AIDS - HOMO/BI/SEXUAL LIFESTYLE MOST DESTRUCTIVE
Dr. Jai Maharaj
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
When it comes to AIDS, unless there are facts to invalidate the following
information, it is evident that the homo/bi/sexual lifestyle is
overwhelmingly the most destructive among those listed:
"Who Are The Patients?
"In the United States, homosexual and bisexual males make up
approximately 62 percent of the total patients. The other major group
afflicted with AIDS are intravenous drug abusers -- both men and women --
who constitute 20 percent of the total. . . ."
"ADULTS AND ADOLESCENTS WITH AIDS, 1981-87
================================== Males % Females % Both sexes %
Homosexual/bisexual males 50,325 68 0 50,325 62
Intravenous (IV) drug abusers 12,529 17 3,622 52 16,151 20
Homosexual male an IV drug abusers 5,874 8 5,874 7
Hemophilia/coagulation disorder 751 1 22 0 773 1
Heterosexuals 1,516 2 2,073 30 3,589 4
Blood transfusion 1,297 2 747 11 2,044 3
Undetermined (1) 2,143 3 519 7 2,662 3
TOTAL 74,435 91 6,983 9 81,418 100
=========================================================================
"Note: Provisional data. Cases with more than one risk factor than the
combinations listed are tabulated only in the category listed first.
(1) Includes patients on whom risk information is incomplete, patients
still under investigation, men reported only to have had heterosexual
contact with a prostitute, and patients for whom no specific risk was
identified; also includes one health care worker who developed AIDS after
a documented needle-stick to blood. Source: Centers for Disease Control."
=========================================================================
Cited in "The Universal Almanac 1990", Andrews and McMeel, 1989.
=========================================================================
Readers are invited to post data supporting or opposing the above.
Jai Maharaj
j...@mantra.com
Om Shanti
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Digital signatures verify author and unaltered content.
iQCVAwUBMt1jKulp/UA/8L65AQEIfwP7B9DoLWdpVUbssYMQxxBL1iqOhfe4PgYQ
niUeObYzo3GL2dmf1qGwLLsXfHhuLbxtgiOZLiGn/yZcO8Wf3c6eq9YaCdWltydu
f+DoR4lwOMW7xUQFZw3PubwVUUfDP3wxSEKl503sxNgd9mOaHCYjkUX7CsNXQSGC
v5WI4b8J0qU=
=GQia
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
John Sanger
In article <8533700...@dejanews.com> j...@mantra.com (Dr. Jai Maharaj) writes:
>
>"ADULTS AND ADOLESCENTS WITH AIDS, 1981-87
>Cited in "The Universal Almanac 1990", Andrews and McMeel, 1989.
>=========================================================================
You do seem to like to live in the past.... using out of date data with such
a dynamic health crisis is really only showing us all how very stupid
you are....
And the USA is not the only country in this world that is touched by
this crisis..... try looking at the nations south of the Sahara in
Africa or South/SouthEast Asia or Central/South America......
You just might find a very large number of heterosexuals who are
infected and are spreading this disease, HIV, because of the attitude
that you express.... ignorance is the only excuse for this or any
disease getting to be a crisis situation....
clueless is as clueless does!
jai==clueless==ignoramus
--
Ciao!
John S. 8^{)>
tedd...@netcom.com
__
Dr. Jai Maharaj
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
When it comes to AIDS, unless there are facts to invalidate the following
information, it is evident that the homo/bi/sexual lifestyle is
overwhelmingly the most destructive among those listed:
"Who Are The Patients?
"In the United States, homosexual and bisexual males make up
approximately 62 percent of the total patients. The other major group
afflicted with AIDS are intravenous drug abusers -- both men and women --
who constitute 20 percent of the total. . . ."
Homosexual/bisexual males 50,325 68 0 50,325 62
Intravenous (IV) drug abusers 12,529 17 3,622 52 16,151 20
Homosexual male an IV drug abusers 5,874 8 5,874 7
Hemophilia/coagulation disorder 751 1 22 0 773 1
Heterosexuals 1,516 2 2,073 30 3,589 4
Blood transfusion 1,297 2 747 11 2,044 3
Undetermined (1) 2,143 3 519 7 2,662 3
TOTAL 74,435 91 6,983 9 81,418 100
=========================================================================
"Note: Provisional data. Cases with more than one risk factor than the
combinations listed are tabulated only in the category listed first.
(1) Includes patients on whom risk information is incomplete, patients
still under investigation, men reported only to have had heterosexual
contact with a prostitute, and patients for whom no specific risk was
identified; also includes one health care worker who developed AIDS after
a documented needle-stick to blood. Source: Centers for Disease Control."
Cited in "The Universal Almanac 1990", Andrews and McMeel, 1989.
=========================================================================
Dr. Jai Maharaj
John Sanger (tedd...@netcom.com) wrote:
: : In article <8533700...@dejanews.com> j...@mantra.com (Dr. Jai
: : Maharaj) writes:
: : >
: : >"ADULTS AND ADOLESCENTS WITH AIDS, 1981-87
: : >=========================================================================
: : >Cited in "The Universal Almanac 1990", Andrews and McMeel, 1989.
: : >=========================================================================
: : You do seem to like to live in the past.... using out of date data with such
: : a dynamic health crisis is really only showing us all how very stupid
: : you are....
Why did John Sanger provide more data instead of complaining?
He must not be able to do so, evidently.
Dr. Jai Maharaj
Jerry DeGuzman
In article <5bljea$ol2$4...@opihi.aloha.com>, j...@aloha.com says...
>
> [irrelevant drivel removed]
>
>Readers are invited to post data supporting or opposing the above.
What does THIS have to do with alt.culture.hawaii?
I think you're gay and afflicted with the AIDS disease that eats away at your
sorry little body...that would explain your recent obsession with the
homosexual lifestyle.
Perhaps I can dig up one of your old posts that hints at your pedophilia as
well?
--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* THE YOUTH SPORTS REPORT * Kids are our future, support youth sports! *
* Find me at http://home1.gte.net/deguzman or http://www.hits.net/~ysw *
* Team Internet Paintball #2573 * Feeling stressed? Go play paintball! *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
reader
Dr. Jai Maharaj <j...@mantra.com> wrote in article
<8533700...@dejanews.com>...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> "ADULTS AND ADOLESCENTS WITH AIDS, 1981-87
I think they want something a bit more current -- got anthing for the 90s
Helen Rapozo
On 16 Jan 1997, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
[stuff about AIDS cases removed]
>
> Readers are invited to post data supporting or opposing the above.
>
> Jai Maharaj
>
If you are doing this for a quest for knowledge, then may I
suggest posting your note to a newsgroup that deals with medical
related issues rather than in alt.culture.hawaii.
Honolulu Community College _^_ Twas the second month of
874 Dillingham Blvd. / \ winter. TV shows are either
Honolulu, HI 96817 | | airing repeats or new episodes,
Ph#: (808) 845-9202 | | parks are empty on the weekends
FAX#: (808) 845-9173 | | and I still can't think of
cs_r...@hccadb.hcc.hawaii.edu /| |\ anything cute to place here.
he...@hcc.hawaii.edu |_|___|_|
David Craven
What, pray tell does this have to do with Hawaii? Creating Homophobia
simply has no positive impact on the problem. AIDS and HIV is a disease,
not a moral curse or a punishment from god. Citing old statistics, which
by the way fail to ignore the fact that the fastest growing segment of
AIDS infected people is now Hetrosexual, non-drug using females) will, if
anything make the problem go away. you're a Doctor, you should know
better.
Now I am sure that the following does not apply to you, but many
people who make similar arguments are uncomfortable with thier own
sexuality and have this almost parnoid fear that they are going to be
attacked by someone of their same gender. Individuals wo are confident of
their own sexuality and gender preference do not have this problem, but
rather, as I have been able to do, cultivate friends across the whole
spectrum of sexual prefeernce, and frankly I don't care. I know that I
have no fear of being "attacked" or otherwise lead astray by those people
of a gender that is not my preference. (And no, I am not going to state
my preference on the net as it is none of your damm business.)
Dr. Jai
Maharaj (j...@aloha.com) wrote: : John Sanger (tedd...@netcom.com) wrote:
: : : In article <8533700...@dejanews.com> j...@mantra.com (Dr. Jai
: : : Maharaj) writes:
: : : >
: : : >"ADULTS AND ADOLESCENTS WITH AIDS, 1981-87
: : : >=========================================================================
: : : >Cited in "The Universal Almanac 1990", Andrews and McMeel, 1989.
: : : >=========================================================================
: : : You do seem to like to live in the past.... using out of date data with such
: : : a dynamic health crisis is really only showing us all how very stupid
: : : you are....
: Why did John Sanger provide more data instead of complaining?
: He must not be able to do so, evidently.
: He edited out the last line of my post whic said:
: "Readers are invited to post data supporting or opposing the above."
:
: Jai Maharaj
: j...@mantra.com
: Om Shanti
John De Salvio
In article <8533700...@dejanews.com>, j...@mantra.com (Dr. Jai
Maharaj) wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> When it comes to AIDS, unless there are facts to invalidate the following
> information, it is evident that the homo/bi/sexual lifestyle is
> overwhelmingly the most destructive among those listed:
["Dr." Jai Alai cites figures for the U.S. only, figures that are
NINE years old, and no separation of the figures from one
year to the next.
> Cited in "The Universal Almanac 1990", Andrews and McMeel, 1989.
> =========================================================================
>
> Readers are invited to post data supporting or opposing the above.
Do yourself a favor and show a graph of the AIDS cases
from 1990 to 1996: in the United States, and worldwide.
They paint quite a DIFFERENT picture than yours.
There have been numerous posts already on the figures.
Go into DejaNews and get them yourself. Go to the World
Health Organization, and UN AIDS. I'm tired of always doing
it myself for you frauds.
--
John
NOTE: "From" address is deliberately wrong.
My correct e-mail address is:
George M. Carter
j...@mantra.com (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:
>When it comes to AIDS, unless there are facts to invalidate the following
>information, it is evident that the homo/bi/sexual lifestyle is
>overwhelmingly the most destructive among those listed:
Heterosexuality in the rest of the world is the overwhelming
"lifestyle" that spreads HIV. The point is that AIDS is not a
lifestyle syndrome, but develops because of infection with HIV. Safer
sex precautions prevent the spread. Abstinence is the most effective
method, but not one many people care to choose. Not all gay men have
HIV. And very few lesbians do. So your interpretation is merely a
veiled bigotry. I trust this was merely an error of interpretation and
that you are not a bigot.
George M. Carter
John Sanger
In article <5bljlu$ol2$5...@opihi.aloha.com> j...@aloha.com (Dr. Jai Maharaj) writes:
>John Sanger (tedd...@netcom.com) wrote:
>: In article <8533700...@dejanews.com> j...@mantra.com (Dr. Jai Maharaj) writes:
>: >
>: >"ADULTS AND ADOLESCENTS WITH AIDS, 1981-87
>: >=========================================================================
>: >=========================================================================
>
>: You do seem to like to live in the past.... using out of date data with such
>: a dynamic health crisis is really only showing us all how very stupid
>: you are....
>
>Why did John Sanger provide more data instead of complaining?
>He must not be able to do so, evidently.
>He edited out the last line of my post whic said:
>
If you are so stupid as not to know how to obtain the latest file from
the CDC then you deserve to remain ignorant.....
I certainly will not do the work for you....
GdDoggie/Patrick
On Wed, 15 Jan 1997 17:31:07 -0600, j...@mantra.com (Dr. Jai Maharaj)
wrote:
>When it comes to AIDS, unless there are facts to invalidate the following
>information, it is evident that the homo/bi/sexual lifestyle is
>overwhelmingly the most destructive among those listed:
>
>"Who Are The Patients?
> "In the United States, homosexual and bisexual males make up
>approximately 62 percent of the total patients. The other major group
>afflicted with AIDS are intravenous drug abusers -- both men and women --
>who constitute 20 percent of the total. . . ."
>
>"ADULTS AND ADOLESCENTS WITH AIDS, 1981-87
>================================== Males % Females % Both sexes %
>Homosexual/bisexual males 50,325 68 0 50,325 62
>Intravenous (IV) drug abusers 12,529 17 3,622 52 16,151 20
>Homosexual male an IV drug abusers 5,874 8 5,874 7
>Hemophilia/coagulation disorder 751 1 22 0 773 1
>Heterosexuals 1,516 2 2,073 30 3,589 4
>Blood transfusion 1,297 2 747 11 2,044 3
>Undetermined (1) 2,143 3 519 7 2,662 3
>TOTAL 74,435 91 6,983 9 81,418 100
>=========================================================================
>"Note: Provisional data. Cases with more than one risk factor than the
>combinations listed are tabulated only in the category listed first.
>(1) Includes patients on whom risk information is incomplete, patients
>still under investigation, men reported only to have had heterosexual
>contact with a prostitute, and patients for whom no specific risk was
>identified; also includes one health care worker who developed AIDS after
>a documented needle-stick to blood. Source: Centers for Disease Control."
>=========================================================================
>Cited in "The Universal Almanac 1990", Andrews and McMeel, 1989.
>=========================================================================
>
>Readers are invited to post data supporting or opposing the above.
Adult/adolescent AIDS cases by exposure category, cumulative totals,
through June 1996, United States.
Males(%) Females(%) Both sexes(%)
M who have sex w/M 274,192 (59) 274,192 (50.7)
IV drug users 101,714 (22) 36,039 (46) 137,753 (25.5)
M who have sex w/M
and use IV drugs 35,218 (8) 35,218 (6.5)
Hemo./coag. disorder 4,122 (1) 158 (0) 4,280 (.8)
Heterosexual contact 15,268 (3) 29,712 (38) 44,980 (8.3)
Blood transfusion, etc. 4,449 (1) 3,235 (4) 7,684 (1.4)
Risk not rept'd or id'd 27,189 (6) 9,510 (12) 36,699 (6.8)
TOTAL 462,152 78,654 540,806
(Combined totals and percentages mine. All other figures from the
CDC.)
Hmmmm. Looks like the American 'homo/bi/sexual lifestyle' is getting
safer and safer and the 'heterosexual lifestyle' is getting more and
more hazardous.
- Patrick
Null212
Very interesting and informative facts.
Last current summary figure I seen was 95% of aids/hiv are gay and/or iv
druggies.
Some people feel that this is a cultural cleansing, a sort of a survival
of the fittest concept, the weakest members of the species will die off,
any thoughts?
Null212
Help me ! Hetrosexuals are being discriminated against !!
Why do we have to pay all the medical expenses for AIDS/HIV infected gays?
As a high risk group shouldn't gays pay more?
like other high risk groups, such as......
teenage drivers
drivers with a bad driving history
homeowners in a high risk weather zone, flood zone,hurricanes etc
property owners in a high crime area.....
sky divers, high risk activity...
Surcharges or discounts
Should we apply a surcharge to any gay policy holder or offer a discount
to encourage traditional family values and reduce the burden on the
nation's health resources?
Please pass this suggestion out at your next meetings, could be more $ in
your pocket.
Scott Carpenter
On Fri, 17 Jan 1997 07:20:05 GMT, jema...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>That is because the rest of the world is not as tolerant of homosexuals as is
>the US.
Uh - reality check? Most of traditional Western civilization is MUCH
more "tolerant" of homosexuality than the US is.
>While the spread of the disease is due to homosexual activity it's not
>identified because it involves closet homosexuals.
Oh, so even if it's not identified, it's still them damn faggots
spreading it around. I see. Is this global, or is it just in the US?
>Certainly not all do...however, because of their homosexual lifestyle
"homosexual lifestyle"? Just what is that, exactly? Can you point to
some leading indicators of this "lifestyle"? Just share with us your
obviously vast knowledge of the subject.
>they have
>the highest exposure and consequently, most of a given population of homosexuals
>will, over time, contract the disease unless they refrain from the promiscuous
>homosexual lifestyle. A fact that scientist, physicians and other experts in the
>field of CD accept as unrefutable.
And most children who play on the freeway will get hit by a moving
vehicle, unless they stop playing on the freeway.
Guess what? The HIV virus doesn't wait around to see if you're gay or
not before it infects you.
>Finally, there appears to be much about HIV and AIDS that you don't understand,
>especially as it involves demographics. I suggest you do some study on the
>subjects if you wish to continue in this kind of conversation.
Can we just consider this to be re-stated, in your general direction?
It'd save me an awful lot of typing.
GdDoggie/Patrick
On Fri, 17 Jan 1997 07:20:05 GMT, jema...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>On Fri, 17 Jan 1997 02:14:20 GMT, gm...@ix.netcom.com (George M. Carter) wrote:
>
>>Heterosexuality in the rest of the world is the overwhelming
>>"lifestyle" that spreads HIV.
>
>That is because the rest of the world is not as tolerant of homosexuals as is
>the US. While the spread of the disease is due to homosexual activity it's not
>identified because it involves closet homosexuals.
HEEELLOOOOOOOO? According to UNAIDS, *70%* of all HIV infections
worldwide to date stem from HETEROsexual contact. Or are all those
African and Asian women really gay men in drag?
>>The point is that AIDS is not a lifestyle syndrome,
>
>The onset of AIDS in the US has been traced by the CDC directly to a homosexual
>male flight attendant. The resulting epidemic is a result of the wildfire like
>spread of the disease that he introduced into the highly promiscuous US
>homosexual community.
The 'Patient Zero' theory makes for nice press (and book sales), but
it ignores the fact that HIV antibodies have been found in the body of
a man (American) who died in 1959 (?).
>> Not all gay men have HIV.
>
>Certainly not all do...however, because of their homosexual lifestyle they have
>the highest exposure and consequently, most of a given population of homosexuals
>will, over time, contract the disease unless they refrain from the promiscuous
>homosexual lifestyle. A fact that scientist, physicians and other experts in the
>field of CD accept as unrefutable.
One doesn't need to live a promiscuous lifestyle to contract HIV. One
needs ONE infected partner.
- Patrick
Jerry DeGuzman
In article <5bmn56$5...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>, gm...@ix.netcom.com says...
>
> [excellent counter-arguments against Maharaj snipped]
>
> So your interpretation is merely a
>veiled bigotry. I trust this was merely an error of interpretation and
>that you are not a bigot.
Uh, sorry to inform you but..."Dr." Jai Maharaj IS a bigot. And you will find
that he will never retract nor modify a statement that he issued, regardless
of its defamatory nature.
--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* THE YOUTH SPORTS REPORT * Kids are our future, support youth sports! *
* Find me at http://home1.gte.net/deguzman or http://www.hits.net/~ysw *
* Team Internet Paintball #2573 * My correct email is degu...@gte.net *
John Sanger
In article <32e01ee1....@nntp.best.ix.netcom.com> jema...@ix.netcom.com writes:
>On Fri, 17 Jan 1997 02:14:20 GMT, gm...@ix.netcom.com (George M. Carter) wrote:
>
>
>>Heterosexuality in the rest of the world is the overwhelming
>>"lifestyle" that spreads HIV.
>
>That is because the rest of the world is not as tolerant of homosexuals as is
>the US. While the spread of the disease is due to homosexual activity it's not
>identified because it involves closet homosexuals.
>
You are very ignorant of the "rest of the world's opinion".... it so
happens that homosexuality is more accepted outside of the USA than it
is in the "good ole" USA...
>>The point is that AIDS is not a lifestyle syndrome,
>
>The onset of AIDS in the US has been traced by the CDC directly to a homosexual
>male flight attendant. The resulting epidemic is a result of the wildfire like
>spread of the disease that he introduced into the highly promiscuous US
>homosexual community.
>
This is not true.... this is an urban legend....
The onset of HIV infection in the USA happened due to the distribution
of blood collected by the World Health Organization in the early and
middle 70's from central Africa..... This blood was distributed to Paris,
New York and San Francisco.... the 3 cities that simultaneously discovered
the HIV infection of their residents in 1980....
>> Not all gay men have HIV.
>
>Certainly not all do...however, because of their homosexual lifestyle they have
>the highest exposure and consequently, most of a given population of homosexuals
>will, over time, contract the disease unless they refrain from the promiscuous
>homosexual lifestyle. A fact that scientist, physicians and other experts in the
>field of CD accept as unrefutable.
>
>Finally, there appears to be much about HIV and AIDS that you don't understand,
>especially as it involves demographics. I suggest you do some study on the
>subjects if you wish to continue in this kind of conversation.
>
You should take your own advice as your knowledge is very much lacking
in this subject....
clueless is as clueless does!
jemarlow==clueless==ignoramus
John De Salvio
In article <32e01ee1....@nntp.best.ix.netcom.com>,
jema...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jan 1997 02:14:20 GMT, gm...@ix.netcom.com (George M. Carter) wrote:
>
>
> >Heterosexuality in the rest of the world is the overwhelming
> >"lifestyle" that spreads HIV.
>
> That is because the rest of the world is not as tolerant of homosexuals as is
> the US. While the spread of the disease is due to homosexual activity it's not
> identified because it involves closet homosexuals.
Would you care to support that statement with some evidence?
No offense, but the internet is FILLED with frauds and liars.
There are many countries of the world that are MUCH more tolerant
of homosexuals than the Americans.
Are you trying to say that all those prostitutes in Asia got
AIDS from gay men?
That Africa has been a mecca for gay men?
If that is the case, why do the WHO stats show that less than
10 percent of the AIDS cases in the world are due to M/M sex?
> >The point is that AIDS is not a lifestyle syndrome,
>
> The onset of AIDS in the US has been traced by the CDC directly to a
homosexual
> male flight attendant. The resulting epidemic is a result of the wildfire like
> spread of the disease that he introduced into the highly promiscuous US
> homosexual community.
That is a theory, not a proven fact. There is no evidence of precisely
HOW AIDS got to the United States, or WHO brought it. The only
alleged fact is that Gaetan was very promiscuous and spread AIDS
very early in the epidemic.
>
> > Not all gay men have HIV.
>
> Certainly not all do...however, because of their homosexual lifestyle
You just LUUUV that buzzword, "lifestyle." What is the "homosexual
lifestyle"?
If you are talking about sex, almost any male not attached to a person
he loves, seeks out sex. Women tend to be less forthcoming than
men, so straight men are a little less successful.
What do you call the "lifestyle" of two men who have made a
lifetime monogamous commitment to each other?
There's a lot of that going around, you know.
> they have
> the highest exposure and consequently, most of a given population of
homosexuals
> will, over time, contract the disease unless they refrain from the promiscuous
> homosexual lifestyle.
You, my friend, are living in the past. What is "most of a given
population of homosexuals"? Are you selecting out only the
promiscuous ones? What about the promiscuous straight men????
Why are AIDS cases in the U.S. among gay men tapering off while the
numbers among straight men and women are climbing? Don't give me
the bisexual crap either. Most gay men have learned to be careful and
less promiscuous. So have bisexuals. But straight men haven't.
> A fact that scientist, physicians and other experts in the
> field of CD accept as unrefutable.
What they find "irrefutable" is that risky sex can bring on AIDS.
> Finally, there appears to be much about HIV and AIDS that you don't
understand,
> especially as it involves demographics.
Like what, for instance? And please cite some verifiable data.
> I suggest you do some study on the
> subjects if you wish to continue in this kind of conversation.
And just what, pray tell, are YOUR credentials?
There are people in the gay community who can run circles
around you as far as all aspects of AIDS are concerned.
So far you sound more like that Nazi lunatic in Canada who visits
these NGs from time to time.
George M. Carter
jema...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>Heterosexuality in the rest of the world is the overwhelming
>>"lifestyle" that spreads HIV.
>That is because the rest of the world is not as tolerant of homosexuals as is
>the US. While the spread of the disease is due to homosexual activity it's not
>identified because it involves closet homosexuals.
Hahahahaha! I had no idea the world was SOO gay. Where did you come up
with this (erroneous) idea??
>>The point is that AIDS is not a lifestyle syndrome,
>The onset of AIDS in the US has been traced by the CDC directly to a homosexual
>male flight attendant. The resulting epidemic is a result of the wildfire like
>spread of the disease that he introduced into the highly promiscuous US
>homosexual community.
Hahahahahah! Claims for a so-called patient zero come from Randy
Shilts's "And the Band Played On" and have no basis in reality..
>> Not all gay men have HIV.
>Certainly not all do...however, because of their homosexual lifestyle they have
>the highest exposure and consequently, most of a given population of homosexuals
>will, over time, contract the disease unless they refrain from the promiscuous
>homosexual lifestyle. A fact that scientist, physicians and other experts in the
>field of CD accept as unrefutable.
And you can't spell! Do you get your factoids from Rush Limbaugh? It
only takes one good fuck without a rubber and, regardless of
orientation, one may become infected.
>Finally, there appears to be much about HIV and AIDS that you don't understand,
>especially as it involves demographics. I suggest you do some study on the
>subjects if you wish to continue in this kind of conversation.
Hahahahahaha! You have made a complete ass out of yourself by posting
this erroneous nonsense. Let me guess: you are a fundamentalist
christian?
George M. Carter
Steve Harris
I am a 21 year old gay male, and have received reactions to that
varying from hostile and violent, to pleasant and supporting from the
"straight community". I have alot of straight friends who like me for
who I am, regardless of who I'm attracted to.
I often see in these NG's, people who don't approve of or like
the "gay lifestyle". That, I say, is just fine. They don't HAVE to
like it, or understand it, or condone it. I don't want or need them
to, anymore than they need my approval for anything that they do.
Fortunately, we live in a FREE country, where we are free to live as
we choose, provided no one is harmed in the process.
There are those, however, that would restrict the freedoms of
individuals based on their sexual orientation, lifestyle or what have
you... Now, mind you, these people still pay the same taxes as
everyone else, have the same responsibilities to this country as
everyone else, in the event of war, etc..., just not the same rights
because a large group of people thinks that they are "offensive".
I say, fine. You can keep on restricting my freedoms if you
want. But I want... No, I DEMAND a tax cut, and immunity from the
draft, jury-duty, etc... If I can't have the same rights as everyone
else, why should I continue to honor the responsibilities that come
along with those liberties. If I cannot have a legally recognized
"marriage" to the person that I deem right for me, why should I
continue to pay the same amount of taxes as the people who HAVE that
priveledge? (I refer to it here as a priveledge because when a right
is withheld from even just ONE group, its no longer a RIGHT, but a
PRIVELEDGE.) If I have to fear losing my job, losing my apartment,
being attacked on the street, without recourse, then WHY should I
continue updating my information with the Selective Service System?
Why should I have to serve jury duty??? A government cannot just pass
out "rights" to people it deems worthy. It can't just set separate
standards for groups of people based on differences. It has been
proven over and over that it NEVER works. THAT, and not
homosexuality, as I've seen claimed in these groups, caused the
downfall of Rome, and other great historical empires. It was the fact
that they classed people based on the values of the times, and handed
out rights to only those who felt as they did. People get sick of
having their lives toyed with and fight back, after awhile. Again and
again, society continues to make the same mistake of holding others
down because they don't share the same beliefs... Ever hear of the
"Soviet Revolution"? Will history continue to repeat itself??? Is it
already too late??? Thanks.
GdDoggie/Patrick
On Sat, 18 Jan 1997 08:54:06 GMT, jema...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>On Fri, 17 Jan 1997 23:29:27 GMT, tedd...@netcom.com (John Sanger) wrote:
>
>>You are very ignorant of the "rest of the world's opinion".... it so
>>happens that homosexuality is more accepted outside of the USA than it
>>is in the "good ole" USA...
>
>That may have been so several decades ago but it certainly isn't now.
Then why do Greenland, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, and other countries
allow what is basically same-sex marriage while the US doesn't?
>The liberalization of the American perspective regarding the rights of individuals
>(including an acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle by many in world of
>academia) has been widely accredited among social anthropologist to be a major
>factor in the rapid influx of AIDS into the US population.
AIDS wouldn't have made it's way into the population if gay people
didn't have rights? Sorry, but pathogens don't recognize the legal
concept of rights.
>There has been much
>written on the subject because it was such an unusual event. It was the first
>documented case of a deadly epidemic resulting from the acceptance by a small
>societal segment of a controversial (homosexual) lifestyle.
Lifestyles (and/or their acceptance) don't cause disease. Pathogens
do.
<snip discussion of tainted blood and Patient Zero THEORIES>
>Regardless of any social imprecation that might arise, we must not be afraid to
>speak to this matter directly. Homosexual activities are, have been since the
>beginning, and will continue to be the number one agent in the transmission of
>AIDS in the US.
And 'heterosexual activities' are, have been since the beginning, and
will continue to be the number one agent in the transmission of AIDS
worldwide.
Careless remarks like those made above seem to be terribly
inappropriate when one considers that the discussion is about a
horrible and deadly disease.
- Patrick
Ward Stewart
gm...@ix.netcom.com (George M. Carter) wrote:
>jema...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>Heterosexuality in the rest of the world is the overwhelming
>>>"lifestyle" that spreads HIV.
>>That is because the rest of the world is not as tolerant of homosexuals as is
>>the US. While the spread of the disease is due to homosexual activity it's not
>>identified because it involves closet homosexuals.
>Hahahahaha! I had no idea the world was SOO gay. Where did you come up
>with this (erroneous) idea??
Right out of thin air -- I spent three months last year in
traveling in India -- I had extensive correspondance before
we went so as to introduce myslef to Gay leaders in that
sub-continent of nearly a BILLION people. I managed to meet
with more than half of them -- FIVE. Each of the five knew
each other and each knew of two or three more (often the
same two or three) active in Gay political concerns.
>>>The point is that AIDS is not a lifestyle syndrome,
>>The onset of AIDS in the US has been traced by the CDC directly to a homosexual
>>male flight attendant. The resulting epidemic is a result of the wildfire like
>>spread of the disease that he introduced into the highly promiscuous US
>>homosexual community.
>Hahahahahah! Claims for a so-called patient zero come from Randy
>Shilts's "And the Band Played On" and have no basis in reality..
Certainly NOT traced by the CDC!
mercy snip!
>>Finally, there appears to be much about HIV and AIDS that you don't understand,
>>especially as it involves demographics. I suggest you do some study on the
>>subjects if you wish to continue in this kind of conversation.
>Hahahahahaha! You have made a complete ass out of yourself by posting
>this erroneous nonsense. Let me guess: you are a fundamentalist
>christian?
> George M. Carter
Hardly possible, are they not enjoined from "bearing false
witness" against their neighbors?
ward
ROTFLMAO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When someone with the authority of a teacher, say,
describes the world and you are not in it, there is a
moment of psychic disequilibrium, as if you looked
into a mirror and saw nothing.
--Adrienne Rich, "Invisibility in Academe"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
John Sanger
In article <32e38f87...@nntp.best.ix.netcom.com> jema...@ix.netcom.com writes:
>On Fri, 17 Jan 1997 23:29:27 GMT, tedd...@netcom.com (John Sanger) wrote:
>
>
>
>>You are very ignorant of the "rest of the world's opinion".... it so
>>happens that homosexuality is more accepted outside of the USA than it
>>is in the "good ole" USA...
>
>liberalization of the American perspective regarding the rights of individuals
>(including an acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle by many in world of
>academia) has been widely accredited among social anthropologist to be a major
>written on the subject because it was such an unusual event. It was the first
>documented case of a deadly epidemic resulting from the acceptance by a small
>societal segment of a controversial (homosexual) lifestyle.
>
Your response is not on topic..... you are trying to change the topic
because you do not have any information on that topic... you are infact
ignorant of the what the world does infact think of homosexuals....
>>This is not true.... this is an urban legend....
>>The onset of HIV infection in the USA happened due to the distribution
>>of blood collected by the World Health Organization in the early and
>>middle 70's from central Africa..... This blood was distributed to Paris,
>>New York and San Francisco.... the 3 cities that simultaneously discovered
>>the HIV infection of their residents in 1980....
>
>Far from being an urban legend...epidemiologist have compiled much scientific
>and medical documentation of the chain of events involving the one male
>homosexual who was identified as the carrier. Included in the documentation are
>the (unheeded) early warning signs provide by the multitude of mysterious deaths
>that began occurring in the homosexual communities.
>
Sorry but you are again wrong.... urban legend is all that the "patient
zero" story is and your spouting that it has meaning is worthless
drivel... again you do not have the information to discuss this topic...
you are ignorant of the topic....
>The "tainted blood" theory _is_ urban legend. The US has never brought whole
>blood, or any of its components in from outside the country for use in any
>medical facilities. There are strong Federal statutes preventing such a
>dangerous actions. Not to mention the public uproar that would follow if it
>became known.
>
That is not true and the records of the World Health Organization and
the bloodbanks in Paris, New York and San Francisco will show that this
did infact happen and it happend at precisely the time needed to supply
the incubation period for this HIV infection.....
The deaths noted by the medical community in Paris, New York and San
Francisco were in 1980....
>Regardless of any social imprecation that might arise, we must not be afraid to
>speak to this matter directly. Homosexual activities are, have been since the
>beginning, and will continue to be the number one agent in the transmission of
>AIDS in the US. Until such controversial behavior is brought under control by
>those who practice it, I fear we shall continue to see this terrible disease
>decimate our society.
>
Again you do not have knowledge of this subject.... AIDS cannot be
spread from one person to another person.....
With ignorance like yours, I am afraid the crisis will continue.... due
to your ignorance and the spreading of your ignorance.....
>>You should take your own advice as your knowledge is very much lacking
>>in this subject....
>
>I have offered no advice, only discussion. I certainly recognize that this is
>not the forum for one to presume to present advice on such an important matter.
>The health and well being of our society, perhaps even that of the world is
>what's at stake.
>
Again gain some knowledge before you bite off your feet on this
topic....
>> clueless is as clueless does!
>>
>> jemarlow==clueless==ignoramus
>
>Careless remarks like those made above seem to be terribly inappropriate when
>one considers that the discussion is about a horrible and deadly disease.
>
The comments are not careless.... they are deliberate and they are
serious.... you are
Letao
jema...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> That may have been so several decades ago but it certainly isn't now. The
> liberalization of the American perspective regarding the rights of individuals
> (including an acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle by many in world of
> academia) has been widely accredited among social anthropologist to be a major
> factor in the rapid influx of AIDS into the US population. There has been much
> written on the subject because it was such an unusual event. It was the first
> documented case of a deadly epidemic resulting from the acceptance by a small
> societal segment of a controversial (homosexual) lifestyle.
Could you possibly provide a bit more detail as regards who these social
anthropologists are? Names, publications, etc. would be helpful. I'd
like to look at their words myself.
> Far from being an urban legend...epidemiologist have compiled much scientific
> and medical documentation of the chain of events involving the one male
> homosexual who was identified as the carrier. Included in the documentation are
> the (unheeded) early warning signs provide by the multitude of mysterious deaths
> that began occurring in the homosexual communities.
The "Patient Zero" theory was developed by journalist/author Randy
Shilts in his book, _And_the_Band_Played_On_. Which epidemiologists
have confirmed his theory and where have they published their findings?
I'd like to read it myself.
> Regardless of any social imprecation that might arise, we must not be afraid to
> speak to this matter directly. Homosexual activities are, have been since the
> beginning, and will continue to be the number one agent in the transmission of
> AIDS in the US. Until such controversial behavior is brought under control by
> those who practice it, I fear we shall continue to see this terrible disease
> decimate our society.
Are you aware of the ways to prevent the exchange of bodily fluids as a
way of preventing the transmission of HIV? The behaviors which transmit
the virus are not exclusive to any one group of people. Neither are the
methods of prevention. You see, the virus doesn't have a sentience that
enables it to distinguish the genders of the people transmitting it.
All it "cares" about is if you have the right physiology, i.e., that you
are human.
> I have offered no advice, only discussion. I certainly recognize that this is
> not the forum for one to presume to present advice on such an important matter.
> The health and well being of our society, perhaps even that of the world is
> what's at stake.
No, you have offered unsupported assertions and recommended sanctions
against a particular group of people. Further, you have offered
hyperbole and emotional arguments to justify your position. This is not
discussion, IMO. If you are truly interested in *discussion* then you
will simply provide the names and publications of the sources of your
information - even better, provide actual quotes. Then we can examine
what their actual research says and what conclusions they have drawn
from it. Without such information, and subsequent discussion, your
words are nothing more than an attempt to scapegoat a particular group
of people.
> Careless remarks like those made above seem to be terribly inappropriate when
> one considers that the discussion is about a horrible and deadly disease.
>
> James E. Marlow, PHM
> Webster-Craig Institute
Ever think that people might view your remarks as terribly
inappropriate?
BTW, what does the "PHM" stand for? And what is the Webster-Craig
Institute? Do they have an online description for their organization?
--
Safe journey,
David
djs...@shore.net
FJ!!
In article <32ecad28...@nntp.best.ix.netcom.com>,
<jema...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Regardless of any social imprecation that might arise, we must not be afraid to
>speak to this matter directly. Homosexual activities are, have been since the
>beginning, and will continue to be the number one agent in the transmission of
>AIDS in the US.
The amount and gravity of inaccuracies above are so inmense, that one
has to wonder what the agenda is. "Homosexual activities" (whatever you
mean by that) have not been the number one agent of sexual
transmission - sexual encounters between men
_where_bodily_fluids_were_exchanged_ is an important vector in the
transmission. To the casual onlooker, this might seem like the same
thing, which ignores the fact that sexual encounters between men wehere
bodily fluids are not exchanged, are perfectly safe. Yet, this
distinction is lost in the words "homosexual encounters" - predicatbly
so in the newsgroups-wide pattern to shift the cause of AIDS away from
the virus and blame it onto homosexuals.
Furthermore, with the way the demographics are HIV infection are changing,
stating that "homosexual activities " will alwayas be the main vector, is
either a matter of interesting clairvoyance or just plain unknown.
>Until such controversial behavior is brought under control by
>those who practice it, I fear we shall continue to see this terrible disease
>decimate our society.
Men could stop having sex with men right now, and HIV would still
spread. Anyone who has seen the current demographics can deduce this.
>The health and well being of our society, perhaps even that of the world is
>what's at stake.
But you only talk about transmission in the US. Wonder why....
>Careless remarks like those made above seem to be terribly inappropriate when
>one considers that the discussion is about a horrible and deadly disease.
Then I suggest you start dispensing accurate statements about the
trasnmission of HIV, instead of thinly veiled hatemongering towards
homosexuals.
FJ!!
GdDoggie/Patrick
On Sun, 19 Jan 1997 08:20:33 GMT, jema...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
<snip>
>The combative character of your response makes it obvious that you don't wish to
>have an intelligent discussion of the contribution of homosexual lifestyle to
>the rapid spread of AIDS in the US, or ways in which it could be controlled
>
>Perhaps you are of the militants who have chosen to deny the extent to which
>this deadly disease permeates the homosexual community. They choose instead to
>be confrontational, calling everyone a homophobe who even hints that the
>homosexual community must play a major role in preventing the spread of the
>disease.
The gay community HAS played and CONTINUES to play a major role in
preventing the spread of the disease. Gay men have drastically changed
their sexual behavior and have led AIDS education efforts nationwide.
In addition, those 'confrontational militants' are the ones who've had
to fight the FDA for most of the treatment options that are available.
And since most of those treatment options are or were experimental,
gay men make up the majority of the 'guinea pigs' that they were and
are tested on.
>It saddens me to know that there are people who are uncaring enough to allow
>members of their community to die rather than admit that there is a killer among
>them which they can, and should control.
Tell that to the heterosexuals who are in denial that they're at risk.
Please.
- Patrick
John Sanger
In article <32e1d2b7...@nntp.best.ix.netcom.com> jema...@ix.netcom.com writes:
>On Sun, 19 Jan 1997 04:45:34 GMT, tedd...@netcom.com (John Sanger) wrote:
>
>>In article <32e38f87...@nntp.best.ix.netcom.com> jema...@ix.netcom.com writes:
>
>>>Regardless of any social imprecation that might arise, we must not be afraid to
>>>speak to this matter directly. Homosexual activities are, have been since the
>>>beginning, and will continue to be the number one agent in the transmission of
>>>those who practice it, I fear we shall continue to see this terrible disease
>>>decimate our society.
>
>>spread from one person to another person.....
>
>
>>>I have offered no advice, only discussion. I certainly recognize that this is
>>>not the forum for one to presume to present advice on such an important matter.
>>>what's at stake.
>
>>topic....
>
>>>> clueless is as clueless does!
>
>>>> jemarlow==clueless==ignoramus
>
>>>one considers that the discussion is about a horrible and deadly disease.
>
>
>>serious.... you are
>>
>> clueless is as clueless does!
>>
>> jemarlow==clueless==ignoramus
>>
>>
>
>have an intelligent discussion of the contribution of homosexual lifestyle to
>the rapid spread of AIDS in the US, or ways in which it could be controlled
>
Supply the definition of "homosexual lifestyle"....
>Perhaps you are of the militants who have chosen to deny the extent to which
>this deadly disease permeates the homosexual community. They choose instead to
>be confrontational, calling everyone a homophobe who even hints that the
>homosexual community must play a major role in preventing the spread of the
>disease.
>
Since you are ignorant of the problem and it's solution, you are not
anyone to be talking about whether other's can contribute to a
discussion....
You have so far supplied only your unsupported opinions and worthless
ones at that as they are wrong....
>It saddens me to know that there are people who are uncaring enough to allow
>members of their community to die rather than admit that there is a killer among
>them which they can, and should control.
>
Yes, you and the rest of the homophobes are certainly doing your best to
deny that HIV can and does infect all people..... heterosexuals as well
as homosexuals and bisexuals....
The facts of the infections in the world are that more heterosexuals
have been infected with HIV than have homosexuals.....
I suggest that you obtain a copy of the Jan '97 issue of Discover
Magazine and checkout the pictogram showing the worldwide figures....
John De Salvio
In article <32e1d2b7...@nntp.best.ix.netcom.com>,
jema...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> The combative character of your response makes it obvious that you don't
wish to
> have an intelligent discussion of the contribution of homosexual lifestyle to
> the rapid spread of AIDS in the US, or ways in which it could be controlled
An intelligent discussion begins with FACTS.
We have surrounded ourself with FACTS ever since this disease
first showed itself.
If you read any gay newspaper, you will see that they are far ahead
of the mainstream media on reporting research and development
of medicines and therapies.
We have organizations specifically structured to gain every bit
of knowledge as it becomes available - on a DAILY basis.
You give statements, assuming we will accept them as facts.
Well, "we're from Missouri." SHOW US.
> Perhaps you are of the militants who have chosen to deny the extent to which
> this deadly disease permeates the homosexual community.
YOU HAVE UNMITIGATED GALL!
It is the GAY COMMUNITY that has done more to fight the disease than
any other group on the planet.
It is the GAY COMMUNITY that has demanded education about the
disease and how it is spread, as well as how it can be prevented.
We were told to Shut Up and not try to "bring our filth" into
the classrooms - facts about AIDS and HIV - and now those
who were teenagers then are dying - gay and straight - because
it "couldn't happen to them." They didn't know the facts.
It is the GAY COMMUNITY that is WELL AWARE of our friends and
family members who we have buried for the last 15 years.
It is the GAY COMMUNITY that demanded, pleaded, implored, the
federal government to help. For the first six years of the epidemic
our president could not even SAY "AIDS." until some of his friends
(Rock Hudson, for one) started dying of it.
It was the GAY COMMUNITY that has raised the money, spent the
money - and continues to do so long after it has hurt deeply -
to do research, to educate, to try to stop the disease.
It is the Republican assholes in Congress like Jesse Helms that
continually stopped any bill to do research, to educate, and help
stop AIDS.
It is the GAY COMMUNITY that started the programs and care facilities
that have become the models for disease care around the world.
It was the GAY COMMUNITY that kept telling the rest of the world not
to be so cavalier about a "gay disease," that it could just as well
spread into the heterosexual communities of the world.
What group was right? WE WERE!
YOU choose to ignore the rest of the world - that less than
ten percent of the AIDS cases worldwide are gay people,
that up to 40 percent of the cases are women and children,
and that the bulk of the cases are contracted through
heterosexual sex.
I talk about data collected by the World Health Organization
and UN AIDS - hardly rampant with militant homosexuals with
an "agenda" - data from 1996, not 1989.
I have posted this data verbatim on scores of messages. I'm tired
of doing it anymore. YOU look it up in DejaNews!
> They choose instead to
> be confrontational, calling everyone a homophobe who even hints that the
> homosexual community must play a major role in preventing the spread of the
> disease.
Read ALL the preceding again, you ignorant, bigoted fraud!
> It saddens me to know that there are people who are uncaring enough to allow
> members of their community to die rather than admit that there is a
killer among
> them which they can, and should control.
> James E. Marlow, PHM
> Webster-Craig Institute
You have been asked before - just who the hell are you?
What are YOUR credentials?
So far, all I see are the smarmy cantations of a fool pretending
to have any care whatsoever for us.
Your transparency screams out with every word.
You, sir, are despicable.
Judith Cookson Grunberger
George M. Carter <gm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>j...@mantra.com (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:
>>When it comes to AIDS, unless there are facts to invalidate the following
>>information, it is evident that the homo/bi/sexual lifestyle is
>>overwhelmingly the most destructive among those listed:
I'm so glad you think that I'm a vector for disease. And that I'm living
an "overwhelmingly destructive" lifestyle. Let me tell you about my
lifestyle. I do my laundry, cook dinner, and go to the movies. I go to
school full-time, work a part-time job, and go to clubs. How do I live the
homo/bi/sexual "lifestyle" without getting AIDS? Oh, I know. Let me count
all the at-risk behaviors I engage in: zero.
So, tell me about my destructive lifestyle again?
>Heterosexuality in the rest of the world is the overwhelming
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>"lifestyle" that spreads HIV. The point is that AIDS is not a
Don't you mean "promiscuity"? (Non-needle-sharing) heterosexuals don't
*spread* AIDS unless they are promiscuous. Neither do homosexuals,
bisexuals, asexuals, or any other kind of -sexual.
(Note I didn't say "get" AIDS, because a promiscuous partner can bring
AIDS to an innocent monogamous parter, which really is tragic.)
Judy
--
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<> "You boys aren't drunk. You're just stupid." - Beavis & Butt-Head <>
<> jcoo...@eng.umd.edu * http://www.glue.umd.edu/~jcookson <>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Steve Harris
only...@ix.netcom.com (Steve Harris) wrote:
>Steve
>only...@ix.netcom.com
Just writing a quick follow-up to thank the MANY of you that e-mailed
me in support of the above "arguement". I WILL get back to all of
you, but that means I have about 50 letters to write, and I DO have a
life outside of newsgroups... Thank God... :o) Thanks again.
David Jones-Robinson
Judith,
You seem to have a most healthy homosexual lifestyle. Enjoy, life long and
love often
Yours in PRIDE
DavidJR
George M. Carter
jema...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>The combative character of your response makes it obvious that you don't wish to
>have an intelligent discussion of the contribution of homosexual lifestyle to
>the rapid spread of AIDS in the US, or ways in which it could be controlled
Like ah maybe safer sex? Clean needles? Abstinence for those who
choose it? What?
>Perhaps you are of the militants who have chosen to deny the extent to which
>this deadly disease permeates the homosexual community. They choose instead to
>be confrontational, calling everyone a homophobe who even hints that the
>homosexual community must play a major role in preventing the spread of the
>disease.
It saddens me that you talk out your ass with out being able to
distinguish it from your elbow. The "gay community" recognized for
YEARS that the shit had hit the fan and made and continues to make
every effort to spread the ideas of safer sex, needle exchange and so
forth. What the hell were you doing?
George M. Carter
GdDoggie/Patrick
On Wed, 22 Jan 1997 19:37:08 GMT, jhh...@netcom.com wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Jan 1997 17:11:28 GMT, gm...@ix.netcom.com (George M. Carter) wrote:
>>jema...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>>>Perhaps you are of the militants who have chosen to deny the extent to which
>>>this deadly disease permeates the homosexual community. They choose instead to
>>>be confrontational, calling everyone a homophobe who even hints that the
>>>homosexual community must play a major role in preventing the spread of the
>>>disease.
>
>>It saddens me that you talk out your ass with out being able to
>>distinguish it from your elbow. The "gay community" recognized for
>>YEARS that the shit had hit the fan and made and continues to make
>>every effort to spread the ideas of safer sex, needle exchange and so
>>forth. What the hell were you doing?
>
>By the tone of his post I suspect that "What the hell he's doing?" is not the
>proper question. It should be: "What the hell are you not doing?" Obviously he
>is not a homosexual and he's not having anal intercourse with other men.
>
>Anal intercourse among homosexuals is the principal means of transmissions of
>AIDS.
Among gay and bisexual men, anal intercourse is the principal means of
transmission of HIV. I would qualify that, though, with UNPROTECTED
(anal sex).
Among heterosexuals in the US, IV drug use is the principal means of
transmission of HIV, followed by unprotected vaginal intercourse.
>This is supported by the epidemically rapid spread of AIDS through out the
>homosexual community (where anal intercourse is widely practiced) in all parts
>of the US.
Ah, yes. But when one looks at the WORLD'S population, one sees that
heterosexual contact accounts for more than 70% of all HIV infections
and male/male sexual contact accounts for only about 10%. IV drug use
accounts for another 10%.
>This too, clearly indicates that a change in the lifestyle of homosexuals would
>have a significant, if not major impact in slowing the spread of AIDS in our
>population (the rate in the non-homosexual population is quite low as you know.)
F A C T S H E E T
CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION
November 1995
HIV and AIDS
Trends in the Epidemic
<..>
The rate of illness and death attributable to HIV among gay and
bisexual men -- particularly older white men -- has stabilized
nationally and is declining in some areas.
* When AIDS emerged in the early 1980s, prevention programs
were first targeted to those hardest hit -- men who have sex
with men in New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. Due in
part to sustained prevention efforts, the rate of new AIDS
diagnoses attributed to gay and bisexual sex has decreased
dramatically among white men in these cities -- with rates
declining by 20 percent, 16 percent, and 3 percent
respectively between 1989 and 1994.
* Of concern, however, is the fact that in these same cities,
the rate of new AIDS diagnoses attributed to gay and
bisexual sex among African-American and Hispanic men
increased dramatically during this period -- with rates
increasing by 49 percent, 58 percent, and 53 percent
respectively.
* These findings, coupled with the extremely high prevalence
of HIV infection in young men who have sex with men in many
areas (9 percent in New York City and 9-12 percent in San
Francisco) emphasize the continued necessity of targeted
research and prevention programs for young men who have sex
with men.
<side note to Atilla: I thought the rate of infection was 50-80%???
What up with that, dude?>
Shifts and Trends
While the largest proportion of AIDS cases continues to be
reported among men who have sex with men, an analysis of AIDS
reporting over time reveals several shifts in the epidemic.
Comparing three time periods during the epidemic -- 1981 through
1987, 1988 through 1992, and 1993 through October 1995 -- the
following trends can be seen:
* The proportion of newly reported AIDS cases among men who
have sex with men decreased from 64 percent to 55 percent to
45 percent.
* Newly reported AIDS cases are increasing most rapidly among
people who were infected through injecting drug use (IDU)
and heterosexual contact.
* The proportion of newly reported AIDS cases attributed to
IDU increased from 17 percent to 24 percent to 27 percent.
* During the same time periods, the proportion of newly
reported AIDS cases among people infected heterosexually
increased from 3 percent to 6 percent to 10 percent.
<..END>
Let's review.
"The rate of illness and death attributable to HIV among gay and
bisexual men -- particularly older white men -- has stabilized
nationally and is declining in some areas."
"Newly reported AIDS cases are increasing most rapidly among
people who were infected through injecting drug use (IDU) and
heterosexual contact."
Gee. Looks like a great many gay and bisexual men have altered their
lifestyle, having a significant, if not major, impact in slowing the
spread of AIDS in our population, while the rate in the non-homosexual
population seems to be on the rise, doesn't it?
>Countries where homosexuality is not afforded special rights, and consequently,
>the spread of sexually transmitted disease (SSD) is effectively controlled,
Sex between men is hardly the only mode of transmission of STDs.
"The Not-So-Hidden Epidemic"
Los Angeles Times--Washington Edition (11/25/96) P. A10
New evidence that the United States leads all other
developed countries in the rate of sexually transmitted diseases
(STDs) should alert Americans that the problem should be handled
as a public health threat affecting everyone, according to the
editors of the Los Angeles Times. The editors note the
seriousness of several STDs and point to the disparity in U.S.
spending for prevention versus treatment. In conclusion, they
urge schools be allowed to educate adolescents about the
consequences of unprotected sex.
Doesn't even MENTION sex between men. Or 'special' rights. Does it? It
DOES call for more education, which conservatives have fought, and
still fight, every step of the way.
>haven't experienced nearly the rate of AIDS related deaths that we have in the
>more liberal social environment of the US.
They also don't have the same level of access to the highly toxic
chemicals (AZT, etc) that PWAs have had to rely on. The protease
inhibitors APPEAR to work better for SOME (some local gay newspapers
have seen a precipitous decline in the number of obituaries), but the
jury's still out on them, too.
>Those of you who have chosen the homosexual lifestyle have within your power the
>means to control the spread of AIDS...Now it's imperative that you develop the
>will to do so.
Those of you who have chosen the heterosexual lifestyle have within
your power the means to control the spread of AIDS...Now it's
imperative that you develop the will to do so.
>All in the heterosexual population are supportive of, and hopeful
>that you will soon make a move in that direction.
All in the gay community are supportive, and hopeful that you will
soon make a move in that direction.
- Patrick
John Sanger
In article <32f26921...@nntp.best.ix.netcom.com> jhh...@netcom.com writes:
>On Wed, 22 Jan 1997 17:11:28 GMT, gm...@ix.netcom.com (George M. Carter) wrote:
>
>
>jema...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>>>Perhaps you are of the militants who have chosen to deny the extent to which
>>>this deadly disease permeates the homosexual community. They choose instead to
>>>be confrontational, calling everyone a homophobe who even hints that the
>>>homosexual community must play a major role in preventing the spread of the
>>>disease.
>
>
>>It saddens me that you talk out your ass with out being able to
>>distinguish it from your elbow. The "gay community" recognized for
>>YEARS that the shit had hit the fan and made and continues to make
>>every effort to spread the ideas of safer sex, needle exchange and so
>>forth. What the hell were you doing?
>>
>
>
>By the tone of his post I suspect that "What the hell he's doing?" is not the
>proper question. It should be: "What the hell are you not doing?" Obviously he
>is not a homosexual and he's not having anal intercourse with other men.
>
>Anal intercourse among homosexuals is the principal means of transmissions of
>homosexual community (where anal intercourse is widely practiced) in all parts
>of the US.
>
>have a significant, if not major impact in slowing the spread of AIDS in our
>population (the rate in the non-homosexual population is quite low as you know.)
You do not seem to have a grasp on this issue.... the homosexual
community has brought the rapid decline of HIV infection in it's own
community..... see the stats of 1980 vs those of 1996.... you will
notice a very decided decline in the rate of infection...... due to the
vast education program that the homosexual community mounted to provide
the facts of HIV to it's own community..... with little help from the RR
administration.....
>Countries where homosexuality is not afforded special rights, and consequently,
>the spread of sexually transmitted disease (SSD) is effectively controlled,
>haven't experienced nearly the rate of AIDS related deaths that we have in the
>more liberal social environment of the US.
>
You do not seem to know what the worldwide figures are..... the vast
majority of all HIV infected individuals in this world are
heterosexuals....
It is only in the USA that the infection is greater in the homosexual
community than in the non-homosexual community....
>Those of you who have chosen the homosexual lifestyle have within your power the
>means to control the spread of AIDS...Now it's imperative that you develop the
>will to do so. All in the heterosexual population are supportive of, and hopeful
>that you will soon make a move in that direction.
>
You also do not understand that homosexuals did not chose to be
homosexuals... they were born homosexual.....
The homosexual community in the USA has done a very fine job of
educating their segment of society to the problem with this HIV
infection....
It is the ignorant such as yourself that continue to spread incorrect
information and outright lies and most definitely unsupported opinions
regarding HIV.....
May I suggest that you get a clue...... Read the Jan '97 issue of
Discover Magazine.... it will definitely provide you with more current
and correct information regarding HIV on a worldwide basis.....
GdDoggie/Patrick
On Thu, 23 Jan 1997 07:48:37 GMT, jtsha...@netcom.com wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Jan 1997 03:48:58 GMT, gddo...@ix.netcom.com (GdDoggie/Patrick)
>wrote:
>
>>>Those of you who have chosen the homosexual lifestyle have within your power the
>>>means to control the spread of AIDS...Now it's imperative that you develop the
>>>will to do so.
>
>>Those of you who have chosen the heterosexual lifestyle have within
>>your power the means to control the spread of AIDS...Now it's
>>imperative that you develop the will to do so.
>
>>>All in the heterosexual population are supportive of, and hopeful
>>>that you will soon make a move in that direction.
>
>>All in the gay community are supportive, and hopeful that you will
>>soon make a move in that direction.
>
>I have noticed a trend in your recent posts: When you have nothing further to
>say you morph to a parrot! It lacks style and takes the edge off of any point
>you might have made before the transition. A brief period of reading at your
>local library would be of value in helping you to correct this deficiency.
>
>Regards,
>
>J. T. Shanburg
><jtsha...@netcom.com>
Thanks SO much for your input, JT. I'll be sure to take your criticism
under due consideration. It would be hard to deny, though, that
changing just one or two words in a sentence can change the entire
meaning, and can therefore be an effective literary device. If the
reader is not too dense, the point gets across.
Luckily, I generally have more to contribute to debate than spelling,
grammar, and style flames.
Have a good day.
- Patrick
Jessica Anne Starr
>Subject: Re: AIDS - HOMO/BI/SEXUAL LIFESTYLE MOST DESTRUCTIVE
>Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 19:37:08 GMT
>On Wed, 22 Jan 1997 17:11:28 GMT, gm...@ix.netcom.com (George M. Carter) wrote:
>jema...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>>Perhaps you are of the militants who have chosen to deny the extent to which
>>>this deadly disease permeates the homosexual community. They choose instead to
>>>be confrontational, calling everyone a homophobe who even hints that the
>>>homosexual community must play a major role in preventing the spread of the
>>>disease.
>--
>>It saddens me that you talk out your ass with out being able to
>>distinguish it from your elbow. The "gay community" recognized for
>>YEARS that the shit had hit the fan and made and continues to make
>>every effort to spread the ideas of safer sex, needle exchange and so
>>forth. What the hell were you doing?
>>
>> George M. Carter
>By the tone of his post I suspect that "What the hell he's doing?" is not the
>proper question. It should be: "What the hell are you not doing?" Obviously he
>is not a homosexual and he's not having anal intercourse with other men.
>Anal intercourse among homosexuals is the principal means of transmissions of
>AIDS. This is supported by the epidemically rapid spread of AIDS through out the
>homosexual community (where anal intercourse is widely practiced) in all parts
>of the US.
>This too, clearly indicates that a change in the lifestyle of homosexuals would
>have a significant, if not major impact in slowing the spread of AIDS in our
>population (the rate in the non-homosexual population is quite low as you know.)
Seems that there were thousands of deaths in Africa that were NOT homosexuals
but heterosexuals BEFORE AIDS ever was brought to the US. It was spread in
the heterosexual community before it was EVER transmitted to the first
American.
>Countries where homosexuality is not afforded special rights, and
consequently,>the spread of sexually transmitted disease (SSD) is effectively
controlled,>haven't experienced nearly the rate of AIDS related deaths that we
have in the>more liberal social environment of the US.
Excuse me, but are you infering that there are no STD (sexually transmitted
diseases) within the heterosexual community? This is misinformation.
Are you infering that it would be okay if homosexuals practiced any other form
of sexual expression than anal penetration, thereby causing the end of the
scurge of AIDS. This is misinformation.
The method has very little to do with the spread of AIDS, the fact that people
are using unsafe/unprotected means of sex and sharing of needles DOES have
everything to do with the spread of AIDS, and not just in the homosexual
community, but also in the heterosexual community as well.
>Those of you who have chosen the homosexual lifestyle have within your power the
>means to control the spread of AIDS...Now it's imperative that you develop the
>will to do so. All in the heterosexual population are supportive of, and hopeful
>that you will soon make a move in that direction.
>Regards,
>J. H. Holt
I am glad that you are not saying the lifestyle is destructive, and that once
another form of sexual expression is used than you will fully support the gay
and lesbian community, and support monogomous relationships fully.
Anne Starr
star...@aol.com
Benjamin J Lubben
> > I often see in these NG's, people who don't approve of or like
> >the "gay lifestyle". That, I say, is just fine. They don't HAVE to
> >like it, or understand it, or condone it.
Lets say I own a Christian music station and I have a problem with
hiring
homosexuals are saying then I don't have to? Somehow I doubt it!!!
> >Fortunately, we live in a FREE country, where we are free to live as
> >we choose,
And ENDA would end that for religious groups that have moral
problems with homosexuality.
> >Why should I have to serve jury duty??? A government cannot just pass
> >out "rights"
Excuse me but guess what THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT GIVE OUT RIGHTS,
LOOK AT THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. Let me quote it for you since
you
seem to overlook it " ... that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable RIGHTS...". Our rights to not come from the gov't
they come from God. I can't be any more blunt than that.
to people it deems worthy. It can't just set separate
> >standards for groups of people based on differences.
What is affirmative action?
It has been
> >proven over and over that it NEVER works.
So you will join me in the call to end affirmative action. Right?
THAT, and not
> >homosexuality, as I've seen claimed in these groups, caused the
> >downfall of Rome, and other great historical empires. It was the fact
> >that they classed people based on the values of the times, and handed
> >out rights to only those who felt as they did. People get sick of
> >having their lives toyed with and fight back, after awhile. Again and
> >again, society continues to make the same mistake of holding others
> >down because they don't share the same beliefs... Ever hear of the
> >"Soviet Revolution"?
Are you advocating violence Steve?
> you, but that means I have about 50 letters to write, and I DO have a
> life outside of newsgroups...
You do but you don't let your oppenets? Love the double
standard!!!!!!!!!
Linda
> Lets say I own a Christian music station and I have a problem with
>hiring homosexuals are saying then I don't have to? Somehow I doubt it!!!
>
>> >Fortunately, we live in a FREE country, where we are free to live as
>> >we choose,
>
> And ENDA would end that for religious groups that have moral
>problems with homosexuality.
Okay. You can have an exception for religious based activities. I
don't have any problems with that. Do you?
>> >Why should I have to serve jury duty??? A government cannot just pass
>> >out "rights"
>
> Excuse me but guess what THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT GIVE OUT RIGHTS,
>LOOK AT THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. Let me quote it for you since
>you seem to overlook it " ... that they are endowed by their Creator with
>certain unalienable RIGHTS...". Our rights to not come from the gov't
>they come from God. I can't be any more blunt than that.
>
First off, Jefferson did NOT say "god". He was VERY careful NOT to!
He said "creator". Now, to YOU, your "creator" is God. To me, my
"creator" was the marvelous biological process that produced me.
In other words, I'm here. And I have the same rights as any other
person here. I even have the same rights as you.
And this brings us to my next point. Please allow me to continue
where you conveniently stopped:
... that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of
Happiness.
Looks pretty unambiguous to me, Benny...
John Sanger
In article <Pine.HPP.3.95.97012...@river.it.gvsu.edu> Benjamin J Lubben <lub...@river.it.gvsu.edu> writes:
>
> Excuse me but guess what THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT GIVE OUT RIGHTS,
>LOOK AT THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. Let me quote it for you since
>you
>seem to overlook it " ... that they are endowed by their Creator with
>certain unalienable RIGHTS...". Our rights to not come from the gov't
>they come from God. I can't be any more blunt than that.
>
You seem to have a lack of understanding of just what signifcance the
Declaration of Independence is..... It is merely an interesting
historical document.... It was the notice to Geo III that the American
Colonies were leaving his authority....
It does not have any legal status in the USA today....
And you are so very wrong if you think that the Fed Gov does not grant
and restrict the rights of the people..... That is why the US
Constitution was amended to clearly enumerate certain of those "Rights
of the People" and to place restrictions upon the Fed Gov regarding
the abuse of those "Rights"....
Steve Harris
Benjamin J Lubben <lub...@river.it.gvsu.edu> wrote:
>> > I often see in these NG's, people who don't approve of or like
>> >the "gay lifestyle". That, I say, is just fine. They don't HAVE to
>> >like it, or understand it, or condone it.
> Lets say I own a Christian music station and I have a problem with
>hiring
>homosexuals are saying then I don't have to? Somehow I doubt it!!!
You are entitled to set whatever decency guidelines you wish in the
workplace... Outside of work, what a person does is his/her own
business.
>> >Fortunately, we live in a FREE country, where we are free to live as
>> >we choose,
> And ENDA would end that for religious groups that have moral
>problems with homosexuality.
I am not a member, nor am I a supporter of ENDA...
>> >Why should I have to serve jury duty??? A government cannot just pass
>> >out "rights"
> Excuse me but guess what THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT GIVE OUT RIGHTS,
>LOOK AT THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. Let me quote it for you since
>you
>seem to overlook it " ... that they are endowed by their Creator with
>certain unalienable RIGHTS...". Our rights to not come from the gov't
>they come from God. I can't be any more blunt than that.
The Declaration of Independence is not an active document... The
Constitution was our basis for law, last I checked... As to your
arguement... Look REALLY hard at your history and how hard different
groups have had to fight to gain their full liberty, as entitled to
them by the constitution... Then you can come back and make a little
more sense.
> to people it deems worthy. It can't just set separate
>> >standards for groups of people based on differences.
> What is affirmative action?
> It has been
>> >proven over and over that it NEVER works.
> So you will join me in the call to end affirmative action. Right?
Already done. (i.e. In another article) I do not support "Special"
rights... I ONLY want equal rights and protections.
> THAT, and not
>> >homosexuality, as I've seen claimed in these groups, caused the
>> >downfall of Rome, and other great historical empires. It was the fact
>> >that they classed people based on the values of the times, and handed
>> >out rights to only those who felt as they did. People get sick of
>> >having their lives toyed with and fight back, after awhile. Again and
>> >again, society continues to make the same mistake of holding others
>> >down because they don't share the same beliefs... Ever hear of the
>> >"Soviet Revolution"? (Will history continue to repeat itself??? Is it already too late?)
> Are you advocating violence Steve?
Not at all. I'm merely stating that what is happening now, (Allowing
our differences to get the better of us), has happened before, MANY
times.... And no doubt, will happen again... I put IN the parts of
that paragraph that you edited, so no-one will think me violent... In
fact, quite the opposite. See, that's what I DON'T want to see
happen. In fact, the only one's I've heard of advocating violence are
the EXTREME right-wing militia types...
>> you, but that means I have about 50 letters to write, and I DO have a
>> life outside of newsgroups...
> You do but you don't let your oppenets? Love the double
>standard!!!!!!!!!
Don't let my opponents what? You don't make as much sense as when you
copy from a book or newspaper... You should stick to what you know.
Thanks.
George M. Carter
jcoo...@Glue.umd.edu (Judith Cookson Grunberger) wrote:
>George M. Carter <gm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>j...@mantra.com (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:
>>>When it comes to AIDS, unless there are facts to invalidate the following
>>>information, it is evident that the homo/bi/sexual lifestyle is
>>>overwhelmingly the most destructive among those listed:
>I'm so glad you think that I'm a vector for disease.
Please note that I did not write the above..I was quoting this Maharaj
bigot.
>>Heterosexuality in the rest of the world is the overwhelming
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>"lifestyle" that spreads HIV. The point is that AIDS is not a
>Don't you mean "promiscuity"? (Non-needle-sharing) heterosexuals don't
>*spread* AIDS unless they are promiscuous. Neither do homosexuals,
>bisexuals, asexuals, or any other kind of -sexual.
>(Note I didn't say "get" AIDS, because a promiscuous partner can bring
>AIDS to an innocent monogamous parter, which really is tragic.)
Actually, I was being sarcastic about the codeword "lifestyle" that is
bandied about.
No, I don't mean promiscuity. I mean unprotected sex (outside of the
rare cases of true monogamy, as you note.) You can be quite
promiscuous, have protected sex and never get (or give anyone) HIV.
George M. Carter
Judith Cookson Grunberger
In article <5cdd61$n...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
George M. Carter <gm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>jcoo...@Glue.umd.edu (Judith Cookson Grunberger) wrote:
>
>>George M. Carter <gm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>j...@mantra.com (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:
>>>>When it comes to AIDS, unless there are facts to invalidate the following
>>>>information, it is evident that the homo/bi/sexual lifestyle is
>>>>overwhelmingly the most destructive among those listed:
>
>>I'm so glad you think that I'm a vector for disease.
>
>Please note that I did not write the above..I was quoting this Maharaj
>bigot.
Of course you didn't write it. That's why I included the attributions.
I agree with you that Maharaj is a bigot.
>>>Heterosexuality in the rest of the world is the overwhelming
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>"lifestyle" that spreads HIV. The point is that AIDS is not a
>
>>Don't you mean "promiscuity"? (Non-needle-sharing) heterosexuals don't
>>*spread* AIDS unless they are promiscuous. Neither do homosexuals,
>>bisexuals, asexuals, or any other kind of -sexual.
>
>>(Note I didn't say "get" AIDS, because a promiscuous partner can bring
>>AIDS to an innocent monogamous parter, which really is tragic.)
>
>Actually, I was being sarcastic about the codeword "lifestyle" that is
>bandied about.
I got that as well. I don't think heterosexuality is any more of
a "lifestyle" than homosexuality. But promiscuity is certainly a
lifestyle, IMHO.
>No, I don't mean promiscuity. I mean unprotected sex (outside of the
>rare cases of true monogamy, as you note.) You can be quite
>promiscuous, have protected sex and never get (or give anyone) HIV.
Admit it. Promiscuous people have a higher chance of getting/giving HIV
than monogamous people. Promiscuous people who have unprotected sex have
an even higher chance. I think I can say this is a fact and not just my
opinion. Your point that "You can be quite promiscuous, have protected sex
and never get (or give anyone) HIV" is true. However, it is *more likely*
that they would get or give HIV than non-promiscuous people.
I dunno. I think HIV/AIDS is a horrible disease, and that no-one deserves
to get it, but I also think that there are very few "innocent victims."
People who choose to be promiscuous should understand that they are taking
risks, no matter if they use protection. Same with needle-sharers. Even
people who have unprotected sex and don't take the time to figure out
their partner's history take risks. I don't have HIV or any other STD in
part because I take none of these risks.
I'll also have to say that I'm biased, because I think that promiscuity is
immoral. Understand that I come from that viewpoint. I'm not telling
anyone else that they should ascribe to my value system. However, to me,
it's more spiritually satisfying. It's a plus that it happen to be safer.
-Judy
--
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Judith Grunberger * jcoo...@glue.umd.edu
http://www.glue.umd.edu/~jcookson
"I'll have a twist of lemon"
Alvin E. Toda
On Fri, 24 Jan 1997, Linda wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jan 1997 23:11:19 -0500, Benjamin J Lubben
> <lub...@river.it.gvsu.edu> wrote:
>
> > Lets say I own a Christian music station and I have a problem with
> >hiring homosexuals are saying then I don't have to? Somehow I doubt it!!!
> >
> >> >Fortunately, we live in a FREE country, where we are free to live as
> >> >we choose,
> >
> > And ENDA would end that for religious groups that have moral
> >problems with homosexuality.
>
> Okay. You can have an exception for religious based activities. I
> don't have any problems with that. Do you?
>
I guess there's a problem if the religious organization runs a purely
commercial business for the general public (say for fun-raising purposes,
for example a bowling alley). Do they have the right to discriminate--
say just hire members of their own church who they know are straight, etc.
Otherwise it would seem to be an infringement on separation of church
and state to impose restrictions on their policies related to their
religion. It seems that this is a given. And it is alarmist, and
un-called for to assume otherwise-- unless the purpose is to deliberately
provoke fear and misunderstanding in the average unconcerned person.
We already have too much of this in public discussion!
Atilla the Hun
I want bring to everyones attention some issues revolving around
homosexual agenda activists mantra-like claims that AIDS is declining
among homosexual practitioners.
Remember, homosexual numbers are dwindling at an incredable rate as your
homosexual practitioners are dying off from the disease associated with
male homosexual behaviors.(GRIDS-Gay Related Immuned Deficiency Syndrome,
aka AIDS)
Accordingly, of course your new infection rates are dropping, give us a break!
--
"Are you using that horse?" - Atilla
John Sanger
Your ignorance is really very profound on this topic..... the very
latest stats from NYC are that the death rate for AIDS has dropped
significantly in the last 2 years... something like down over 20%.....
due to better healthcare and a better attitude on the part of the
community and the patients.....
clueless is as clueless does!
atilla==clueless==ignoramus==LIAR
Douglas Goodridge
On Sun, 26 Jan 1997 09:44:14 -0800, ati...@mongol.com (Atilla the Hun)
wrote:
>I want bring to everyones attention some issues revolving around
>homosexual agenda activists mantra-like claims that AIDS is declining
>among homosexual practitioners.
>Remember, homosexual numbers are dwindling at an incredable rate as your
>homosexual practitioners are dying off from the disease associated with
>male homosexual behaviors.(GRIDS-Gay Related Immuned Deficiency Syndrome,
>aka AIDS)
>
>Accordingly, of course your new infection rates are dropping, give us a break!
Your logic escapes me. According to the CDC there were 548,102 cases
of AIDS reported as of June 30, 1996 in the US.
51% of those were the result of male-to-male contact. Which gives us
approximately 275, 000 cases among gay men.
According to the census bureau, there are 266 million people in the
US.
Assuming the highest estimate of homosexuality in the populace of 10%,
that is 26 million gays. That results in an AIDS rate of slightly
over 1% of gays.
Assuming the lowest estimate of homosexuality in the populace of 1%.
That is 2.6 million homosexualitys. Which gives us an AIDS rate of
about 10%.
Either way you look at it, while homosexuals may have a higher rate of
AIDS than the general populace overall, they are not exactly dwindling
down to nothing.
The simple fact is that the overwhelming majority of gay men don't
have AIDS. And the percentage of those who do is declining and that
decline cannot be attributed to a smaller base of gay men.
dougg
Right from the Beginning
On Fri, 24 Jan 1997, Steve Harris wrote:
> Benjamin J Lubben <lub...@river.it.gvsu.edu> wrote:
> Excuse me but
> guess what THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT GIVE OUT RIGHTS, >LOOK AT THE
> DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. Let me quote it for you since >you >seem
> to overlook it " ... that they are endowed by their Creator with
> >certain unalienable RIGHTS...". Our rights to not come from the gov't
> >they come from God. I can't be any more blunt than that.
>
> The Declaration of Independence is not an active document... The
> Constitution was our basis for law, last I checked... As to your
> arguement... Look REALLY hard at your history and how hard different
> groups have had to fight to gain their full liberty, as entitled to
> them by the constitution... Then you can come back and make a little
> more sense.
I have no doubts to the fact that you have not taken any history classes
or any political science classes. Mr. Lubben and I have done both. It is
a very sad day, when people talk about how the government is the giver of
their rights. Unalienable Rights, mean they can not be taken away. If
rights come from the Government they can be taken away. Your nonsense
about rights being given to us by the government is the same arguement
Kings used to keep their power. This is arguement was destroyed by Locke,
of whom Jefferson was greatly influenced by, and clearly see this by the
Dec. of Independence.
> > So you will join me in the call to end affirmative action. Right?
>
> Already done. (i.e. In another article) I do not support "Special"
> rights... I ONLY want equal rights and protections.
Good!
Shawn James Haff
http://www2.gvsu.edu/~haffs
Character is much easier kept then recovered. Tom Paine.
Eric Bohlman
Douglas Goodridge (do...@comtch.iea.com) wrote:
: Your logic escapes me. According to the CDC there were 548,102 cases
: of AIDS reported as of June 30, 1996 in the US.
: 51% of those were the result of male-to-male contact. Which gives us
: approximately 275, 000 cases among gay men.
: According to the census bureau, there are 266 million people in the
: US.
: Assuming the highest estimate of homosexuality in the populace of 10%,
: that is 26 million gays. That results in an AIDS rate of slightly
: over 1% of gays.
: Assuming the lowest estimate of homosexuality in the populace of 1%.
: That is 2.6 million homosexualitys. Which gives us an AIDS rate of
: about 10%.
Actually, even those figures are about three times too high, because
about two-thirds of those reported AIDS cases occurred in people who are
now dead, and therefore are no longer part of the populace (I'm going out
a bit on a limb here and assuming that the two-thirds dead figure holds
for both male-male and other cases).
John De Salvio
In article <atilla-2601...@ppp-206-170-66-49.nhwd02.pacbell.net>,
ati...@mongol.com (Atilla the Hun) wrote:
> I want bring to everyones attention some issues revolving around
> homosexual agenda activists mantra-like claims that AIDS is declining
> among homosexual practitioners.
You forgot "footsoldiers."
> Remember, homosexual numbers are dwindling at an incredable rate as your
> homosexual practitioners are dying off from the disease associated with
> male homosexual behaviors.(GRIDS-Gay Related Immuned Deficiency Syndrome,
> aka AIDS)
OH? In your dreams.
That's news to anyone who looks at FACTS.
Let's see YOUR "facts" (not that you have ever shown "facts" that
you didn't first manipulate).
Even if only ONE percent of the earth's population is homosexual,
that would mean there are around 52 million homosexuals.
Now, Mr. Information, just how many homosexuals have died of AIDS?
Try not to have your figure exceed the total number of AIDS deaths
worldwide. It could cause some misgivings in some circles about your
credibility in these matters.
You might try to read the news stories that just came out about the
million babies who have died of AIDS that was passed on by their
mothers. Were they all male twins fucking each other in the wombs?
You keep insisting on using ten-year-old data recording 15-year-old
infection rates in some U.S. cities, and forget the rest of the world.
>
> Accordingly, of course your new infection rates are dropping, give us a break!
Learn the usage of English. Learn the significance of "rates."
If homosexuals became infected in the same numbers as always,
the more homosexuals that get the disease, the higher the RATE
of infection would be. If 10 people in 100 get infected, the rate
would be 10 percent. If 10 people in 50 - assuming that half the
people died of AIDS, and the remaing 50 are tabulated, then the
RATE would DOUBLE to 20 percent.
If fewer NUMBERS of homosexuals become infected, the RATE
would stay about the same, or fall.
If the RATE that homosexuals are becoming infected is dropping
significantly, then the numbers of LIVING homosexuals getting
infected is dropping radically. Dead people don't get re-infected.
Did you know that?
But then, what would you expect from radical homosexual footsoldiers,
then to radically educate ourselves and radically reduce our risky
behaviors?
It thus remains for we radical homosexual activist footsoldiers
to tell the world how WE lowered our rates of infections, so that
YOU straight people would at least SLOW DOWN your steadily
INCREASING rate of infection worldwide.
With this posting Atilla [sic], your stupidy became truly AWESOME.
George M. Carter
jcoo...@Glue.umd.edu (Judith Cookson Grunberger) wrote:
>I got that as well. I don't think heterosexuality is any more of
>a "lifestyle" than homosexuality. But promiscuity is certainly a
>lifestyle, IMHO.
What really is a lifestyle??
>>No, I don't mean promiscuity. I mean unprotected sex (outside of the
>>rare cases of true monogamy, as you note.) You can be quite
>>promiscuous, have protected sex and never get (or give anyone) HIV.
>Admit it. Promiscuous people have a higher chance of getting/giving HIV
>than monogamous people.
Ah, I have no trouble with this statement whatsoever. But it is so
patently obvious, I didn't think it needed stating.
>Your point that "You can be quite promiscuous, have protected sex
>and never get (or give anyone) HIV" is true. However, it is *more likely*
>that they would get or give HIV than non-promiscuous people.
Indeed--the risk is reduced with safer sex.
>I dunno. I think HIV/AIDS is a horrible disease, and that no-one deserves
>to get it, but I also think that there are very few "innocent victims."
>People who choose to be promiscuous should understand that they are taking
>risks, no matter if they use protection. Same with needle-sharers. Even
>people who have unprotected sex and don't take the time to figure out
>their partner's history take risks. I don't have HIV or any other STD in
>part because I take none of these risks.
Needle-sharing need not occur if there are good needle exchange
programs. Better: if there is treatment on demand.
>I'll also have to say that I'm biased, because I think that promiscuity is
>immoral.
Thank you for being honest. I think promiscuity is not immoral. For
some it is satisfying. For some it is just a habit. But our respective
feelings on the topic of promiscuity are meaningless. I think you will
agree that we cannot legislate the number of sexual partners a person
may have. And the reality is very few people sustain monogamous,
lifelong relationships. (Is serial monogamy a kind of promiscuity?)
So what's the point? Risk reduction is not risk elimination. For those
who choose abstinence or have a (guaranteed) monogamous relationship,
risks of HIV infection are virtually zero. Etc. But public policy can
not and should not be dictated by a wish that somehow everyone will
adopt such approaches if folks just beat the bible hard enough on the
table. It simply doesn't work. A clear public policy addresses how
people can protect themselves from being infected (or infecting
others). A clear public policy develops sex education as early as
possible so rather than the puerile, childish and wholely American
attitude toward sex, kids can grow up not idolizing the mystery but
recognizing its part of life. Make their decisions on a more informed
basis than dirty magazines and less-than-well-informed peers. We need
a public policy that legalizes sex workers jobs. That provides
treatment on demand for substance abusers rather than costly and
utterly ineffective jail time.
George M. Carter
Judith Cookson Grunberger
In article <5cik0m$m...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>,
>
>>I got that as well. I don't think heterosexuality is any more of
>>a "lifestyle" than homosexuality. But promiscuity is certainly a
>>lifestyle, IMHO.
>
>What really is a lifestyle??
After all the flak people have given about Webster, I'm almost afraid to
say: "the typical way of living, reflecting attitudes, preferences, etc.
of a certain individual or group."
But I don't even know if that definition fits in the context of our
discussion. How would you define a lifestyle? My interpretation: you can
change a lifestyle. You can't change an orientation.
>>Admit it. Promiscuous people have a higher chance of getting/giving HIV
>>than monogamous people.
>
>Ah, I have no trouble with this statement whatsoever. But it is so
>patently obvious, I didn't think it needed stating.
Of course it needs stating. I've run across so many people spouting "safer
sex, safer sex, safer sex; I'm not at risk because he used protection; it
was a one-night stand, but we used a condom." Safer sex is only safer, not
*safe*. And so many people don't seem to get it.
>>I dunno. I think HIV/AIDS is a horrible disease, and that no-one deserves
>>to get it, but I also think that there are very few "innocent victims."
>>People who choose to be promiscuous should understand that they are taking
>>risks, no matter if they use protection. Same with needle-sharers. Even
>>people who have unprotected sex and don't take the time to figure out
>>their partner's history take risks. I don't have HIV or any other STD in
>>part because I take none of these risks.
>
>Needle-sharing need not occur if there are good needle exchange
>programs. Better: if there is treatment on demand.
Needle-sharing need not occur if people don't use IV drugs. Better:
legalize drugs, initiate widespread private-sector sponsored drug testing
as a condition for employment, and have no sympathy for people who at that
point, of their own volition, turn to drugs. I argue that it would be far
cheaper and more effective than the War On Drugs(TM), all needle-exchange
programs, and government-sponsored treatment programs *put togther*.
I really have very little respect for people who choose to use IV drugs
and then whine about needle-exchange programs, lack of treatment options,
etc. And trust me. We all have free will.
>>I'll also have to say that I'm biased, because I think that promiscuity is
>>immoral.
>
>Thank you for being honest. I think promiscuity is not immoral. For
>some it is satisfying. For some it is just a habit. But our respective
>feelings on the topic of promiscuity are meaningless. I think you will
>agree that we cannot legislate the number of sexual partners a person
>may have. And the reality is very few people sustain monogamous,
>lifelong relationships. (Is serial monogamy a kind of promiscuity?)
You're absolutely right. You can't legislate behavior. But you can bring
societal pressure to bear on those whose choices you do not agree with.
And understand that I'm talking societal pressure, not legislative
pressure. I reserve the right not to associate with people who make moral
choices I don't like. I do not reserve any right to make a law telling
people what they can and can't do, unless it represents a direct threat to
me.
As my father, who I think is a political genius, said: "Tolerance is the
ability to put up with things that you can't stand." Even if fundies hate
the idea of same-sex marriage, they have no argument against a civil
contract, because of the following:
14th Amendment Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United
States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
C'mon, guys, which part of "equal protection of the laws" do you not
understand? If you don't like homosexuals, DON'T HANG OUT WITH US.
Demonstrate. Picket "fag funerals." Distribute fliers. Write your
congressman. Exercise your first amendment rights to their fullest. But
don't step on *my* rights in the process. Is this really such a hard
concept?
>So what's the point? Risk reduction is not risk elimination. For those
>who choose abstinence or have a (guaranteed) monogamous relationship,
>risks of HIV infection are virtually zero. Etc. But public policy can
>not and should not be dictated by a wish that somehow everyone will
>adopt such approaches if folks just beat the bible hard enough on the
>table. It simply doesn't work. A clear public policy addresses how
>people can protect themselves from being infected (or infecting
Bible? Since when did I say Bible? Really now... Do all moral choices have
to come from the Bible? I think promiscuity is immoral for many reasons,
none of which are "because God/Jesus says it is." (No offense taken, btw)
Still, I don't think public policy should be based on the premise that
some people do the "best they can, have safer sex, blablabla" and still
get HIV, and by golly if they do then the government is going to be there
for them. Personally, as a person who does not put myself at risk, I
resent *involuntarily* paying, by way of my tax dollars, for people who
intentionally put themselves at risk.
Another note: take away a large portion of my tax burden, and I guarantee
you that I'll give to charity.
>others). A clear public policy develops sex education as early as
>possible so rather than the puerile, childish and wholely American
>attitude toward sex, kids can grow up not idolizing the mystery but
>recognizing its part of life. Make their decisions on a more informed
Sure. Would you also agree that parents should have a significant role in
the sex education of kids? I know that my synagogue played a very
significant and important role in my sex education, something I certainly
didn't get, nor did I want to get, from my biology teacher.
>basis than dirty magazines and less-than-well-informed peers. We need
>a public policy that legalizes sex workers jobs. That provides
I agree.
>treatment on demand for substance abusers rather than costly and
>utterly ineffective jail time.
I do not agree. I'm not going to address this issue here, since I don't
have time right now. Feel free to bring it up later, here or over email.
--Judy
Benjamin J Lubben
On Fri, 24 Jan 1997, John Sanger wrote:
> In article <Pine.HPP.3.95.97012...@river.it.gvsu.edu> Benjamin J Lubben <lub...@river.it.gvsu.edu> writes:
> >
> > Excuse me but guess what THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT GIVE OUT RIGHTS,
> >LOOK AT THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. Let me quote it for you since
> >you
> >seem to overlook it " ... that they are endowed by their Creator with
> >certain unalienable RIGHTS...". Our rights to not come from the gov't
> >they come from God. I can't be any more blunt than that.
> >
>
> You seem to have a lack of understanding of just what signifcance the
> Declaration of Independence is.....
I am afraid that you are the one with the " lack of
understanding". Lets take a look at what the Declaration was used for.
You are correct in that it let George know we were leaving BUT it cited
nurmeous violations of American rights that were taken by the British
gov't. Let me quote some more of the Declaration for you " That to secure
these rights ( unalienable rights), Governments are instituted among men,
DERIVING THEIR JUST POWERS FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED...". If gov't
are able to give out rights ( and this may be the case today) then we have
done a great disservice to this great nation and we have drastically
gone of the course that was set by are Founders. No gov't can just make
up rights. If you want a real understanding of unalienble rights I
recommend that you look into the writings of John Locke and Sir William
Blackstone.
It is merely an interesting
> historical document.... It was the notice to Geo III that the American
> Colonies were leaving his authority....
> It does not have any legal status in the USA today....
>
> And you are so very wrong if you think that the Fed Gov does not grant
> and restrict the rights of the people.....
That was not meant to be the case.
Benjamin J Lubben
> > Excuse me but guess what THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT GIVE OUT RIGHTS,
> >LOOK AT THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. Let me quote it for you since
> >you
> >seem to overlook it " ... that they are endowed by their Creator with
> >certain unalienable RIGHTS...". Our rights to not come from the gov't
> >they come from God. I can't be any more blunt than that.
>
> The Declaration of Independence is not an active document... The
> Constitution was our basis for law, last I checked... As to your
> arguement... Look REALLY hard at your history and how hard different
> groups have had to fight to gain their full liberty, as entitled to
> them by the constitution... Then you can come back and make a little
> more sense.
Look at my response to Mr. Sanger.
>
> happen. In fact, the only one's I've heard of advocating violence are
> the EXTREME right-wing militia types...
You know I just love it when liberals don't look in their own
backyards. Let me name few of extreme left-wing groups who not only
advocate violence but carry through on their claims:
Animal Liberation Front ( ALF)
Earth First!
Black Panthers
Act-Up
Queer Nation
American Indian Movement ( AIM)
Just to name few.
Douglas Goodridge
On Mon, 27 Jan 1997 10:29:49 GMT, eboh...@netcom.com (Eric Bohlman)
wrote:
>Actually, even those figures are about three times too high, because
>about two-thirds of those reported AIDS cases occurred in people who are
>now dead, and therefore are no longer part of the populace (I'm going out
>a bit on a limb here and assuming that the two-thirds dead figure holds
>for both male-male and other cases).
>
I figured they were probably a little on the high side, but I wanted
to keep the math simple so Atilla the ignorant could follow it.
He'll probably argue about it, but no matter which he looks at it, I
have facts that can be verified. He doesn't.
dougg
Tony Quirke
"Alvin E. Toda" <a...@lava.net> wrote:
>I guess there's a problem if the religious organization runs a purely
>commercial business for the general public (say for fun-raising purposes,
>for example a bowling alley). Do they have the right to discriminate--
>say just hire members of their own church who they know are straight, etc.
>Otherwise it would seem to be an infringement on separation of church
>and state to impose restrictions on their policies related to their
>religion.
Make up your mind. Are they running a commercial business or a church ?
It is quite acceptable that a church organisation be allowed to
discriminate in its employment or service practices.
A commercial organisation, on the other hand, is embedded in the larger
social context. It is given certain specific benefits (such as limited
liability, recourse to the court structure to enforce contracts, and the
provision of a coherent currency system) by society in order to function.
In return, society can require specific responsibilities be met by
commercial organisations. These may relate to pollution, professional
ethics, or (as in this case) equality of economic access.
A *church*, an organisation for religious purposes, focused on its
participants and needing nothing more than the freedom to organise has a
limited set of necessary rights and responsibilities. Fundamentally, these
are the freedom to religion and the responsibility to allow the freedom
to and from religion. Thus the seperation of church and state.
A *business*, despite the sophistical idealism of Rand and her
followers, is an organisation which is far more entwined with the greater
civil society. It requires coherent networks of support from society
(whether these be physical, legal or political) and in return must be held
accountable for the responsibilities inherent in their greater role in
that society. Where society considers unequal economic opportunity to be a
problem, it is reasonable to expect businesses to be part of the solution.
- Tony Q.
--
"The weapon, like anything else, could only finally be judged by the
effect it had on others, by the consequences it produced in some outside
context, by its place in the rest of the universe. By this measure the
love, or just the appreciation, of weapons was a kind of tragedy." - IB
Benedick
Atilla the Hun wrote:
>
> I want bring to everyones attention some issues revolving around
> homosexual agenda activists mantra-like claims that AIDS is declining
> among homosexual practitioners.
The rate of increase of AIDS patients is declining among homosexuals.
The rate of increase of heterosexuals is ascending. A larger percentage
of homosexual men are diagnosed with the disease, but heterosexuals are
on the rise. You also have to remember the statistics you have heard
are regarding the 20,000+ American AIDS cases. International statistics
are largely due to bad medical practice in third world countries.
>
> Remember, homosexual numbers are dwindling at an incredable rate as your
> homosexual practitioners are dying off from the disease associated with
> male homosexual behaviors.(GRIDS-Gay Related Immuned Deficiency Syndrome,
> aka AIDS)
Most homosexuals in America do NOT have AIDS.
>
> Accordingly, of course your new infection rates are dropping, give us a break!
Rate of increase, you moron.
Benedick
Bene- Good or Large
Dick- The English language hasn't changed much since Shakespeare's
time.
Steve Harris
Right from the Beginning <ha...@river.it.gvsu.edu> wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Jan 1997, Steve Harris wrote:
>> Benjamin J Lubben <lub...@river.it.gvsu.edu> wrote:
>> Excuse me but
>> guess what THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT GIVE OUT RIGHTS, >LOOK AT THE
>> DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. Let me quote it for you since >you >seem
>> to overlook it " ... that they are endowed by their Creator with
>> >certain unalienable RIGHTS...". Our rights to not come from the gov't
>> >they come from God. I can't be any more blunt than that.
>>
>> The Declaration of Independence is not an active document... The
>> Constitution was our basis for law, last I checked... As to your
>> arguement... Look REALLY hard at your history and how hard different
>> groups have had to fight to gain their full liberty, as entitled to
>> them by the constitution... Then you can come back and make a little
>> more sense.
>I have no doubts to the fact that you have not taken any history classes
>or any political science classes. Mr. Lubben and I have done both. It is
>a very sad day, when people talk about how the government is the giver of
>their rights. Unalienable Rights, mean they can not be taken away. If
>rights come from the Government they can be taken away. Your nonsense
>about rights being given to us by the government is the same arguement
>Kings used to keep their power. This is arguement was destroyed by Locke,
>of whom Jefferson was greatly influenced by, and clearly see this by the
>Dec. of Independence.
Are you seriously trying to deny that the Constitution outlines our
rights as citizens and taxpayers? And if you would like to argue that
the government doesn't "hand out rights", let us take a look at
history, shall we? When exactly were women allowed to vote?
African-Americans??? Are you suggesting that they've ALWAYS had that
right, as all other taxpaying Americans have? Perhaps they don't
"hand out rights", but they sure have been active in with-holding them
from certain groups, based on the political climate of the times...
There's really no denying that. You wouldn't know this, but when
rights are being with-held from you, it sure FEELS like they "hand
them out" at will, whether or NOT it looks that way to others.
>> > So you will join me in the call to end affirmative action. Right?
>>
>> Already done. (i.e. In another article) I do not support "Special"
>> rights... I ONLY want equal rights and protections.
>Good!
It is nice when we can agree on something, isn't it?
>Shawn James Haff
>http://www2.gvsu.edu/~haffs
>Character is much easier kept then recovered. Tom Paine.
Thanks.
Steve Harris
Benjamin J Lubben <lub...@river.it.gvsu.edu> wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Jan 1997, John Sanger wrote:
>> In article <Pine.HPP.3.95.97012...@river.it.gvsu.edu> Benjamin J Lubben <lub...@river.it.gvsu.edu> writes:
>> >
>> > Excuse me but guess what THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT GIVE OUT RIGHTS,
>> >LOOK AT THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. Let me quote it for you since
>> >you
>> >seem to overlook it " ... that they are endowed by their Creator with
>> >certain unalienable RIGHTS...". Our rights to not come from the gov't
>> >they come from God. I can't be any more blunt than that.
>> >
>>
>> You seem to have a lack of understanding of just what signifcance the
>> Declaration of Independence is.....
> I am afraid that you are the one with the " lack of
>understanding". Lets take a look at what the Declaration was used for.
>You are correct in that it let George know we were leaving BUT it cited
>nurmeous violations of American rights that were taken by the British
>gov't. Let me quote some more of the Declaration for you " That to secure
>these rights ( unalienable rights), Governments are instituted among men,
>DERIVING THEIR JUST POWERS FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED...". If gov't
>are able to give out rights ( and this may be the case today) then we have
>done a great disservice to this great nation and we have drastically
>gone of the course that was set by are Founders. No gov't can just make
>up rights. If you want a real understanding of unalienble rights I
>recommend that you look into the writings of John Locke and Sir William
>Blackstone.
> It is merely an interesting
>> historical document.... It was the notice to Geo III that the American
>> Colonies were leaving his authority....
>> It does not have any legal status in the USA today....
>>
>> And you are so very wrong if you think that the Fed Gov does not grant
>> and restrict the rights of the people.....
> That was not meant to be the case.
You still cannot deny the fact that it IS, whether or NOT it was
"meant to be the case". You cannot deny that straight couples have
the "right" to marry, and gay couples do NOT. Even though, according
to your precious declaration, that we are ALL endowed by our creator
to certain unalienable rights... As I see it, I'm being DENIED my
right to the pursuit of happiness. I'm not treated as an EQUAL
citizen in this country, because I don't have all of the same
PRIVELEDGES as everyone else. THAT was the original point of the
post, and the one that you so blatantly over-looked. I CANNOT "marry"
the partner of my choice, I could at any time, without recourse:
Lose my job, lose my apartment, be denied service in a public
establishment, JUST because I'm gay. If either you, or "Right from
the Beginning" can explain to me how this is LEGAL under WHATEVER
document that you choose to examine, I would LOVE to hear it. So far,
both of your arguements have been off the original point, and I'd like
to see it back on track, if you will. Thanks.
John Sanger
In article <Pine.HPP.3.95.970127...@river.it.gvsu.edu> Benjamin J Lubben <lub...@river.it.gvsu.edu> writes:
>
>On Fri, 24 Jan 1997, John Sanger wrote:
>
>> In article <Pine.HPP.3.95.97012...@river.it.gvsu.edu> Benjamin J Lubben <lub...@river.it.gvsu.edu> writes:
>> >
>> > Excuse me but guess what THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT GIVE OUT RIGHTS,
>> >LOOK AT THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. Let me quote it for you since
>> >you
>> >seem to overlook it " ... that they are endowed by their Creator with
>> >certain unalienable RIGHTS...". Our rights to not come from the gov't
>> >they come from God. I can't be any more blunt than that.
>> >
>>
>> You seem to have a lack of understanding of just what signifcance the
>> Declaration of Independence is.....
>
> I am afraid that you are the one with the " lack of
>understanding". Lets take a look at what the Declaration was used for.
No, you do not comprehend that the Declaration of Independence is just
an interesting historical document..... It does not have any legal
status in the USA....
2132...@msu.edu
>So what's the point? Risk reduction is not risk elimination. For those
>who choose abstinence or have a (guaranteed) monogamous relationship,
>risks of HIV infection are virtually zero.
I was married I was so monogamous I couldn't even tell you who the
current hot-male-movie/tv stars were. My ex, however, never bothered
to let me know the feeling wasn't mutual. (Luckily, I didn't catch
anything from him.) Unless you are tied together by a very short
chain 24/7 there is no such thing as a gauranteed monogamous relationship.
Second, there are PLENTY of ways to get an HIV infection that has
nothing to do with either sex or drug use.
Linda
>I have no doubts to the fact that you have not taken any history classes
>or any political science classes. Mr. Lubben and I have done both. It is
>a very sad day, when people talk about how the government is the giver of
>their rights. Unalienable Rights, mean they can not be taken away. If
>rights come from the Government they can be taken away. Your nonsense
>about rights being given to us by the government is the same arguement
>Kings used to keep their power.
Well, Mr Right, I quit school in 10th grade, so perhaps you can
answer some questions for me, seeins as how you been takin classes and
all?
If one of the unalienable rights is Life, and if government cannot
take an unalieanable right from you, then why is there a death
penalty?
If one of the unalieanable rights is Liberty, and if all men are
created equal, then why did Jefferson own slaves?
Me being unschooled and kind of simpleminded, I've always had this
gnawing feeling that the Constitution is something we eternally strive
to achieve, even though it is probably impossible to achieve
completely.
Right from the Beginning
On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Steve Harris wrote:
> Right from the Beginning <ha...@river.it.gvsu.edu> wrote:
>
> Are you seriously trying to deny that the Constitution outlines our
> rights as citizens and taxpayers?
They are the "unalienable rights" that Jefferson was talking about.
And if you would like to argue that
> the government doesn't "hand out rights", let us take a look at
> history, shall we? When exactly were women allowed to vote?
> African-Americans??? Are you suggesting that they've ALWAYS had that
> right, as all other taxpaying Americans have?
They always had these God given rights, and always will have these rights.
I, the government nor you can take away any of these rights. You will
always be entitled to these rights. Yes, the government may not alaways
allow them. But Women and African-Americans were always entitled to them.
Perhaps they don't
> "hand out rights", but they sure have been active in with-holding them
> from certain groups, based on the political climate of the times...
> There's really no denying that. You wouldn't know this, but when
> rights are being with-held from you, it sure FEELS like they "hand
> them out" at will, whether or NOT it looks that way to others.
From you point of view it sure would. I know this may sound funny to you,
but If I believed you were not allowed to have any of your God given
"unalienable" rights, I would be fighting for them.
> >> > So you will join me in the call to end affirmative action. Right?
> >>
> >> Already done. (i.e. In another article) I do not support "Special"
> >> rights... I ONLY want equal rights and protections.
> >Good!
>
> It is nice when we can agree on something, isn't it?
It certainly is.
shawn
Let Freedom Ring
> Are you seriously trying to deny that the Constitution outlines our
> rights as citizens and taxpayers?
No, I am merely making the case that the Dec. of Ind. says that
our rights do NOT come from the gov't.
And if you would like to argue that
> the government doesn't "hand out rights", let us take a look at
> history, shall we? When exactly were women allowed to vote?
Depends on what state you were in at the time.
> African-Americans???
Again depended on what state you were in at the time.
Are you suggesting that they've ALWAYS had that
> right, as all other taxpaying Americans have?
If you are talking federally in theory yes, but it was countered
by state laws.
Let Freedom Ring
> > That was not meant to be the case.
>
>
> You still cannot deny the fact that it IS, whether or NOT it was
> "meant to be the case". You cannot deny that straight couples have
> the "right" to marry, and gay couples do NOT. Even though, according
> to your precious declaration, that we are ALL endowed by our creator
> to certain unalienable rights... As I see it, I'm being DENIED my
> right to the pursuit of happiness.
Once again you should read some more of the Dec. of Ind. to get
your answer for this response. Here let me quote it for you:
" ...deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the
Governed..."
I recommend that you look at Blackstone's "Commentaries on the
Laws of England" we have certain rights that no gov't can take away.
The rest the people decide.
I'm not treated as an EQUAL
> citizen in this country, because I don't have all of the same
> PRIVELEDGES as everyone else.
Thats right because under current Michigan law sodomy is illegal.
THAT was the original point of the
> post, and the one that you so blatantly over-looked. I CANNOT "marry"
> the partner of my choice, I could at any time, without recourse:
> Lose my job, lose my apartment, be denied service in a public
> establishment, JUST because I'm gay. If either you, or "Right from
> the Beginning" can explain to me how this is LEGAL under WHATEVER
> document that you choose to examine,
Like I said Michigan law states sodomy is illegal. Not to mention
if you were to " stay in the closet" you would not have to worry about the
above problems.
John Sanger
In article <Pine.HPP.3.95.970130...@river.it.gvsu.edu> Let Freedom Ring <lub...@river.it.gvsu.edu> writes:
>
> And if you would like to argue that
>> the government doesn't "hand out rights", let us take a look at
>> history, shall we? When exactly were women allowed to vote?
>
> Depends on what state you were in at the time.
>
Sorry but the only state that allowed women to vote was Wyoming until
the Feds granted it to all women of the USA....
Steve Harris
Let Freedom Ring <lub...@river.it.gvsu.edu> wrote:
>> > That was not meant to be the case.
>>
>>
>> You still cannot deny the fact that it IS, whether or NOT it was
>> "meant to be the case". You cannot deny that straight couples have
>> the "right" to marry, and gay couples do NOT. Even though, according
>> to your precious declaration, that we are ALL endowed by our creator
>> to certain unalienable rights... As I see it, I'm being DENIED my
>> right to the pursuit of happiness.
> Once again you should read some more of the Dec. of Ind. to get
>your answer for this response. Here let me quote it for you:
> " ...deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the
>Governed..."
Which is fine, but that does not mean that the majority can decide
what is right for everyone, which is where those "inalienable" rights
come in.
> I recommend that you look at Blackstone's "Commentaries on the
>Laws of England" we have certain rights that no gov't can take away.
>The rest the people decide.
I recommend you read George Orwell's "Animal Farm". Enlightening
little story.
> I'm not treated as an EQUAL
>> citizen in this country, because I don't have all of the same
>> PRIVELEDGES as everyone else.
> Thats right because under current Michigan law sodomy is illegal.
That's why laws change... See, acts of sodomy are also performed by
heterosexuals. You can NOT enforce it for one group and let the
majority of people just "slide"... It CAN'T work that way. Just the
fact that the law tries to regulate what people do in the privacy of
their bed-rooms makes the law totally out of line, and I think that
most people SHOULD agree with that.
> THAT was the original point of the
>> post, and the one that you so blatantly over-looked. I CANNOT "marry"
>> the partner of my choice, I could at any time, without recourse:
>> Lose my job, lose my apartment, be denied service in a public
>> establishment, JUST because I'm gay. If either you, or "Right from
>> the Beginning" can explain to me how this is LEGAL under WHATEVER
>> document that you choose to examine,
> Like I said Michigan law states sodomy is illegal. Not to mention
>if you were to " stay in the closet" you would not have to worry about the
>above problems.
Excuse me for being alive... I'm so terribly sorry that what I do
offends you, and I'll just slink back into the closet now, and shut my
mouth... NOT! Believe me... The majority of people would like to
keep their private lives PRIVATE, but that's hard to do when you have
a LARGE group of people trying to squelch your RIGHTS BECAUSE of what
you do in PRIVATE. I call them rights because the MAJORITY of people
CAN. I can NOT. So, naturally, I WANT to, and SHOULD be able to. It
would not HARM anyone if I were to marry a man. The space/time
continuum would remain INTACT, people would LIVE as they ALWAYS have,
and EVERYBODY would be happy. But can we have that? NO.
There always has to be a "Cling-on" or two, who just can't let go of
the past, learn from it and move on. Before you make such a ludicrous
request again, please take time to think... Turn the tables for a
moment, and ask yourself if YOU could fulfill such a request. You
want to know what would end this "problem" ALTOGETHER? Mind your OWN
business, keep your nose OUT of mine, let me live as I CHOOSE, and
stop asking the government into our respective BEDROOMS... MOST
"NORMAL" people don't want them there... Thanks.
Steve Harris
Right from the Beginning <ha...@river.it.gvsu.edu> wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Steve Harris wrote:
>> Right from the Beginning <ha...@river.it.gvsu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Are you seriously trying to deny that the Constitution outlines our
>> rights as citizens and taxpayers?
>They are the "unalienable rights" that Jefferson was talking about.
>And if you would like to argue that
>> the government doesn't "hand out rights", let us take a look at
>> history, shall we? When exactly were women allowed to vote?
>> African-Americans??? Are you suggesting that they've ALWAYS had that
>> right, as all other taxpaying Americans have?
>They always had these God given rights, and always will have these rights.
>I, the government nor you can take away any of these rights. You will
>always be entitled to these rights. Yes, the government may not alaways
>allow them. But Women and African-Americans were always entitled to them.
I can agree with this. I CAN understand it from your point of view.
It is the way that the government is run that is the problem... WHAT,
exactly, gives ANYONE, or even a government the authority to with-hold
"God-given" rights from anyone? It IS done, however.
>Perhaps they don't
>> "hand out rights", but they sure have been active in with-holding them
>> from certain groups, based on the political climate of the times...
>> There's really no denying that. You wouldn't know this, but when
>> rights are being with-held from you, it sure FEELS like they "hand
>> them out" at will, whether or NOT it looks that way to others.
>From you point of view it sure would. I know this may sound funny to you,
>but If I believed you were not allowed to have any of your God given
>"unalienable" rights, I would be fighting for them.
Ok, now... Let us imagine this... God-given rights aside, now. Let
us say that you worked where I do... We both have the same job, at
the same rate of pay, and we both perform very well at it. I give up
a generous amount of my paycheck to Uncle Sam, and you give up the
same generous amount. You go home to your spouse, I go home to my
spouse. Your spouse has a bad cold... MY spouse has a bad cold.
Your spouse goes to the doctor... MY spouse can't afford to go to the
doctor. Your spouse is covered, MY spouse is not. We BOTH work hard,
we are BOTH productive citizens, we BOTH LOVE our spouses... (Sorry
about the amazing number of co-incidences here...) So here's the
question: Why does my spouse have to suffer, while your spouse gets a
prescription and feels better the next day? Because my spouse is gay?
That hardly seems right, does it?
I realize that this may be a simplistic way of putting it, but I
feel it was the most effective way to explain it. The majority, no
matter how good it feels about its values, cannot impose those values
on others. Whether the rights or "rites" or priveledges are god-given
or government-created, if the majority CAN, then so should everybody
else. There can be NO double-standards in a true democracy... As
long as there are double standards, how can America claim to be one?
>
>> >> > So you will join me in the call to end affirmative action. Right?
>> >>
>> >> Already done. (i.e. In another article) I do not support "Special"
>> >> rights... I ONLY want equal rights and protections.
>> >Good!
>>
>> It is nice when we can agree on something, isn't it?
>It certainly is.
Thanks.
>shawn
John Lawrence Rutledge
In article <32f0fa76...@news.jersey.net>, Linda <li...@jersey.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Jan 1997 23:44:02 -0500, Right from the Beginning
><ha...@river.it.gvsu.edu> wrote:
>
>>I have no doubts to the fact that you have not taken any history classes
>>or any political science classes. Mr. Lubben and I have done both. It is
>>a very sad day, when people talk about how the government is the giver of
>>their rights. Unalienable Rights, mean they can not be taken away. If
>>rights come from the Government they can be taken away. Your nonsense
>>about rights being given to us by the government is the same arguement
>>Kings used to keep their power.
>
> Well, Mr Right, I quit school in 10th grade, so perhaps you can
>answer some questions for me, seeins as how you been takin classes and
>all?
>
> If one of the unalienable rights is Life, and if government cannot
>take an unalieanable right from you, then why is there a death
>penalty?
Well, the Declaration of Independence doesn't have much legal weight.
It is usually referred to because it provides the basic philosophy
of rights which were incorporated into the US Constitution. The DoI
was a clear reference to the works of Hobbes and Locke. And they
both give reasons why allow the government needs to have a death
penalty. And, the Fifth Amendment states "no person shall be ...
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
This would override the DoI even it it had a legal status.
> If one of the unalieanable rights is Liberty, and if all men are
>created equal, then why did Jefferson own slaves?
Thomas Jefferson inherited slaves (and debt) from his father and
his wife's father. And, under Virginia law, slaves could not be
freed. Jefferson did propose a law in his freshmen year in the
colonial Virginia legislature which would allow slave to free under
certain situations. This proposal failed and the situation proved
to be politically humiliating to Jefferson.
The huge debt that came with the slave also made it economically
impossible for Jefferson to free them. He did, however, treat his
slaves with great respect. When he sold them, he made sure they
when to master with similar views on slavery and that slave
marriages were not broken up. He also publicly stated that if
black really were inferior to whites (he had his doubts about
this), this did not mean that blacks had less rights than whites.
+---------------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| | "If only it were a modern document, with |
| John Lawrence Rutledge | a smart index and hyper links stretching |
| Research Assistant | all through the world data net. It was |
| Distributed Multimedia | terribly frustrating to flip back and |
| Systems Lab | forth between the pages and crude flat |
| Computer Science Department | illustrations that never even moved. Nor |
| UMass - Lowell | were there animated arrows or zoom-ins. |
| 1 University Ave. | It completely lacked a feel for sound. |
| Lowell, MA 01854 | "Most baffling of all was the problem |
| | new words... In normal text you'd only |
| (508) 934-3528 | have to touch an unfamiliar word and the |
| jrut...@cs.uml.edu | definition would pop up just below." |
| http://www.cs.uml.edu/~jrutledg | from David Brin's _Earth_ |
+---------------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
Adam Knight
In article <5cl73m$p...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>, only...@ix.netcom.com
(Steve Harris) wrote:
>You still cannot deny the fact that it IS, whether or NOT it was
>"meant to be the case". You cannot deny that straight couples have
>the "right" to marry, and gay couples do NOT. Even though, according
>to your precious declaration, that we are ALL endowed by our creator
>to certain unalienable rights... As I see it, I'm being DENIED my
>right to the pursuit of happiness. I'm not treated as an EQUAL
>citizen in this country, because I don't have all of the same
>PRIVELEDGES as everyone else. THAT was the original point of the
>post, and the one that you so blatantly over-looked. I CANNOT "marry"
>the partner of my choice, I could at any time, without recourse:
>Lose my job, lose my apartment, be denied service in a public
>establishment, JUST because I'm gay. If either you, or "Right from
>the Beginning" can explain to me how this is LEGAL under WHATEVER
>document that you choose to examine, I would LOVE to hear it. So far,
>both of your arguements have been off the original point, and I'd like
>to see it back on track, if you will. Thanks.
The fact is, blacks and immigrants are discriminated against today as well.
Women too. Government did its part for them, but society doesn't want to
let them in (well, part of it), so discrimination is still alive. The
government's part, by the way, might be in your eyes to "do the right
thing" but the fact of the matter is that the government's part is to
create laws reflecting the popular opinion of what is right. That's why we
have real people up there in D.C. (subject to opinion, of course), so they
can tell what their people want the government to do.
The majority of the people, obviously, do not want gay marriages. Where
that is legal or not, I cannot say, but that is why it is happening.
Before you yell at the government, or Christians, or God, yell at the
people, becuase it is their support you need and can get to get your wants
made into law. You cannot convince a Christian what what he believes is
wrong is right; you just can't. God's rights and wrongs are just that, the
rights and wrongs of God, and those aren't going to change. Whether it's a
right or wrong in His book, we don't know at this point (for sure, at
least), but we as Christians have our ideas and express them by letting our
representatives know, who them make the laws. If you want the laws, tell
your rep and get your friends too, it's his decision. That's where the
popular opinion comes in. Others have to as well.
Once law, it might be accepted, or it may follow the path of Hawaii's law,
but you have to try if it's what you want; yelling at the world isn't going
to accomplish much.
No, I'm not saying that it doesn't happen already, but typing in a
newsgroup isn't accomplishing much.
+--------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| A. Knight | http://www2.trip.net/~aknight/ |
+--------------------+----------------------------------------------+
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, the
first woodpecker to come along would have anhiliated civilization.
John De Salvio
In article <aknight-ya0240800...@news.trip.net>,
akn...@trip.net (Adam Knight) wrote:
> No, I'm not saying that it doesn't happen already, but typing in a
> newsgroup isn't accomplishing much.
Adam,
Typing to a newsgroup DOES accomplish things. You yourself
have admitted to changing your thinking because of what you
have read here.
I agree that ranting and raving doesn't help, but most of the
dispute regarding same-sex civil marriages here have been fairly
reasoned by the pro-side, while the anti-side has continued to
ignore the rebuttals and repeated the "because I say so" line
of thinking (or lack of thinking).
The discussions may not change the minds of the stubborn
naysayers, but it may change the minds of those who choose
to reason the matter out for themselves.
And one never knows when a senator's son or daughter may
read these discussions and influence the senator. Right?
Joe Dolsak
des...@monitor.net (John De Salvio) wrote:
>In article <aknight-ya0240800...@news.trip.net>,
>akn...@trip.net (Adam Knight) wrote:
>> No, I'm not saying that it doesn't happen already, but typing in a
>> newsgroup isn't accomplishing much.
>SNIP!!
>And one never knows when a senator's son or daughter may
>read these discussions and influence the senator. Right?
I would hope that a senator's son or daughter would have less
"influence" than that senator's constituency!!!!
Ward Stewart
akn...@trip.net (Adam Knight) wrote:
Aloha Friends --- -
What is even more clear and finally more important is that
the majority does want and has frequently endorsed,
sometimes in blood, to live in a constitutional democracy,
a republic like the enduring one that we have created --
they wish the constitution and the bill of rights to
determine the position of the citizens and their
relationship to the institutions.
This talk of what the majority wants in a matter of human
rights, of civil rights is a red herring -- it is clearly
the function of the majority to determine much of public
policy. How we shall conduct our parking regulations and
our declarations of war (and most of what lies in between)
HOWEVER, civil rights have been and are determined by the
constitution and the bill of rights. Civil rights
legislation has seldom been particular and had it been left
to public opinion Rosa Parks would still be walking and the
schools of the South would still be segregated.
Simply, not the way the thing works!
Ward
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It has been said often in this debate that God created Adam
and Eve, not Adam and Steve. If you accept the idea that
God created the earth and all on it you must accept the idea
that God created daisies and roses. He created blondes and
brunettes,the left handed and the right handed. We are all
Gods children and an effort to limit the almighty to just
your own family is a dangerous idea, indeed a heretical one.
uncle ward
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Alvin E. Toda
On 27 Jan 1997, Tony Quirke wrote:
> A *church*, an organisation for religious purposes, focused on its
> participants and needing nothing more than the freedom to organise has a
> limited set of necessary rights and responsibilities. Fundamentally, these
> are the freedom to religion and the responsibility to allow the freedom
> to and from religion. Thus the seperation of church and state.
>
> A *business*, despite the sophistical idealism of Rand and her
> followers, is an organisation which is far more entwined with the greater
> civil society. It requires coherent networks of support from society
> (whether these be physical, legal or political) and in return must be held
> accountable for the responsibilities inherent in their greater role in
> that society. Where society considers unequal economic opportunity to be a
> problem, it is reasonable to expect businesses to be part of the solution.
>
> - Tony Q.
> --
> "The weapon, like anything else, could only finally be judged by the
> effect it had on others, by the consequences it produced in some outside
> context, by its place in the rest of the universe. By this measure the
> love, or just the appreciation, of weapons was a kind of tragedy." - IB
>
I believe that there are instances in which it is not clear as to whether
a business is bound by it's responsibility to the general public which it
serves or whether it is a part of a church. The previous reference was a
Christian Book store (which may want to have "Christian" sales people) since
the products may religious in nature or religious in theme. The person
there did not want to hire homosexuals.
I believe the courts are very careful in ruling on this because of problem
of T-shirt sidewalk vendors in Waikiki. That case went up to the Supreme
Court, it believe. As a practical matter, if a church decided to run a
"Christian" bowling alley-- or decided it must participate in politics as
some oriental churches do-- I think the law goes very cautiously in this
regard. It becomes a political and controversial issue-- rather than a
no-brainer as some would think.
My own personal opinion is that if the church deals with the general public
in anyway, non-discrimination laws should be applied-- even if religious
charms or souvenirs are being sold in the sanctuary itself. On the other
hand I know there are others who believe that there is no limit to this
business activity as long as only a donation is requested. The law should be
consistant without many loop-holes-- or else what is the point of having
any law?
Right from the Beginning
On Thu, 30 Jan 1997, Linda wrote:
> Well, Mr Right, I quit school in 10th grade, so perhaps you can
> answer some questions for me, seeins as how you been takin classes and
> all?
>
> If one of the unalienable rights is Life, and if government cannot
> take an unalieanable right from you, then why is there a death
> penalty?
Because it is justice.
> If one of the unalieanable rights is Liberty, and if all men are
> created equal, then why did Jefferson own slaves?
Well they should have been, but most of the time Government does not live
up to all the promises they make.
Shawn James Haff
http://www2.gvsu.edu/~haffs
To destroy a country, you must first cut its roots.
Right from the Beginning
On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, Steve Harris wrote:
> Let Freedom Ring <lub...@river.it.gvsu.edu> wrote:
> > Thats right because under current Michigan law sodomy is illegal.
>
> That's why laws change... See, acts of sodomy are also performed by
> heterosexuals. You can NOT enforce it for one group and let the
> majority of people just "slide"...
Well only homosexual sodomy acts have been declared unconstitutional.
Shawn James Haff
Right from the Beginning
On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, Steve Harris wrote:
> Right from the Beginning <ha...@river.it.gvsu.edu> wrote:
> >They always had these God given rights, and always will have these rights.
> >I, the government nor you can take away any of these rights. You will
> >always be entitled to these rights. Yes, the government may not alaways
> >allow them. But Women and African-Americans were always entitled to them.
>
> I can agree with this. I CAN understand it from your point of view.
> It is the way that the government is run that is the problem... WHAT,
> exactly, gives ANYONE, or even a government the authority to with-hold
> "God-given" rights from anyone? It IS done, however.
They don't have that right. This is why the Gipper said, Governenment is
not the solution to our problems, it is the problem.
Shawn James Haff
Ward Stewart
This must be why you are insisting that the federal
government must involve itself in the privacies of my life.
It is a notion so stupid that it will, all but inevitably,
result in the diminuition of the federal government.
VERY subtle --
ward
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ward and George
40 years,
yet strangers before
the law.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ward Stewart
Right from the Beginning <ha...@river.it.gvsu.edu> wrote:
>On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, Steve Harris wrote:
>Shawn James Haff
Once again, out of the profundity of your ignorance and ill
will you have pulled a piece on nonsense -- NOTHING in the
sexual area, homo or het has been decalred unconstitutional.
Coronal
Right from the Beginning wrote:
> Well only homosexual sodomy acts have been declared unconstitutional.
>
> Shawn James Haff
A little clarification is in order here. Bowers v. Hardwick ( I assume
that you are
referring to that case) said nothing about sodomous acts per se, but
rather that
state sodomy laws were constitutional. Furthermore, I doubt that the
ruling will
stand in the long run. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to reverse the 11th
Circuit's
decision striking down Georgia's sodomy law. Originally, the justices
were going
to vote 5-4 to uphold the ruling, but Chief Justice Burger twisted Lewis
Powell's
arm and got him to change his vote. He (Powell) later regretted his
decision,
calling it one of the worst he'd ever made. As I understand it, there is
another
case in Georgia challenging the state's sodomy law. In the end, I think
that
B.v.H. wil be overturned.
Coronal
Right from the Beginning wrote:
> > It is the way that the government is run that is the problem... WHAT,
> > exactly, gives ANYONE, or even a government the authority to with-hold
> > "God-given" rights from anyone? It IS done, however.
> They don't have that right. This is why the Gipper said, Governenment is
> not the solution to our problems, it is the problem.
>
But as I understand your post, you want the government to withhold his
rights
with regard to being treated equally as an American citizen because of
his
sexuality.
Tony Quirke
Right from the Beginning <ha...@river.it.gvsu.edu> wrote:
[Regarding extension of the right to liberty and sufferage to Blacks
and women]
> They always had these God given rights, and always will have these rights.
> I, the government nor you can take away any of these rights. You will
> always be entitled to these rights. Yes, the government may not alaways
> allow them. But Women and African-Americans were always entitled to them.
Is there a deconstructionist in the house ?
Let Freedom Ring
> > " ...deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the
> >Governed..."
>
> Which is fine, but that does not mean that the majority can decide
> what is right for everyone, which is where those "inalienable" rights
> come in.
>
You are greatly mistaken in your use of our unalienable rights
found in the Dec. of Ind. There are certain rights that are not be taken
from us. The best example is the Bill of Rights ( the first 10).
> > I recommend that you look at Blackstone's "Commentaries on the
> >Laws of England" we have certain rights that no gov't can take away.
> >The rest the people decide.
>
> I recommend you read George Orwell's "Animal Farm". Enlightening
> little story.
>
Been there, done that. Now lets see if you can read some of the
sources that I have mentioned before ( Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist
Papers, etc, etc.). These books will give some much needed history
lessons and reasons that we should have a small gov't.
> the past, learn from it and move on. Before you make such a ludicrous
> request again, please take time to think... Turn the tables for a
> moment, and ask yourself if YOU could fulfill such a request. You
> want to know what would end this "problem" ALTOGETHER? Mind your OWN
> business,
Then you will support the use of vouchers because if the public
schools are going to teach ( and they will) that homosexuality is a
" another lifestyle" and since you want me to mind my own business I will
ask you do the same and let me put my kids in schools that teach what I
believe.
Correct?
John Sanger
In article <Pine.HPP.3.95.97020...@river.it.gvsu.edu> Right from the Beginning <ha...@river.it.gvsu.edu> writes:
>On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, Steve Harris wrote:
>
>> Let Freedom Ring <lub...@river.it.gvsu.edu> wrote:
>> > Thats right because under current Michigan law sodomy is illegal.
>>
>> That's why laws change... See, acts of sodomy are also performed by
>> heterosexuals. You can NOT enforce it for one group and let the
>> majority of people just "slide"...
>
Oh, clueless ignoramus..... supply us with the exact US Supreme Court
case wherein "homosexual sodomy" was declared unconstitutional....
clueless is as clueless does!
haffs==clueless==ignoramus
JTEM
Let Freedom Ring <lub...@river.it.gvsu.edu> wrote:
> Then you will support the use of vouchers because if the public
>schools are going to teach ( and they will) that homosexuality is a
>" another lifestyle" and since you want me to mind my own business I will
>ask you do the same and let me put my kids in schools that teach what I
>believe.
>Correct?
1) Homosexuality isn't a lifestyle. Never has been, never will be.
Homosexuals are defined by their attractions, not what you or anyone else
imagines about their lives.
2) Taxpayer money supports the public schools. Homosexuals pay taxes just
like everybody else. Reality is that homosexuals are part of your
community, with some even having children in your public school system.
3) Vouchers are backed by taxpayer money.
4) You are asking taxpayers to subsidize their own marginalization. You
are asking to use a community's money in an attempt at perpetuating harm
to members of that very same community.
Screw vouchers.
John
--
JT...@SUNSPOT.TIAC.NET
John De Salvio
In article <Pine.HPP.3.95.97020...@river.it.gvsu.edu>,
Let Freedom Ring <lub...@river.it.gvsu.edu> wrote:
> Then you will support the use of vouchers because if the public
> schools are going to teach ( and they will) that homosexuality is a
> " another lifestyle" and since you want me to mind my own business I will
> ask you do the same and let me put my kids in schools that teach what I
> believe.
You can do that anytime you want. Just take up another collection
to support the school you choose, like it's been done by many other
religions for many years.
Just don't expect me to support your religious doctrine with my taxes.
Patrick L. Humphrey
In article <Pine.HPP.3.95.97020...@river.it.gvsu.edu> Right from the Beginning <ha...@river.it.gvsu.edu> writes:
>Well only homosexual sodomy acts have been declared unconstitutional.
I'll ask you, "Shawn" -- precisely when and where were they declared
unconstitutional? I want the court case and numbers.
In the meantime, if your fantasy (of -only- homosexual acts being declared
unconstitutional) were true...wouldn't that in itself be unconstitutional,
since it's clearly decreeing unequal treatment under the law?
Whether you like it or not, some heterosexuals are into sodomy, as well. Why
is that okay if it's between two people of different gender, but
-unconstitutional- (well, according to one loud-mouthed little jackass and his
faithful pawn at GVSU, anyway) if the two people are of the same gender?
--PLH, watch Shawn and his shadow run from these questions...he's nothing if
not predictable.
Steve Harris
Right from the Beginning <ha...@river.it.gvsu.edu> wrote:
>On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, Steve Harris wrote:
>> Let Freedom Ring <lub...@river.it.gvsu.edu> wrote:
>> > Thats right because under current Michigan law sodomy is illegal.
>>
>> <<<<<<That's why laws change...>>>>>>>> See, acts of sodomy are also performed by
>> heterosexuals. You can NOT enforce it for one group and let the
>> majority of people just "slide"...
>Well only homosexual sodomy acts have been declared unconstitutional.
WHAT the hell difference does THAT make? Its still ALL illegal and
carries the SAME penalties. You CAN'T set double-standards... It
only "works" that way in a communist state. We've all SEEN the
results of that. You haven't denied that its illegal for straight
people to practice sodomy, as well. You CAN'T deny it because you
know that it IS. So you're trying to come back with... "Well, your
sodomy is more illegal than my sodomy". I KNOW you can do better than
that. Thanks.
>Shawn James Haff
Steve Harris
Let Freedom Ring <lub...@river.it.gvsu.edu> wrote:
>> > " ...deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the
>> >Governed..."
>>
>> Which is fine, but that does not mean that the majority can decide
>> what is right for everyone, which is where those "inalienable" rights
>> come in.
>>
> You are greatly mistaken in your use of our unalienable rights
>found in the Dec. of Ind. There are certain rights that are not be taken
>from us. The best example is the Bill of Rights ( the first 10).
Still doesn't mean that laws apply to SOME people but not OTHERS.
>> > I recommend that you look at Blackstone's "Commentaries on the
>> >Laws of England" we have certain rights that no gov't can take away.
>> >The rest the people decide.
>>
>> I recommend you read George Orwell's "Animal Farm". Enlightening
>> little story.
>>
> Been there, done that. Now lets see if you can read some of the
>sources that I have mentioned before ( Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist
>Papers, etc, etc.). These books will give some much needed history
>lessons and reasons that we should have a small gov't.
I'm ALL for small government... You're the one that wants them to
control everything right down to BEDROOM ACTIVITIES.
>> the past, learn from it and move on. Before you make such a ludicrous
>> request again, please take time to think... Turn the tables for a
>> moment, and ask yourself if YOU could fulfill such a request. You
>> want to know what would end this "problem" ALTOGETHER? Mind your OWN
>> business,
> Then you will support the use of vouchers because if the public
>schools are going to teach ( and they will) that homosexuality is a
>" another lifestyle" and since you want me to mind my own business I will
>ask you do the same and let me put my kids in schools that teach what I
>believe.
>Correct?
>
No... What I'm suggesting, is that RIGHT NOW, if you wanted to, based
on YOUR religious beliefs, you could have YOUR CHILD(ren) EXCUSED from
class during discussion/teaching on the topic. There is no need to go
through such an expense. Thanks.
Tony Quirke
> > A *church*, an organisation for religious purposes, focused on its
> > participants and needing nothing more than the freedom to organise has a
> > limited set of necessary rights and responsibilities. Fundamentally, these
> > are the freedom to religion and the responsibility to allow the freedom
> > to and from religion. Thus the seperation of church and state.
> > A *business*, despite the sophistical idealism of Rand and her
> > followers, is an organisation which is far more entwined with the greater
> > civil society. It requires coherent networks of support from society
> > (whether these be physical, legal or political) and in return must be held
> > accountable for the responsibilities inherent in their greater role in
> > that society. Where society considers unequal economic opportunity to be a
> > problem, it is reasonable to expect businesses to be part of the solution.
> I believe that there are instances in which it is not clear as to whether
> a business is bound by it's responsibility to the general public which it
> serves or whether it is a part of a church.
As far as I'm concerned, if it enjoys limited liability, it is a
business and should act like one.
I'd be quite happy if people were allowed to be as bigoted and foolish
in their business dealings as they liked - provided they *owned* the
business themselves and took *all* the liability for their actions.
> The previous reference was a Christian Book store (which may want to
> have "Christian" sales people) since the products may religious in
> nature or religious in theme. The person there did not want to hire
> homosexuals.
And was it incorporated (meaning that it was granted the privilege of
being a seperate legal entity from this person) ?
Right from the Beginning
On Mon, 3 Feb 1997, Ward Stewart wrote:
> Right from the Beginning <ha...@river.it.gvsu.edu> wrote:
>
> >They don't have that right. This is why the Gipper said, Governenment is
> >not the solution to our problems, it is the problem.
>
> This must be why you are insisting that the federal
> government must involve itself in the privacies of my life.
> It is a notion so stupid that it will, all but inevitably,
> result in the diminuition of the federal government.
Ward, I have always said let the States make up their own minds as to what
kind of marriages they will allow. I have never called for the Federal
government involve itself. I have said, let the states make up their own
minds. If the people of your state want Gay marriages fine. But don't
tell the rest of the States hey, you have to agree to what we call
marriage.
Shawn James Haff
http://www2.gvsu.edu/~haffs
I regret that I have but one life to give for my country. Nathan Hale.
Let Freedom Ring
> Whether you like it or not, some heterosexuals are into sodomy, as well. Why
> is that okay if it's between two people of different gender, but
> -unconstitutional- (well, according to one loud-mouthed little jackass and his
> faithful pawn
You guys really can't stand it that GVSU ( a public unversity) has
two hard-core conseratives can you?
at GVSU, anyway) if the two people are of the same gender?
>
> --PLH, watch Shawn and his shadow run from these questions...he's nothing if
> not predictable.
I grouped my response to you and the rest of the gang, so please
check it out.
Right from the Beginning
On 4 Feb 1997, Patrick L. Humphrey wrote:
> In article <Pine.HPP.3.95.97020...@river.it.gvsu.edu> Right from the Beginning <ha...@river.it.gvsu.edu> writes:
>
> >Well only homosexual sodomy acts have been declared unconstitutional.
>
> I'll ask you, "Shawn" -- precisely when and where were they declared
> unconstitutional? I want the court case and numbers.
Your ignorance is a disgrace to the great state of Texas from which you
are from. What would your great gov. think of your ignorance? See below.
> In the meantime, if your fantasy (of -only- homosexual acts being declared
> unconstitutional) were true...wouldn't that in itself be unconstitutional,
> since it's clearly decreeing unequal treatment under the law?
"Chief Justice Burger put it nicely when he said, In Constitutional terms
there is no such thing as a fundamental right to commit homosexual
sodomy." States can, and do, as we do here in Michigan, have laws against
sodomy. Notice how Burger says, no constitutional right to commit
homosexual sodomy.! He made the point to bring out it was HOMOSEXUAL
SODOMY. Which the case was about. Notice he did not just say, sodomy,
which would have included heterosexual sodomy. Burger went on saying
Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian moral
and ethical standards. Burger described homosexual sodomy, as "the
infamous crime against nature, as an office of "deeper malignity" then
rape, a heinous act "The very mention of WHICH IS A DISGRACE TO HUMAN
NATURE' That is powerful! And it is very true, even today. We, in
Michigan, don't want to allow people to engage in that "infamouse crime
against nature" "The very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature.
> --PLH, watch Shawn and his shadow run from these questions...he's nothing if
> not predictable.
Run, I"ve been in your sorry face the whole time Pat, and I'm going to
continue it if you spit up your typical nonsense.
Let Freedom Ring
> > You are greatly mistaken in your use of our unalienable rights
> >found in the Dec. of Ind. There are certain rights that are not be taken
> >from us. The best example is the Bill of Rights ( the first 10).
>
> Still doesn't mean that laws apply to SOME people but not OTHERS.
Mr. Harris correct me if I am wrong but I do not believe Congress
has to live under the laws that they make ( granted the Contract with
America changed a little bit of that).
> > Been there, done that. Now lets see if you can read some of the
> >sources that I have mentioned before ( Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist
> >Papers, etc, etc.). These books will give some much needed history
> >lessons and reasons that we should have a small gov't.
>
> I'm ALL for small government... You're the one that wants them to
> control everything right down to BEDROOM ACTIVITIES.
Since when did I ever ask for greater gov't control?
> > Then you will support the use of vouchers because if the public
> >schools are going to teach ( and they will) that homosexuality is a
> >" another lifestyle" and since you want me to mind my own business I will
> >ask you do the same and let me put my kids in schools that teach what I
> >believe.
> >Correct?
> >
>
> No... What I'm suggesting, is that RIGHT NOW, if you wanted to, based
> on YOUR religious beliefs, you could have YOUR CHILD(ren) EXCUSED from
> class during discussion/teaching on the topic. There is no need to go
> through such an expense. Thanks.
>
That will not always be the case though in fact the high school I
went toyed around forcing everyone to take " sex" ed. And that will
probably be case in every school in the near future. So lets go to the
voucher system now and not put it off until it is to late.
Right from the Beginning
On Mon, 3 Feb 1997, Coronal wrote:
> Right from the Beginning wrote:
> > Well only homosexual sodomy acts have been declared unconstitutional.
> >
> > Shawn James Haff
>
> A little clarification is in order here. Bowers v. Hardwick ( I assume
> that you are
> referring to that case) said nothing about sodomous acts per se, but
> rather that
> state sodomy laws were constitutional.
I may have been incorrect in using the term un-constitutional.
If there is no Constitutional right to engage in homosexual sodomy as
Burger said, is that the same as saying it is un-constitutional in court
language?
Furthermore, I doubt that the
> ruling will
> stand in the long run. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to reverse the 11th
> Circuit's
> decision striking down Georgia's sodomy law. Originally, the justices
> were going
> to vote 5-4 to uphold the ruling, but Chief Justice Burger twisted Lewis
> Powell's
> arm and got him to change his vote. He (Powell) later regretted his
> decision,
> calling it one of the worst he'd ever made.
From what he wrote about it, he thought it may have been un-constitutional
because it violates the 8th amendment. Did he state that he beleved there
was a constitutional right to engaged in homo. sodomy? Even Blackmun said
the case was "No more about a fundamental right to engaged in homosexual
sodomy" and he was against it.
As I understand it, there is
> another
> case in Georgia challenging the state's sodomy law. In the end, I think
> that
> B.v.H. wil be overturned.
Maybe, There are four justices that I think would be against it. There
other five I"m not sure. It will be interesting to see what they come up
with.
Shawn
Let Freedom Ring
> > Then you will support the use of vouchers because if the public
> > schools are going to teach ( and they will) that homosexuality is a
> > " another lifestyle" and since you want me to mind my own business I will
> > ask you do the same and let me put my kids in schools that teach what I
> > believe.
>
> to support the school you choose, like it's been done by many other
> religions for many years.
Let me expand on this a little more. If I were to send to my kids
to a private school right now I would have to pay for the tution and the
money that usually comes out my paycheck (state taxes) will also go to pay
for someone's else kid in the public school system. So about instead I
keep my money and you keep your money and then where ever I decide to put
my kids I can use my own money for that school and you can use your money
for whatever school you decide to send your kid too.
>
> Just don't expect me to support your religious doctrine with my taxes.
I would ask same of you.
John Sanger
In article <Pine.HPP.3.95.970204...@river.it.gvsu.edu> Right from the Beginning <ha...@river.it.gvsu.edu> writes:
>On 4 Feb 1997, Patrick L. Humphrey wrote:
>
>> In article <Pine.HPP.3.95.97020...@river.it.gvsu.edu> Right from the Beginning <ha...@river.it.gvsu.edu> writes:
>>
>>
>> unconstitutional? I want the court case and numbers.
>Your ignorance is a disgrace to the great state of Texas from which you
>are from. What would your great gov. think of your ignorance? See below.
>
Actually it is you who is the ignorant one here....
>
>
>> In the meantime, if your fantasy (of -only- homosexual acts being declared
>> unconstitutional) were true...wouldn't that in itself be unconstitutional,
>> since it's clearly decreeing unequal treatment under the law?
>"Chief Justice Burger put it nicely when he said, In Constitutional terms
>there is no such thing as a fundamental right to commit homosexual
>sodomy." States can, and do, as we do here in Michigan, have laws against
>sodomy. Notice how Burger says, no constitutional right to commit
>homosexual sodomy.! He made the point to bring out it was HOMOSEXUAL
>SODOMY. Which the case was about. Notice he did not just say, sodomy,
>which would have included heterosexual sodomy. Burger went on saying
>Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian moral
>and ethical standards. Burger described homosexual sodomy, as "the
>infamous crime against nature, as an office of "deeper malignity" then
>rape, a heinous act "The very mention of WHICH IS A DISGRACE TO HUMAN
>NATURE' That is powerful! And it is very true, even today. We, in
>Michigan, don't want to allow people to engage in that "infamouse crime
>against nature" "The very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature.
>
If you would bother reading what Burger did say he said it as an
individual member of the court in his concuring opinion. That in no way
makes homosexual sodomy unconstitutional.... it is only the opinion of a
single justice of the court.....
John Simpson
On Tue, 4 Feb 1997 23:21:22 -0500, Let Freedom Ring
<lub...@river.it.gvsu.edu> said unto us:
>...So about instead I keep my money and you keep your money and then where
>ever I decide to put my kids I can use my own money for that school and you can
>use your money for whatever school you decide to send your kid too.
Theoretically, at least, a public education system is an asset to
a society, hence the judgement that all taxpayers must contribute,
including folks like me who have no children. Those whose children
are long since out of school must also pay into the system.
I find it ironic to read prescriptions for the educational system
written by people (college students!) who write so poorly. A good
school, in my opinion, would at least teach the proper spelling of
"wherever" and "to," and would probably offer valuable tips on the use
of commas.
Peace,
John Simpson
fe...@mindspring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~feste
----------------------------------------------------
"A crowded elevator smells different to a dwarf."
JTEM
Let Freedom Ring <lub...@river.it.gvsu.edu> wrote:
> If I were to send to my kids
>to a private school right now I would have to pay for the tution and the
>money that usually comes out my paycheck (state taxes) will also go to pay
>for someone's else kid in the public school system.
Just as the money comes out of childless people's paychecks. Correct.
> So about instead I
>keep my money and you keep your money and then where ever I decide to put
>my kids I can use my own money for that school and you can use your money
>for whatever school you decide to send your kid too.
Why doesn't everybody in america buy a car so we can stop spending all
that money on public transportation?
Public schools serve a function. They provide for a society. Even if the
kids learn only enough to read simple english, it gives us a usefull labor
source/force. Without it, even the simplist reminder (WASH HANDS BEFORE
LEAVING) goes without notice and, ultimately, presents a health hazard to
you.
So let's not pretend that we're going to get rid of public education any
time soon. While we're at it, let's not pretend any cost you may absorb
for the education of your own child is any more of a burden than what
childless taxpayers are/have been/always will be paying.
> I would ask same of you.
You got that a loooooooooooooooooooooooong time ago. Isn't it about time
you made good on your end of the bargain?
John