Skip to comments.STOP AIDS BY STOPPING THE SINS
Posted on 05/23/2002 1:46:16 PM PDT by RWBaral
STOP AIDS BY STOPPING THE SINS
I write as Chairman of the non-profit organization, "Be informed! Lessen suffering! Save lives!, inc." The mission of BLS is "to promote the public health, education, understanding and virtue." I wish to share how we can all help stop the terrible disease of AIDS in America.
It is heartening to know that many are concerned about the suffering and dying from AIDS, and of events to raise money to help AIDS patients. However, such AIDS fundraising events are not an answer to stopping this horrific disease. Rather, let's tell the truth about AIDS. Stop AIDS by stopping the sins that have caused atleast 88% of AIDS cases in the USA. Allow me to explain.
As a career hospital Paramedic and then emergency room Nurse over about 20 years, I have seen so much suffering and death, often self-inflicted and avoidable. For such things my heart and soul break beyond human words. Some of these were AIDS patients.
I note certain activists, industries and politicians - often willingly - are ignorant of the FACTS of who is at risk for contracting HIV and thus what we can do to prevent it's spread. Politics and money over the health and welfare of people? It shouldn't happen, but it does.
Consider the US Centre for Disease Control (CDC) table 5 US AIDS totals for men and both genders to 12/31/2000 for exposure categories: men who have sex with men (MSM); intravenous grug abusers (IVDA); both MSM and IVDA; heterosexual contacts, etc (www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr1202table5.htm).
For US male AIDS cases, 56% are MSM; 22% are IVDA; 8% are MSM and IVDA; 5% are heterosexual contacts.
For US both genders AIDS cases, 46% are MSM; 25% are IVDA; 6% are MSM and IVDA; 11% are heterosexual contacts. 46% + 25% + 6% + 11%=88%.
Further, so called "safe sex" is a medical lie. The Physicians Consortium reports that, even if male latex condoms are used 100% perfectly all of the time, they are no more effective against HIV infection than 85% (www.headlines.agapepress.org/archives/7/252001b.asp).
So what does this data tell us? The truth. Avoid homosexual relations. Do not use intravenous drugs. Do not be sexually promiscuous. Stop the at risk behaviours, and you stop most HIV infections.
Translated: simple! The answers to stopping most US HIV infections, and thus AIDS cases, are morality and marriage. GOD gives us His Moral Code (ex Ten Commandments) and the institution of marriage because He loves us, wants to protect us, and see us flourish and be happy.
Thus, do not engage in forbidden sexual perversions that will cost you your earthly body and the damnation of your eternal soul. Keep your body clean and don't mess with drugs. Abstinence until marriage, then marrige between one man and one woman, within a mutually faithful, loving, uninfected relationship, hopefully for life.
The days of consequence-free sexual debauchery, free love and casual sex are over (as if they ever really existed?). The sexually transmitted diseases you can acquire today in America too often can't be just taken care of with a few pills or a shot. AIDS is lethal, and there is not likely to be a cure - ever.
The AIDS fundraising events, etc are nice gestures, but the answer to stopping most HIV infections in AMerica is to avoid the risk factor exposure category behaviours of homosexual relations, intravenous drug use and sexual promiscuity. Stop AIDS by telling the truth. Stop AIDS bwith GOD's Moral Code and the blessings of marriage. "Stop AIDS by stopping the sins" is my humble prayer, in JESUS' Name, Amen.
GOD's Speed To All,
Mr. R. W. Baral, RN,CEN,EMT-P, Chairman, "Be informed! Lessen suffering! Save lives!, inc." Po Box 315 Bennington, VT 05201 email@example.com (802)-423-7636
You are obviously guilty of agreeing with God's plan for man and woman and using common sense.
The god of political correctness, to which you must bow, is not happy with your unrepentant "sin".
IOW, these activists are interested only in promoting homosexuality ("gay rights") and sexual mutilation ("transgenderism") as normal variants of human sexuality, not in helping people with AIDS.
So IMO, the answer to your question is, nothing could convince these miscreants to alter their behavior.
It seems to me to be pragmatic to not make it so hard for them to formalize a relationship somehow to stop much of the promescuity in that culture.
I never understood making more formalized (not marriage mind you) relationships between lesbians and gays difficult which encourages multiple partners, and then calling for an end to behavior causing further infections.
Seems to me the pandemic logistics take priority over some American's longtime past-time of waging a war against gays and lesbians.
You can't do the latter without hurting the effort to do the former.
If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck then it's a...?
...Quacker-backer? I'm not sure of your point here. Not to mention you are speaking to a graduate of the University of Oregon, whose mascot is the duck.
I've seen too many gorgious babes on the shoulders of many of our football players - whose team came in second in the nation - to think of those guys as worried about each other's rump. ;-)
Stop talking sense you Limey! The American media and public have no appetite for it.
It is more imporant to make allowances for social custom to slow this pandemic then it is to worry it will lead to marriage between gay and lesbians.
Every additional infected person endangers - and costs - this nation. I would rather see gays and lesbians stick to one partner then to sleep around.
And the only way I see that happening is if there is the social incentive of some form of sanctioned social bond between these people.
Less of a culture of "sleeping around" in this sub-culture makes it less likely bi-sexual men will bring something home to their wives.
I am not saying my suggestion is perfect, but anything done to cut the rate of spread of HIV that works seems to me to be worth doing.
We are talking about inherently irrational actions committed by people without any moral-restraint. Your liberal ideas of promoting a perversion of marriage sounds good to uninformed ears, but really they are merely band-aids to a festering wound. So-called 'safe sex' used to be their big answer, until the sexual deviants bailed out on that as being 'too much trouble.' Now we have organizations such as 'Sex Panic' who are calling for MORE promiscuity rather than less. The only way to stop self-inflicted behavioral diseases is to stop the behaviors which cause them. The waste of taxpayer money is about as bad as the moral-liberal excuses for their evil behaviors.
God is infinite wisdom. Humanism is pure hubris, which always results in unneeded suffering and death.
I've said virtually the same thing for years- so I'll give you a bump to the top.
I understand it to mean that we don't want this crap perverting our culture in any way, shape, or form. Yes, making their relationships somehow formalized may cut down on their promiscuity, but not likely. If we somehow allow them a legalized, formal relationship, then we acknowledge that being gay is acceptable. Either way, we're screwed (ok, not the best choice of words for this topic).
This approach is analagous to the situation where a parent tells their teen that they don't want them drinking, and the teen says "well if you let me drink at home, then I won't get into trouble". That's not the point, the parent doesn't want ANY drinking. Just like we don't want ANY homosexual relationships going on. Giving in to a lesser evil is not a solution.
This "pandemic" is a self-inflicted result of their deviant lifestyle. It affects so few people who are not gay, IVDA, or promiscuous. I think we should cease treatment of AIDS and then see how many people continue to put themselves at risk. They are only spreading it among themselves, so let's just let them die off.
anything done to cut the rate of spread of HIV that works seems to me to be worth doing.
I think this solution would cut the spread of HIV, don't you? Is this worth doing? I sure like it a lot better than your idea.
Disclaimer: I don't really advocate this method. I only suggest it to prove a point.
And now we're spending millions on bring condoms to every corner of Africa. Regardless of morality, a promiscuous person using condoms will eventually get all sorts of venereal diseases, including AIDs. The only way to stop the AIDs epidemic is to convince people to forego sexual promiscuity. By selling the condom theory to everyone, we are just slowing down (and not by very much) the eventual spread of the disease to every part of the world that is sexually promiscuous.
Come on. Homosexuals can get 'married' in certain churches (like the Unitarian Church), they can have their 'unions' in Vermont, etc. At the end of the day, NOTHING prevents them from committing to be faithful to one another. But they don't. They are highly promiscuous, and (for homosexual men especially), their lives revolve around promiscuous sex.
The point is: Promiscuous homosexuality is exceedingly dangerous to your health. If you engage in that behavior, then take the consequences. Don't come running to the rest of society crying that it's our fault.
No. But they might not get the idea that what they're doing is right or moral or smart or acceptable. Our government (who is supposed to represent most Americans) has simply told gays to go out and do whatever they want, and that we'll pick up the tab. I'm tired of paying for their sexually promiscuous and filthy perversions.
Don't stick things where they don't belong!
What do you suppose "against nature" means?
You in the medical profession are brave souls. You try to help hurting people, knowing full well that one little slip, a cut, or a needle stick, can be a death sentence for you, largely because of the irresponsible behavior of some that you try to save.
The buck stops there.
If you have the ultimate control you have the ultimate responsibility.
I remember reading in Desmond Morris' book "The Naked Ape" about sexual imprinting and how much like the imprinting that causes a duck to take the first thing it sees as 'mom.' The lack of chioce in being a homosexual makes more sense to me then the thought anyone would deliberately chose this lifestyle so incomprehensible in so many ways to a hetrosexual.
In fact, Eugene, Oregon I understand has more lesbian couples per capita then any other West Coast city. And as I have three of these couples living in expensive, well groomed homes a stone's throw from mine, I believe it.
I refuse to treat anyone differently based on sexual preference. (Other then we have no need to explore sexual issues, and we would not find each other together in a bedroom of course.)
With all due respect, I have my suspisions that those scpegoating these people would have an inherent need to find another target group to go after if these folks did not exist. I have known people so intensely obsessed with homosexuals, that is all they will talk about. And that was a boresome drag(no pun intented).
I strongly detest people who victimize children who have not the tools for informed consent adiquate to be any sort of comsenting partner, but I am still not convinced pedophiles and homosexuals are the same thing.
I read these threads in this forum on this issue, then as in other issues I look to see what the other side says. And until I see empirical evidence as compelling as those studies that changed the classification of homosexuals from sickos to being normal folks with one big difference that harms nobody in the eyes of shrinks, I doubt seriously I will change my thinking on this issue.
Most influential to shaping my opinion was being picked on in High School by an idiot slurring me as a "faggot" to bully me and impress his girl. I know first hand how a label can harm the innocent.
His actions, and the 'blindness' of adults to the problem when they could have put this jerk in his place make me cagey about accepting obvious hatred and anger towards a group over well executed studies.
I would verbally dismantle a gay sending lustful signals my way. I would go way more postal on anyone dumb enough to use any term for homosexual in reference to me to my face. They would be in serious, very profound trouble.
Perhaps if I hadn't had this experiance I would be more alligned with your viewpoint. But I did. And I don't.
In any event, thanks for your perspective on this issue. I am sure you feel as sincere about your beliefs on this as I do.
If a study showed the behavior you attribute as an inate characteristic of homosexuals to exist with all "what came first, the chicken or the egg" factors adjusted for or nuetralized, what you contend would be much more convincing.
As a former intravenous drug user, all I can say is "DUH!"
Risky behavior = AIDS.
I just thank God I dodged that bullet. I stopped using needles in 1985 and subsequent tests have proven that I have neither AIDS nor HIV.
But, if I did, I would have no one to blame but myself.
Just what exactly do you mean by that? I will clarify my point. God is in control, however, He gave us free will, which means that we can do whatever we want. The problem is that He doesn't want us to do certain things, so He will punish us when we do those things. If we aren't aware of God's presence, we will make no connection between our actions and His punishment for them.
AIDS and other VD's are God's punishment for sexual immorality, IMO, the same way heart disease is punishment for gluttony and sloth (like LFD pointed out). So in a way, God is responsible for their AIDS because He allowed them to get it as punishment for their sins.
God is in control, whether you like it or not.
Interesting that you don't see the contradiction of these two sentances.
Castro has a free people, as long as they vote the way he wants them to.
Yes, we are free to do what we want, but we are not free of consequences. There is no such thing as a life without consequences. If you live according to what God wants, you probably won't get AIDS. I say "probably", because the story of Job comes to mind. However, Job didn't die because God wouldn't let Satan kill him. He said that Satan could harm him in any way, but couldn't take his life. This was all to test Job's dedication to God.
Read the story, or continue to be ignorant, either way it's your choice. If you read the Bible and then choose to not follow God, at least you'll be making an informed decision. You are free to choose God or to turn away from him. Both decisions have consequences. You may not realize the consequences until after you die, but they are waiting for you.
Ultimately, God is in control.
This old-fashioned language may offend some. Tough.
You know nothing of my knowledge of the Bible or God, and your ignorance has led you to make statements with no supporting information. A childish mistake, but one that I can forgive.
Unless you assume God has no knowledge of the consequences of His actions, He specifically created the fallen angel Satan, one of whose pre-ordained tasks was to torture poor Job. Conversely, God knew that Job would prevail in the trials, yet He still put poor Job through them. Even today's scientists would not put a lab rat through such an experiment , knowing with 100% certainty what the outcome would be.
Or perhaps you don't believe in an all-powerfull, all-knowing God.
So to answer your question, yes, I do believe that God is all-powerful and all-knowing. He knew what the result of Job's testing would be, but He did it anyway because we need to see and hear Job's testimony.
But we digress...
I know you will come back saying that God created Satan, so God did it indirectly. If you want to believe that, fine, but the point is that Satan did it, not God.
"He said that Satan could harm him in any way.."
Sure looks like He gave His permission to me ... Billy, you can do anything to your sister excpt hit her with the baseball bat...
Hitler didn't kill anyone either
( well, maybe in WW I, think he was a sargent )