Posted on 05/31/2004 10:17:55 PM PDT by neverdem
With a credential like that, what the hell could possibly go wrong for him?
Her?
Shim?
It?
No, I think they actually get far less research money.
To reject such a huge number of people out of hand feels wrong, like rejecting someone for having cancer or diabetes. That sort of discrimination, however understandable, long ago earned a name in the gay community: viral apartheid.
These people are suicidal.
To reject such a huge number of people out of hand feels wrong, like rejecting someone for having cancer or diabetes. That sort of discrimination, however understandable, long ago earned a name in the gay community: viral apartheid.
These people are suicidal.
So, were you disappointed he was 33?
See "Supersize Me" and you'll have the same feelings towards fast food eaters. And let's not even mention the smokers.I loved that film. And I am a right-wing, free-market, anti-anti-corporate freak of the first order. What clinched it for me was the school where at-risk youths were fed only fresh, seasonal, whole foods, with no extra sugar, salt, fat, or preservatives. Their behavior improved markedly. I cringe when I recall what I ate as a child, all the sugar and fat and heavily processed crap, and I cringe as I recall all of my behavior problems! Of course, watching the film-maker slowly bloat like a corpse was convincing too.
I haven't seen the film, but after Roger & Me and Bowling For Columbine, I would be wary of accepting the assertions of anti-corporate documentary films as gospel.
I was just trying to be accurate when distinguishing the difference between the quick death of E. Coli and the slow death of HIV/AIDS. But even that flawed analogy is better than equating eating Quarter Pounders with choosing to have sex with someone with a terminal sexually transmitted disease.
You can eat greasy burgers for years without life-threatening results (although not all day every day, like the guy in Supersize Me). It's only truly death-dealing if one eats a tainted burger, something that hasn't happened in years in the USA (Fast Food Nation notwithstanding). Similarly, it only takes one tainted anus to put you in the AIDS club.
For over two decades, a large percentage of American homosexual men have steadfastly refused to significantly change their sexual habits in the face of AIDS, yet have implied it is the fault of the remainder of society for not taking proper care of them. On the other hand, most smokers who looked dead on at the Surgeon General's warning know that the fault for their bad lungs lies with them, and even more reject the idea that the government should protect them from their Big Mac Attacks.
What is that percentage?
I couldn't tell you a particular percentage that could be backed up statistically; it is a personal observation.
I can tell you from a lifetime San Franciscan's point-of-view that from this city eastward throughout the United States, AIDS is not thought of as a deadly disease as much as it is thought of as a threat to a promiscuous lifestyle -- and the absurdity of Tuller's honestly comparing a contagious disease like HIV with cancer and diabetes cements that fact.
Tell me candidly, sakic: does the concept of "viral apartheid" make a bit of sense to you?
Don't chicken out.
If by that phrase you mean screening out those that are infected from other homosexuals as a government enforced program, no. I think those sorts of decisions should be up to the individual.
Stop playing dumb, sakic. Quit with the straw men. You read Tuller's definition of "viral apartheid." Does it make any sense to you, or does it not?
"To reject such a huge number of people out of hand feels wrong, like rejecting someone for having cancer or diabetes. That sort of discrimination, however understandable, long ago earned a name in the gay community: viral apartheid."
I, personally, if I was homosexual, would reject HIV positive partners. I still don't understand your question, even if that does make me dumb.
You're not trying at all.
Aside from attempting to annoy me I still haven't figured out what you want.
An answer to this question: Does the concept of "viral apartheid" make a bit of sense to you?
Since you want me to believe that you have trouble understanding, let me explain it to you further so you have no excuse: Either you believe a person who thinks eliminating someone -- ANYONE -- with HIV as a prospective sexual partner "...feels wrong, like rejecting someone for having cancer or diabetes," is making sense, or you believe that person is not making sense. It's that simple.
This is a 'yes or no' question. I don't believe you are too stupid to understand the question. Display the intellectual honesty to answer it as it was asked, without amending the question putting the government or 'If I was homosexual' into the mix.
Are you going to answer the question, or make it three chicken-outs in a row?
Steeeeerike Three! YER OUUUUUT!
The population of homosexuals in the US is about 1% and the population of monogamous homosexuals is pitifully small.
Most monogamous homosexuals consider 5 outside partners a year as being faithful.
About 28% of male homosexuals have an average of 500 sexual partners in a life time.
They pretend their behavior has nothing to do with sexually transmitted diseases.
\
Male Homosexuality is all about volume, volume, volume.
You doesn't know.
AIDS is not spreading among heterosexuals; it is marginally keeping apace, only the inflated and unreliable numbers out of Africa lend a patina of truth to this broad-brush paint job.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.