scientists enough time to find the causes before it spread into the blood supply?

The public health implications are staggering. How many lives would gay marriages have saved? A thousand? Ten thousand? More? Given the potential to save lives from future outbreaks of communicable diseases (sexually transmitted and otherwise), I would think more people would be advocating gay marriage, and holding those couples to the same expectation of monogamy that any marriage should have. It’s not just a matter of fairness and equality, but of public health as well.

Single, promiscuous people of any sexual preference are a potential threat to the health of our society. Getting them all married off would help limit the spread of any number of diseases.

Peace,

Cynthia

June 10, 2008 9:55 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Ooops, I left a typo in the second paragraph above. It should have said:

"tried to find their way withOUT the love, support, guidance, legal and social institutions"

Peace,

Cynthia

June 10, 2008 9:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"How many lives would gay marriages have saved?"

How many lives would never have happened at all if gay marriage was a regular feature of our society?

June 10, 2008 10:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous: You have, once again, gone back on your word. You told us you wouldn't be posting here anymore but, lo and behold, here you are again with your smug and supercilious rants against gay people. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Gays are more promiscuous than heterosexuals? Oh, puleeze! Transference of your own unacknowledged guilt onto others is the oldest trick in the world. Get a life!!!
Diogenes

June 10, 2008 10:51 AM  
Anonymous dinesh explains said...

Science is wonderful at doing certain things, like popping warm toast out of my toaster and making heavy objects float and fly. Without science we wouldn't be able to do those things. No wonder that science enjoys a position of high prestige in our society.

But the achievements of science blind many people to the fact that science is a limited tool for understanding ourselves and the world. In some areas science has showed astounding progress, but in other areas science has taught us no more than we knew since the time of the Babylonians.

Consider some of the most important questions facing us as human beings: Why are we here? Where ultimately did we come from? Where are we going? Science can provide us with very limited answers. As the philosopher Wittgenstein once put it, one has the feeling that even if all possible scientific knowledge could been obtained, the biggest questions of life would remain largely untouched and unanswered.

Skepticism is of course a central tool of science, but many skeptics make the mistake of failing to apply skepticism to science itself. They are skeptical within science but they are not skeptical about science. They naively believe that science can answer all the questions that require answers. Thus they demand of science what science has never provided and is not likely to provide in the future.

I call this the "atheism of the gaps." The basic idea is that if science hasn't figured something out, just wait a few years, because the brilliant scientists are working on it. Have faith that they will come up with good answers in the future, just as they have in the past. In other words, we should assume that people who are smart enough to make toasters are also smart enough to figure out whether there is life after death.

Yes, it's laughable, and that's why I'm sorry to see smart fellows like my friend Michael Shermer succumbing to this science-worship. Shermer is the editor of Skeptic magazine and author of some fine books including most recently The Mind of the Market. We've done several God v. atheism debates, the most recent one before 2,500 people at Fresno State University. It was one of our liveliest, and you can watch that debate here.

Shermer used to be a Christian fundamentalist. He always gets off a funny line about how he used to go door to door handing out literature, and now as an atheist he wants to go back to those people and take back the stuff he gave them. In a way, though, Shermer remains a believer. He still places his faith in men in white robes. Only these men happen to work not in pulpits but in laboratories. Science is now Shermer's religion.

In a couple of my debates, I asked Shermer what kind of scientific evidence he would require to be convinced that God exists. I asked him, "What if we discovered a new planet tomorrow and emblazed on it were the words: YAHWEH MADE THIS. Would you then believe that there is a God?" Shermer said no. He would automatically conclude that some chance combination of chemicals must have generated those words. In short, he is closed to supernatural explanations, no matter what the data, and is only open to natural explanations.

This I consider a selective sort of skepticism that is actually a lamentable sort of dogmatism. I see it also in Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris and Dennett. In a way they are much narrower than religious believers. That's because the religious believer admits both natural and supernatural explanations. By contrast, these unbelievers have closed themselves off to all possibilities that don't fit their naturalistic outlook. One may say that science has blinded them to the things that science cannot possibly tell them.

June 10, 2008 11:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Gays are more promiscuous than heterosexuals?"

Oh, there are straights that are promiscuous. But, even among them, it is usually one at a time. The gay phenomena of large concurrent sexual networks, especially among young gay males, is virtually unknown among normal people.

June 10, 2008 11:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You know we never discussed the study that came out last week concerning teen pregnancy rate. In the last three years it has slowly began to creep up nationally.

You will remember that after the introduction of comprehensve sex ed in the 70s, teen preganacy shot through the roof. In the early 90s, as a backlash of abstinence programs began to spread and even President Clinton jumped aboard, the rates began to drop.

Now, this new data. What happened? Well, about three years ago, a nationally coordinated campaign, of which TTF is part, began to attack abstinence programs systematically. Kids heard their teachers and parents began to say publicly and vociferously that kids are just going to have sex anyway and, guess what? The prophecy became self-fulfilling.

Congrats, TTF. The effect of your work is noticeable.

June 10, 2008 11:16 AM  
Anonymous not anon said...

Anon-

You need some psychological help. I say that not to be mean, but as a concerned citizen of Montgomery County. The more people like you who can be transformed into normal functioning human beings through psychotherapy, the better the world will be.

June 10, 2008 11:34 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Anon

Where is this stuff about "concurrent sexual networks especially among young gay men" coming from? If it's not FRC claptrap, I'm interested in where it's coming from. I'm genuinely interested, since I hadn't heard this theory in my work in combatting the HIV epidemic in Virginia.

Robert

June 10, 2008 12:27 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

Stunning said...
"For all practical purposes, homosexuality is a subset of promiscuity."

Therefore, they see monogamous gay relationships/marriages as nothing more than being promiscuous with the same person. Though most of them aren’t intelligent enough, or are to cowardly to openly articulate it as such.

Like how they use the term "counterfeit marriage" instead of being honest and saying "your love is fake."

June 10, 2008 12:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I'm genuinely interested, since I hadn't heard this theory in my work in combatting the HIV epidemic in Virginia."

If you genuinely want to combat the epidemic, Robert, try this:

Get a gal. Settle down. Stick with it.

It only takes a spark to get a fire going!

June 10, 2008 1:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anyone know what the AIDS rate is in the US ?

Supposedly at about 3-4% it explodes and then you see numbers like Africa. under that percentage you can contain it.

June 10, 2008 1:26 PM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

AnonFreak-- you are sick!

I doubt anyone who is attracted to the same-sex is going to want to settle down with someone of the opposite sex.

Just like someone who is attracted to the opposite-sex-- why would they want to settle down with someone of the same-sex? THEY WOULD NOT!!

The thought of settling down with a woman has never once crossed my mind. Yeah, of course it would be easier since the bigots of today's society still exist, but I would be lying to myself and everyone around me if I went against my own being.

The problem with bigotry is NOT being homosexual, the cause of problems that bigots have with GLBT individuals is HOMOPHOBIA. Take a simply sociology or psychology course, you just might learn something that isn't in the Bible.
Why don't you try that and stay out of the lives of others?

AnonFreak- you are one sad human being. I agree with, "not anon"-- you need to get some psychotherapeutic help. You are obviously a threat to the safety and well-being of children and adults with your hateful, Westboro ass-backwards thinking. SICKO!

June 10, 2008 4:29 PM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

Anon (I am not sure if this is AnonFreak or not) said:

"anyone know what the AIDS rate is in the US ?Supposedly at about 3-4% it explodes and then you see numbers like Africa. under that percentage you can contain it."

What would help lower this number?
COMPREHENSIVE SEXUAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS!!! The exact same ones that the CRC freaks have tirelessly opposed and fought for years (wasting precious time and resources, as well as lots and lots of tax-payer dollars). Imagine how many lives we could save if the Bible-bangers would just let teachers do what they were trained to do: TEACH.

EDUCATION IS POWER!

June 10, 2008 4:33 PM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

The latest from CRC:

Montgomery County Libraries Promoting "Coming Out Day"

Contact Director of Public Libraries, Parker Hamilton at Parker.Hamilton@montgomerycountymd.gov
---------------------------------------

So, for all of us SANE people out there, remember to send Mr. Hamilton a letter of thanks for showing that MC Libraries does not support bigotry, ignorance or hate.

I have already done so. It takes less than two mins. to do!

June 10, 2008 6:47 PM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

Here's the link for the event above:


http://www.folmc.org/events/specialevents.cfm

June 10, 2008 6:48 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

And here's the hyperlink to the link above :)

http://www.folmc.org/events/specialevents.cfm

June 10, 2008 7:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So, for all of us SANE people out there, remember to send Mr. Hamilton a letter"

Oh, don't worry. His role will be acknowledged by truly sane people when we send a petition to the new County Council.

June 10, 2008 7:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What would help lower this number?
COMPREHENSIVE SEXUAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS!!!"

That's funny. Comp sex ed was pretty ubiquitous in America when AIDS first surfaced.

Guess it was just a coincidence!

June 10, 2008 7:36 PM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

So, AnonFreak-

It is obvious that you have a theocratic agenda for MC.

Wrong county, my friend. Try one in Oklahoma.

MC residents won't stand for it. We'll be sure to make your agenda public, as much as possible.

June 10, 2008 7:38 PM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

AnonFreak said:

"Oh, don't worry. His role will be acknowledged by truly sane people when we send a petition to the new County Council."

You crazies think you are so smart....
I say, "BRING IT!"

:-)

June 10, 2008 7:39 PM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

Thanks, Emproph (for the hyperlink).

Derrick

June 10, 2008 7:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I doubt anyone who is attracted to the same-sex is going to want to settle down with someone of the opposite sex."

After counseling, they will want to be a productive member of society.

"The thought of settling down with a woman has never once crossed my mind."

That's why we gave you the idea.

"Yeah, of course it would be easier since the bigots of today's society still exist, but I would be lying to myself and everyone around me if I went against my own being."

Your being is defined by some sick type of lust? Redefine yourelf.

"The problem with bigotry is NOT being homosexual, the cause of problems that bigots have with GLBT individuals is HOMOPHOBIA."

Sorry, but traditional morality is not a phobia.

"Take a simply sociology or psychology course, you just might learn something that isn't in the Bible."

I've taken course in both. Why do you think they are gay apologetics?

"Why don't you try that and stay out of the lives of others?"

Sure. Could you stop trying to make laws for the rest of us?

"AnonFreak- you are one sad human being. I agree with, "not anon"-- you need to get some psychotherapeutic help. You are obviously a threat to the safety and well-being of children and adults with your hateful, Westboro ass-backwards thinking. SICKO!"

Say what you will. I'm not encouraging people to engage in dangerous and deadly behavior.

June 10, 2008 7:49 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

My pleasure, Derrick.

Here's a simple tutorial on how to do it. There's a practice page too.

Once you get the hang of it it really comes in handy.

June 11, 2008 12:45 AM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Anonymous writes,

and because homosexuals tend to be more promiscuous than heterosexuals

Frankly I don't think that assertion could hold up to much scrutiny with subset heterosexual groups eager to prove just how "liberated" they can be.

It's not a coincidence, Jim. The gay community rejected traditional morality and monogamy was part of it. Facts are facts.

And facts are facts that many heterosexuals have also rejected "traditional" morality (keeping in mind that slavery was once considered a "tradition" in the South, not to mention elsewhere). This rejection of standards of moral behavior has taken place in part due to mushy headed ideas of whatever any does in the privacy is their own business and because it quite simply "cramps our style". Straights are every bit as good at this rationalization as gays and lesbians.

Derrick writes,

How about this, AnonFreak: I think straight people (not all, of course... the sane ones don't take such things for granted--if I were to imply that "all" straight people take this for granted, I would be a bigot) take equality and marriage rights for granted.

Actually, truth be told, we are at this critical point in time because heterosexuals have NOT taken matters of marriage and the family seriously enough. As I have said before, and will say again, same-sex "marriage" will only finish off what heterosexuals started. Gays and lesbians may very well end up discovering what a few of us straights are; that marriage is about more than "love".

So, it's finals week and my GLBT students have to worry about being bullied rather than studying for their final exams. PRETTY SICK!!

Good grief...I got bullied all the time and I am not gay. It makes a difference though when a kid can go home at the end of ths school day and receive the love of a stay-at-home parent.

I am a firm believer that no one is born with feelings of hate--they are taught hate by society and,s adly, their parents.

You can believe all you want that humankind is naturally good (and only really corrupted by nurture). This is a core idea of the modernists, one of the leading figures being Rousseau. I believe it is better to teach as a basic principle that we all have a good nature and an evil nature, and that for our good nature to be in control we must be habituated towards goodness (keeping in mind that a virtue is a good habit, like treating everyone, even and especially those students that self identify as being "homosexual" with kindness and respect). I've made it clear time and again to my two daughters that goodness is the highest standard of moral and ethical behavior.

Nobody is born per se with feelings of hatred, and yet we all hate...and why? Catholicism calls it "original sin"...it assumes people are born already corrupted, and that civilization should have as its goal teaching and enforcing the newer members as to the standards of a morally ordered society.

I know...this is a tough one for many of you to swallow.

June 11, 2008 1:57 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

Orin Ryssman said...

"This rejection of standards of moral behavior has taken place in part due to mushy headed ideas of whatever any does in the privacy is their own business and because it quite simply "cramps our style". Straights are every bit as good at this rationalization as gays and lesbians."

"Straights are every bit as good at this rationalization as gays and lesbians"

Meaning that we gays and lesbians set the bar. A level of rationalization-of-privacy that straights actually feel they need to say they are “every bit as good at,” so as to appear less hypocritical.

Next time, Orin, just say something like this:

"mushy headed ideas of whatever any does in the privacy is their own business" are exactly the same whether gay or straight.

Unless of course you really do believe that gays and lesbians are fundamentally responsible for "mushy headed ideas of whatever any does in the privacy is their own business."

Remember, we consider ourselves to be a persecuted minority, so it’s very easy to read malice into words, or perhaps, a lack of more careful wording. This is unfortunate when any intention of malice may not necessarily be so.

Don’t get me wrong, under the best of scenarios I feel completely malicious in regard to what you said. Even straight people deserve the right to NON-HARMFUL “mushy headed ideas of whatever any does in the privacy is their own business.”

But I can at least respect your consistency.

June 11, 2008 6:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Straights are every bit as good at this rationalization as gays and lesbians."

The point was, Orin, that all gays have rejected traditional morality, by definition. A large number of straights have too but it doesn't follow simply by being straight as it does from being gay.

Once you've rejected traditional morality in one sense, it's more likely you will reject in other senses.

June 11, 2008 6:57 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

Orin Ryssman said...
"As I have said before, and will say again, same-sex "marriage" will only finish off what heterosexuals started. Gays and lesbians may very well end up discovering what a few of us straights are; that marriage is about more than "love"."

"same-sex "marriage" will only finish off what heterosexuals started."

Again, a seeming attempt at consistency, but not so innocuous when you suggest that gays and lesbians are somehow incapable of understanding that meaningful relationships of any kind require more than simple “love.”

Unless of course this was a veiled attempt to suggest that our love is fake and that we are all delusional for thinking otherwise.

All I ask is that you say so outright without putting what I consider to be the meaning of my existence itself in "quotes.":

"marriage is about more than "love"."

Actually it isn’t.

Think about the meaning of the word “marriage.” It means union, as in fusion, as in two become one.

“Making love” isn’t just a cliché, and it’s not just about sex, it’s about an intensity of human intimacy that generates peak productivity, personally and socially.

If our love is truly real, then our relationships are a resource 'in this fallen and broken world' that cannot afford to be overlooked.

Again. If you think our love is fake and that we should understand that we are delusional, so be it. But please have the courage to say so outright.

And again still. You will be attacked, guaranteed.

But at least I will be able to respect your honesty.

June 11, 2008 6:58 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

BTW, here's an extremely (and lengthy but worth it) insightful article on the nature of people like Anonymous:

THE PSYCHOPATH - The Mask of Sanity

June 11, 2008 7:12 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anonymous Asked:

“How many lives would never have happened at all if gay marriage was a regular feature of our society?”

Excellent point Anon, I’m glad you brought it up. As human population marches inexorably toward the point where our planet simply doesn’t have enough resources to support them, we will be looking for all sorts of ways to bring the population down to more sustainable levels. China has already instituted a “one-child” policy. Over time, over much protest and argument, I suspect this policy will have to be adopted planet wide. War, disease, and starvation will likely become ever more common around the world before that happens, but at some point, at least some people will realize that rather than have a child born into a world where they will either starve or have to kill somebody to eat, it is better not to have a child at all.

Some people, having a hard time believing the whole “global warming” thing are unlikely to believe we would ever have a problem with over population and start having to ration out births.

Other people are convinced that the Rapture will occur before then, and they will be saved, so it won’t be a problem. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture or cruise around http://www.jvim.com/ for a while.

Personally, I’m one of those scientific types, and tend to put more weight in articles like this: http://physics.ius.edu/~kyle/P310/articles/Bneck.pdf or http://dieoff.org/page174.htm or http://researchnews.wsu.edu/environment/56.html or http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/booming-population-threat-to-climate-change-fight-521837.html .

Several of these articles estimate that the maximum number of people on the planet for long-term sustainability is in the 2 to 3 billion range. We are currently over 6 billion. It is only a matter of time (a few decades?) before the laws of Mother Nature or human politics reduces the current number to that which is more sustainable. I don’t look forward to that day.

Peace,

Cynthia

June 11, 2008 8:23 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Anon spurted

"If you genuinely want to combat the epidemic, Robert, try this:

Get a gal. Settle down. Stick with it.

It only takes a spark to get a fire going!"

Do you realize how genuinely and profoundly offensive these statements are? I spend a great deal of time and effort working to lessen the impact of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the state of Virginia, as do many other people, while you just make rude comments to people who really care. You are an unmitigated jerk. I know honest, genuine people who are 'opposed to homosexuality' because that is their opinion, who for religious reasons. You're just mean for the sake of being mean.

I've sometimes thought that Derrick's comments to you were a little over the top, but their not.

Please, do something to help people, rather than just being nasty. If you're religious beliefs, or your thoughts about queer people and the epidemic, were genuine rather than simply a hammer with which to pummel people, you would act differently.

I don't like you. You've annoyed me.

Go away.

Robert

June 11, 2008 8:39 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

(This never showed up when I posted it 30 minutes ago, so I’m trying again – I apologize if it shows up twice.)

Anonymous Asked:

“How many lives would never have happened at all if gay marriage was a regular feature of our society?”

Excellent point Anon, I’m glad you brought it up. As human population marches inexorably toward the point where our planet simply doesn’t have enough resources to support them, we will be looking for all sorts of ways to bring the population down to more sustainable levels. China has already instituted a “one-child” policy. Over time, over much protest and argument, I suspect this policy will have to be adopted planet wide. War, disease, and starvation will likely become ever more common around the world before that happens, but at some point, at least some people will realize that rather than have a child born into a world where they will either starve or have to kill somebody to eat, it is better not to have a child at all.

Some people, having a hard time believing the whole “global warming” thing are unlikely to believe we would ever have a problem with over population and start having to ration out births.

Other people are convinced that the Rapture will occur before then, and they will be saved, so it won’t be a problem. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture or cruise around http://www.jvim.com/ for a while.

Personally, I’m one of those scientific types, and tend to put more weight in articles like this: http://physics.ius.edu/~kyle/P310/articles/Bneck.pdf or http://dieoff.org/page174.htm or http://researchnews.wsu.edu/environment/56.html or http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/booming-population-threat-to-climate-change-fight-521837.html .

Several of these articles estimate that the maximum number of people on the planet for long-term sustainability is in the 2 to 3 billion range. We are currently over 6 billion. It is only a matter of time (a few decades?) before the laws of Mother Nature or human politics reduces the current number to that which is more sustainable. I don’t look forward to that day.

Peace,

Cynthia

June 11, 2008 8:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"our relationships are a resource 'in this fallen and broken world' that cannot afford to be overlooked"

Afford? It seems quite cost efficient to keep the gay "community" at a lower profile. We'll save tons on medical expenses as a society.

"I don't like you. You've annoyed me."

Darn.

I was counting on your support for my Nobel Peace prize nomination.

If you really want to help your gay buddies, Robert, encourage them to join a church that peaches the gospel and forsake their homosexual activities. They'll never have to worry about AIDS again. You can prevent the disease rather than just patch up the symptoms.

June 11, 2008 10:07 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

Stunning said...
Emproph: "our relationships are a resource 'in this fallen and broken world' that cannot afford to be overlooked"

Stunning: "Afford? It seems quite cost efficient to keep the gay "community" at a lower profile. We'll save tons on medical expenses as a society."
--
My statement was based on the understanding that our love is REAL.

Since you knowingly KNOW that you don't believe that our love is real, you're not even in a legitimate position to respond to that statement in context.

By purposefully responding to it out of context, as you did, you demonstrate yourself not only as a liar, but also as an idiot.

As is typical of the psychopathic mentality.

June 11, 2008 11:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"My statement was based on the understanding that our love is REAL."

Oh, man. You must not have been around in the 70s. If you had been, you know that if you love something, you set it free.

You guys are not right for each other. You're not the same gender. That's unhealthy. Acknowledge it and move on. You'll get over it.

Maybe you can write a tear-jerker novel. Call it "I Left Him Because I Loved Him". Probably won't sell much but they can turn it into a made-for-TV movie and show it on the LOGO channel.

June 11, 2008 11:36 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

"Oh, man. You must not have been around in the 70s. If you had been, you know that if you love something, you set it free."

Well since you "love" hating gays so much, why don’t you set that free?

P.S. Stunning

June 11, 2008 11:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Get over yourself, prov, and do what's right.

June 11, 2008 12:23 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

I guess this could be given the title, "Sex in the City"

Study: 1 in 4 adults in NYC have herpes virus

1 day ago

NEW YORK (AP) — A city Health Department study finds that more than a fourth of adult New Yorkers are infected with the virus that causes genital herpes.

The study, released Monday, says about 26 percent of New York City adults have genital herpes, compared to about 19 percent nationwide.

The department says genital herpes can double a person's risk for contracting HIV.

Herpes can cause painful sores, but most people have no recognizable symptoms.

Among New Yorkers, the herpes rate is higher among women, black people and gay men.

The health department urges consistent use of condoms, and says its STD clinics offer free, confidential herpes testing.

June 11, 2008 12:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's a shocker.

Gays at higher risk of another VD.

Who knew?

In the words of Dion:

I wonder why...

June 11, 2008 12:40 PM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

AnonBigot (that's your new name):


You sure can prevent HIV/AIDS by:

USING EDUCATION AS POWER.

Every student needs to know what HIV/AIDS are (as well as what they are NOT) to protect themselves.

Simply preaching, "Go to church" does not make students want to refrain from having sex. I mean, look at all the priests who have done horrible things in the churches to innocent children in the eyes of God. SICK!

Also, we need to not only talk about "straight" issues in Sexual Education courses, we also need to teach about "gay" issues. Lots of gay students sit in health courses and just hear about what to do with the "opposite sex, opposite sex, opposite sex" and, in return, think to themselves, "Well, this doesn't apply to me... where's my ipod?".

THAT IS HOW WE WILL END THE HIV/AIDS EPIDEMIC. Not by NOT talking about it, AnonBigot.

Praying the disease away is not going to help either, AnonBigot. Good science coupled with qualified educators is the right path to CONTINUE going down. We just need to "up" the approach.

American society is quite scared of the word "sex" and think the human body is just one disgusting object. It isn't until we rid ourselves of that nonsense that we'll actually start to make some progress-- by having opening, genuine and factual conversations about such issues.

June 11, 2008 2:54 PM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

AnonBigot said,

"There's a shocker.

Gays at higher risk of another VD."

Really do you think woman and African -Americans should go to church so that woman are barefoot and pregnant cooking in the kitchen? Will that help?

How about African-Americans?

You're like an annoying little gnat that came from the VERY shallow end of the gene pool. Sad you are.

June 11, 2008 2:59 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

Orin Ryssman said…
"Study: 1 in 4 adults in NYC have herpes virus"

Don’t forget, gays and monogamous lesbians are also responsible for the rising cost of food:

Surging costs of groceries hit home
Bread, eggs, milk prices up sharply


"After nearly two decades of low food inflation, prices for staples such as bread, milk, eggs, and flour are rising sharply, surging in the past year at double-digit rates, according to the Labor Department. Milk prices, for example, increased 26 percent over the year. Egg prices jumped 40 percent.

Escalating food costs could present a greater problem than soaring oil prices for the national economy because the average household spends three times as much for food as for gasoline. Food accounts for about 13 percent of household spending compared with about 4 percent for gas.

Rising food prices can be particularly corrosive to consumer confidence because people are so frequently exposed to the cost increases. "It's the biggest risk we face economically, and it might be the thing that does us in," said Rich Yamarone, director of economic research at Argus Research Corp. in New York. "There's nothing really worse than having a job, making money, and forking most of it over just so you can have the same amount of food. You're running in place, and it really weighs on you.""

--
Touche' Orin, touche'.

June 11, 2008 3:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You sure can prevent HIV/AIDS by:

USING EDUCATION AS POWER.

Every student needs to know what HIV/AIDS are (as well as what they are NOT) to protect themselves."

Kids already know all about AIDS, Dricksnot.

The government has spent huge of sums on education to the gay community since the 80s. It hasn't worked. The young gay community is too jazzed about their bareback adventures to curb their promiscuity or use a condom.

June 11, 2008 4:23 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Anonymous blurted:

"Darn.

I was counting on your support for my Nobel Peace prize nomination.

If you really want to help your gay buddies, Robert, encourage them to join a church that peaches the gospel and forsake their homosexual activities. They'll never have to worry about AIDS again. You can prevent the disease rather than just patch up the symptoms.

June 11, 2008 10:07 AM"

I'll be honest with you on my opin ion. HIV, if detected, is a chronic though treatable infectious disease; reparative therapy, and it's accompanying efforts to be ex-gay, are repeatedly destructive to people's personality, relationships and sense of well being. Given the choice (and it's not an actual choice, but let's compare apples and watermelons here), I feel strongly that a person with HIV being treated is healthier than a person involved in reparative therapy.

Besdides which, most MSMs are not HIV positive, and efforts to reduce the infection rate seem to be effective.

Your claptrap about becoming straight to avoid HIV is, besides being gross and disvriminatory, is a recomendation that people injure their health to achieve a dubious gain.

Again, all that you clatter about HIV and AIDS, STDs, etc., you don't really give a damn about real people. You just are looking for likely-seeming reasons to justify your discrimination and bigotry, and your consequent self-aggrandizement.

You are a bad person.

Go away.

rrjr

June 11, 2008 9:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"destructive to people's personality, relationships and sense of well being"

Sorry, Robert. You place too much value on sexuality. It isn't what life's about.

People are dying because they have defective sexual desires. You're enabling it.

Make a right choice and stop attacking those who advise you to do so.

June 12, 2008 12:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You can't reason with a nut Robert. All the logic and facts in the world will not sway Anon's beliefs or her desire to force everyone to conform to her hateful views.

Some of the people some of the time is the best we can do, and we'll never reach people as hateful and fearful as Anon. The good news is more and more Americans are seeing the value of tolerance, understanding, and acceptance for our LGBT brothers and sisters.

''The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.'' Martin Luther King

MCPS Mom

June 12, 2008 7:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Justice?

How about arresting any gay who spreads AIDS to anyone else for manslaughter?

When will this moral arc bend that way?

How about firing any teacher who encourages a confused kid to "come out"?

June 12, 2008 8:28 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

I think you're right, mom.

rrjr

June 12, 2008 9:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

which is evidence you're wrong, mum

June 12, 2008 10:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's a great idea Anon. You can start with the American Family Association's poster boy, Michael Johnston.

And of course you'll want the same treatment for heterosexuals who do the same thing.

June 12, 2008 1:50 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Red Baron said "You will remember that after the introduction of comprehensve sex ed in the 70s, teen preganacy shot through the roof. In the early 90s, as a backlash of abstinence programs began to spread and even President Clinton jumped aboard, the rates began to drop.

Now, this new data. What happened? Well, about three years ago, a nationally coordinated campaign, of which TTF is part, began to attack abstinence programs systematically. Kids heard their teachers and parents began to say publicly and vociferously that kids are just going to have sex anyway and, guess what? The prophecy became self-fulfilling.".

LOL, you couldn't be more wrong red Baron, the exact opposite has happened, things got much worse after the introduction of so called "abstinence only programs":

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/06/more_evidence_on_failure_of_ab.php#more


The Washington Post reports:

The nation's campaign to get more teenagers to delay sex and to use condoms is faltering, threatening to undermine the highly successful effort to reduce teen pregnancy and protect young people from sexually transmitted diseases, federal officials reported yesterday.
New data from a large government survey show that by every measure, a decade-long decline in sexual activity among high school students leveled off between 2001 and 2007, and that the rise in condom use by teens flattened out in 2003.


And the obvious reason why:

"Since we've started pushing abstinence, we have seen no change in the numbers on sexual activity," said John Santelli, chairman of the department of population and family health at Columbia University. "The other piece of it is: Abstinence education spends a good amount of time bashing condoms. So it's not surprising, if that's the message young people are getting, that we're seeing condom use start to decrease."

June 12, 2008 3:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chairman Santelli has a poor grip on history. Ab-only programs didn't start any special push in 2003. That's when the nutty groups, which TTF joined, began a coordinated campaign against ab-only programs with public statements about how "normal" kids are sexually active and only non-cool kids were abstinent until marriage.

June 12, 2008 4:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You wouldn't know a FACT if one bit you on the arse, would you Anon? 2003 was smack dab in the middle of huge increases in federal funding for abstinence-only education between 2001 and 2006.

Thanks to comprehensive sex education programs, American teen pregnancy rates started falling in 1991, which was long before Clinton or Bush decided to fund abstinence-only education. Now states are rejecting federal funding for faith-based abstinence-only programs and insisting that sex education programs be based on science and research. In order to stay safe and prevent unplanned pregnancies, teens need to learn what the CDC teaches: use a condom for every act of non-procreative sex.

June 12, 2008 7:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

that's funny

comp sex ed programs took over public schools early in the 70s

Clinton began funding ab programs because they had demonstrated success, starting in the early 90s, in churches across America

believe it or not, things do happen in America that are not part of a government program

they are generally the things that work

"insisting that sex education programs be based on science and research"

let's hear a fer instance

seems like most "comp sex ed" programs have left out the comp part

June 12, 2008 9:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

fer instance

Albany, September 20, 2007 - The Bush administration's Abstinence Only Program is an example of a failed national health-care policy directive, based on ideology rather than on sound scientific-based evidence that must be the cornerstone of good public health-care policy.

June 13, 2008 5:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

that's not a "fer instance", it's a repeat of the same line without any example

in other words, a lie

June 15, 2008 7:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Derrick said...
AnonFreak said:

"and because homosexuals tend to be more promiscuous than heterosexuals"

That's interesting... and bigoted.


And true. But yes, in the age of PC, censorship of the truth is a good thing, right?

January 15, 2010 4:27 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home