Posted on 09/01/2017 7:09:05 AM PDT by rightwingintelligentsia
We were told that redefining marriage would do it. Well, two years later.....
Maybe they should stop using dirty needles and partaking in anal sex (among other perversions)? Have they ever thought of that?
Come on! Don’t people realize that banging up the butt is literally a super high risk way to contract HIV, not to mention banging a lot of others up the butt? Seriously, this is among the worst denials of reality I have ever heard.
“Ironically, and against the orthodox PC narrative, homosexuals as a whole were never healthier than when homosexual behavior was universally condemned.”
I would be willing to guess that back when it was considered unacceptable, people were more likely to be way more careful about it.
Or engaged in it much less, notwithstanding the urges.
“Or engaged in it much less, notwithstanding the urges.”
Exactly. Far less promiscuous, and less preference of a certain type of behavior would make disease far less prevalent.
Or libertarians
Or libertarians
I have not heard an alternative theory. That said, my post was more about consequences of behavior as it relates to science than HIV specifically.
“Are they still blaming “homophobia” in the South for the fact that homosexuals are so disease prone through their willful behavior?”
There are medical reasons for the greater ease of transmission through anal intercourse vice normal intercourse.
“What would you cite as the best evidence that HIV is the direct cause of AIDS?”
Has anyone ever had AIDS who was not infected with HIV?
“I would be willing to guess that back when it was considered unacceptable, people were more likely to be way more careful about it.”
If we are human beings, and they are human beings, then we must think it likely.
What human being would act as the OP asserts?
For example: Cervical cancer, invasive.
Assume you are diagnosed with that disease.
Case 1: You are HIV Positive. Diagnosis: You have AIDS.
Case 2: You are HIV Negative. Diagnosis: You DO NOT HAVE AIDS.
I mean mean really. This is nonsense. It has nothing to do with the science of HIV or AIDS or Cervical cancer. It is just a convenient definition. The color of your hair would do just as well. Given this would you research the HIV virus if you wanted to prevent cervical cancer in gays? I don't think so.
So the answer to your question about AIDS without HIV is that, by definition there will never be such a case. That's a defined truth. A worthless definition.
Do you really believe that HIV caused your cancer and an HIV cure would save your life?
Good luck with that.
Read my Post #53.
The original statement was from the Bible, and the death it is referring to is not the physical death of the body, but the death of the immortal soul and exclusion from eternal life.
It was a little tongue in cheek. He was saying that AIDS is not a punishment, and that homosexual sex is not a sin. But I would disagree with both points. AIDS is not a direct punishment, but when you sin you lose your way and bad things result in greater frequency. Sort of like when you drive off the road, and you find that the ride is not nearly as safe.
How much more of it “get[ting] better” can we take?
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.