Skip to comments.Kinsolving: "Will Bishop-elect Robinson and his male lover be tested for HIV-AIDS?"
Posted on 08/12/2003 5:25:14 PM PDT by churchillbuff
Will Bishop-elect Robinson and his male lover be tested for HIV-AIDS?
by Les Kinsolving
Along with the enormous Big Media coverage of the Episcopal House of Bishops approving the election of an active homosexual with a male lover to be bishop of New Hampshire, there was nearly eclipsed news in neighboring Massachusetts.
The Associated Press reported from Boston:
The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston has offered $55 million to settle more than 500 clergy sex-abuse lawsuits, documents indicate.
A recent report from the state attorney general estimated that more than 1,000 children were abused over six decades.
The crisis was touched off by Cardinal Law's admission that he had reassigned former priest John Geoghan despite accusations of sex abuse. But it quickly mushroomed as similar cases were brought to light, and then spread to other dioceses as Catholics demanded greater accountability for their leaders.
In September 2002, the Church reached a $10 million settlement with 86 victims of Geoghan after a previous settlement deal for between $20 million and $30 million collapsed.
Since former Father Geoghan belonged to the North American Man-Boy Love Association, the nation's primary organization of homosexual pederast child molesters, it may be wondered why on earth people in the neighboring state of New Hampshire would be willing to tear their Episcopal-Anglican Church apart by electing a sodomist bishop?
In New York, there was further news, which begs the question of whether Bishop-Elect Robinson and his lover Mark Andrew have ever been tested for HIV-AIDS.
The New York Times reports:
Most New Yorkers with multiple sexual partners do not know whether they are infected with HIV and more than 40 percent did not use condoms the last time they had sex, according to what city officials say is the most comprehensive survey ever conducted of the city's sexual habits.
Among all the New Yorkers surveyed, the poll found that 26 percent used a condom the last time they had sex, and that 26 percent had been tested for HIV in the preceding 18 months.
Of men who had sex with men, 45 percent said they used a condom the last time they had sex.
"That's the really disturbing thing, that the population that is at highest risk, really is not taking the steps to protect themselves and other," said Dr. Farzad Mostashari, an assistant health commissioner.
AIDS deaths in New York City have dropped sharply from a mid-1990's peak of 8,000 people each year, thanks in part to new classes of antiviral drugs. But contrary to perception, the disease has continued to kill people in large numbers, including 1,774 in the city in 2001. Among illnesses, only cardiovascular diseases, cancers and pneumonia and influenza caused more deaths.
80,000 people in New York City have tested positive for HIV, and an unknown number have the virus but do not know it, according to city health officials.
The Times also published Actor Harvey Feinstein of Hairspray's op-ed column headlined "THE CULTURE OF DISEASE," which includes the following:
There are too many positive gay role models. In fighting the AIDS crisis over the last 20 years, we have done everything possible to dispel the negative connotations that come with having HIV. After all, it's been our brothers and sisters, our boyfriends and girlfriends, and ourselves who have been discriminated against because of a virus.
So we produced advertising, created enlightenment programs, spent endless hours making certain that having AIDS or being HIV positive was nothing to be ashamed of. We did a great job. Maybe too great a job. After all the effort exerted to convince the world that AIDS is not a gay disease, we now have a generation embracing AIDS as its gay birthright.
According to figures just released by the Centers for Disease Control, the number of new AIDS cases rose last year for the first time in a decade. Four Americans now become infected with the disease every hour. Many of our young men see infection as a right of passage, an inevitable coming of age. I hear of them seeking the disease as entree into the cool, queer inner circle that being negative denies them.
In our effort to remove the stigma of having AIDS, have we created a culture of disease? We all see the ads for HIV drugs. They illustrate hot muscular men living life to the fullest thanks to modern science. Other ads show couples holding hands, sending the message that the road to true love and happiness is being HIV positive.
Is that message: You're going to be OK? (Which is terrific.) Or is it: You want to be special? Get AIDS. HIV equals popularity and acceptance. (Which would be tragic.)
My heart goes out to all who have the infection. But while I pledge my energies and resources to the fight for a cure, quality care and justice, I still think we need to examine what we're teaching our gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual and straight youth. In my opinion, the messages the drug companies are spreading are lies. The truth is that AIDS is not fun. It's not sexy or manageable. AIDS is a debilitating, deforming, terminal and incurable disease. HIV drugs can bring on heart, kidney and liver disease, as well as a host of daily discomforts.
Unlike the photos in the ads we see, most of my friends who are on drug cocktails are not having the time of their lives. They spend mornings in the bathroom throwing up or suffering from diarrhea. They spend afternoons at doctor's appointments, clinics and pharmacies. And they spend endless evenings planning their estates and trying to make ends meet because they are not well enough to support themselves and their new drug habit. And those are just the friends for whom the drugs work. For many women, the cocktails are nothing but a drain on finance, internal organs and stamina.
Even if the drugs were as effective as advertised, should we be creating a community of drug dependency?
I am calling for us to take back our lives and culture and to stop spreading the virus. I am calling for us to resist the normalization of disease and once again embrace health. I'm calling for an end to the false advertising for drugs and for us to stop minimizing the infection with cute little names like "the gift" or "the bug."
Les Kinsolving hosts a daily talk show for WCBM in Baltimore. His radio commentaries are syndicated nationally. He is White House correspondent for Talk Radio Network and WorldNetDaily. His show can be heard on the Internet at www.wcbm.com 8-10 p.m. Eastern each weekday. Before going into broadcasting, Kinsolving was a newspaper reporter and columnist twice nominated for the Pulitzer Prize for his commentary.
Because they're morons.
And to think that stupid me would have attributed the drop to attrition..
Davis Don Carpenter and Joshua McCabe Brown -- if he can spring them from prison.
Can this country get any sicker?
Indeed. Thanks, xzins. Check out the stats everybody.
|Homosexual Agenda Index|
|Homosexual Agenda Keyword Search|
|All FreeRepublic Bump Lists|
A simple freepmail is all it takes to subscribe or unsubscribe from my homosexual agenda ping list.
There's something that needs repeating.
AIDS is a gay disease. It's been documented some gays are bug chasers. Sure, the 25% figure is in dispute, but that doesn't take away from the fact some gays seek to get and others seek to provide AIDS to those who don't have it. The film Acting Up documents the sad situation.
More evidence - from the horse's mouth, so to speak, that "bug chasers" do exist. It seems every time someone posted an article about "bug chasers" there would be people saying that it was all lies. Here's a queer himself admitting that poor sick f**ks go around trying to get AIDS.
Like all things homosexual (or perverse), if you can't beat your opponents' arguments against your agenda, NORMALIZE it.
Yes there are. What I think happened is somebody said the story was bogus when the 25% figure is really the number in dispute, not the entire story. There's no denying the fact that bug chasers do exist. The film Acting Up documents bug chasers as well.
Netti's post seem to come across that way. The facts say the number of HIV+ and syhilis cases is on the rise in the gay community. Here's some links on gays and syphilis:
Doctors say the patients are mostly gay men and about 40 percent of them contracted syphilis after having sex with men they met on the Internet in sex chat rooms.Gay Men Meeting Online Contracting Syphilis Faster
U.S. cities known for their large gay populations such as San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles, and Miami have seen sharp increases in syphilis cases recently but have not reached the height seen in 1982 before AIDS tempered promiscuous behavior.Syphilis in gay men raises AIDS concern
New York City officials reported cases of syphilis more than doubled last year, primarily due to an outbreak among men who have sex with other men.Syphilis outbreak among L.A. gay men in 2002 leads to calls for more testing
The number of syphilis cases reported by gay and bisexual men in Los Angeles County has increased 62% in 2002, representing 360 new cases so far this year, officials said.
I must say that I do not find it incendiary or overtly biased. His points are well taken. I see the posters on the METRO every day with all the beautiful people telling me that AIDS can be handled. It can't. I'm paying $$$ for it. And I would dearly like to see just poster showing the real faces of AIDS -- puking, sick, weak, dying, impoverished, unhappy men.
FYI. I have no problems bing called "biased" as defined by websters. ie. person preference.
Not only that, but a good half of this article was written by someone else-- Harvey Fierstein.
That's not treasure in my book. I'd call this one a definite miss.
Kinsolving is the only one in major media that has the stones to even ask the question.
He regularly does this at white house press briefings as well.
To whom are you referring when you say "both?"
And your second question would be more appropriately worded "Do you?" Your position is not priviledged. If I do not see a bias, it does not necessarily follow that my reading skills or analysis are faulty.
That said, the author no doubt writes from a particular point of view and he writes to defend that view. That he does so does not make him biased or incendiary. Failure to agree with you is not synonymous with moral or intellectual error. Lighten up.
Exactly. Asking for a test after the barn door has been opened is irrelevant at this time. The point is Robinson is now in a even higher position in the church and is defiantly breaking God's law. It's disgusting to think this scum will be ministering to the people. I'm curious what his message will be... never mind, we already know it's Satan's work. Anyone check under his mitre for numbers?
Reminds me of a story by Hemmingway's friend and biographer(nver can remember his name, but it doesn't matter). He reports Hemmingway in Cuba saying that he was in such a goood mood that he could make love to every woman in the world. His friend replied that evertime he felt that way he ended up with the clap. The wages of sin may not always be death, but at least it results in a hang-over.
Reminds me of another story, not so humorous: My Dad was ill during WWII of "blood-poisoning." He almost died, but pulled through because he had a strong constitution. His surgeon tried to get some penicillian because it had showed such great results. But it so happened there was a shortage. Virtually every dram was going to the many army camps in Texas to fight you know what.
Ahhh... Got it.
However, the rest of your reasoning is still off base. I COULD recognize the bias in both the METRO posters and the article if, in fact, there WERE bias to perceive in both. Point out what you see as biased and then ask me if I agree. Even if I don't agree, it does not follow that I cannot reason since well-intentioned adults can disagree in sincerity. On the whole, I'm just not convinced that the article's author is anywhere near as far from reality as the poster's creators are.