Skip to comments.
Homosexuals help syphilis comeback (WND title)
Sacramento Bee (via WorldNetDaily) ^
| November 27, 2001
| Aurelio Rojas
Posted on 11/28/2001 11:00:46 AM PST by Stewart McKinney
Edited on 04/12/2004 5:31:57 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
LOS ANGELES -- Syphilis rates were at historic lows, and Los Angeles County was ahead of the federal government target for eliminating the ancient sexual scourge.
The disease had nearly disappeared in the county's gay population early last year when doctors at an AIDS Healthcare Foundation clinic began diagnosing the first of two dozen cases involving gay or bisexual men.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: andrewsullivanlist; homosexualagenda
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-144 next last
To: *Homosexual Agenda; *Andrew Sullivan list; Jimbaugh
FYI
To: Stewart McKinney
"Everyone I know knows I'm HIV positive, but only my therapist and best friend know I have syphilis," said Todd, who agreed to be interviewed on the condition his last name not be used. "It's not something anyone wants to admit." LOL!! Maybe if we came up with a ribbon for syphilis he'd feel better about himself. After all, a guy's got to have his dignity.
3
posted on
11/28/2001 11:07:57 AM PST
by
randog
To: OWK; NotTheDevil; Ruggers
Investigators discovered most men who contracted the disease shrugged off the lessons of the AIDS epidemic and had unprotected sex, often with multiple partners they did not know and met in public places or through the Internet.
What I find amazing is the attempt of the homosexual activists to be insisting that their lifestyle is just as 'normal' as anyone elses. Yet year after year we find out that some of their most respected leaders are leading lives that most Americans would find absolutely homicidal. If the point man on gay marriage, Andrew Sullivan, has had his own serious problems with even the most basic precautions against a 100% fatal disease, then what are we to believe about the even more liberal and sexually reckless homosexuals? Isn't this a lifestyle we need to condemn?
Comment #5 Removed by Moderator
To: randog
I'm amazed that this article came from a pretty liberal rag, The Sacramento Bee. Watch for the gay crowd to storm in here and scream 'HOMOPHOBES!' or 'gay-bashing bigots', but these are just medical realities being publicized. One wonders who the true friends of the homosexual community are if consevatives are the only ones who are willing to point out this stuff and attempt to help them. Enough is enough and homosexuals don't seem to have gotten the message that AIDS is 100% PREVENTABLE if they would take some personal responsibility and practice a little self control. Is that too much to ask?
To: Stewart McKinney
What I find amazing, is that a new poster seems to join FR every day, and then post and bump a bunch of homosexual crap to people he doesn't even know.
7
posted on
11/28/2001 11:24:23 AM PST
by
OWK
To: OWK
I think a more relevant question is how can you logically defend your lifestyle when garbage like this comes out in the news every week? We are to believe that you deserve the right to 'marry' and serve 'openly' in our military wearing your sexuality on your sleeves, yet when it comes to the ugly side of the gay lifstyle none of you seem to be able to defend yourselves. All you can do is cry 'boo-hoo, stop the mean homophobe' and file abuse reports. Yet nothing derogatory has been said at all. Why do you have to go off on a tangent instead of addressing the topic of homosexual decadence and irresponsibility?
To: JohnHuang2
FYI, here is another story the pro-homosexualists are trying to get banned. I wonder why?
To: Stewart McKinney
Okay, let's have it...Regal Eagle, Howard Jarvis, Roy Cohn, or Robert Baumann?
10
posted on
11/28/2001 11:33:12 AM PST
by
Cu Roi
To: OWK
I've noticed that myself. The guy a couple of days ago apparently had his thread pulled, so I can't look up his name. I can't figure out why the guy that posted this thread, who apparently doesn't have much use for homosexuals, cares that they are giving each other syphilis.
11
posted on
11/28/2001 11:33:20 AM PST
by
Jaxter
To: Stewart McKinney
A couple of facts... for the record.
1)I dig chicks...
2)Chicks dig me...
3)I am married to a chick...
4)We produced two wonderful and intelligent children...
5)I find the concept of homosexuality to be nauseating.
6)I do not promote it.
7)I do not recommend it.
8)I do however, recognize the right of consenting adults to engage it whatever private sexual behavior they choose. Government has no business dictating the private sexual actions of consenting adults. You may wish otherwise... but this nation does not need cops knocking down bedroom doors making sure two homosexuals aren't engaged in some activity you don't like.
Hope that clears things up for you.
12
posted on
11/28/2001 11:35:10 AM PST
by
OWK
To: Jaxter
I can't figure out why the guy that posted this thread, who apparently doesn't have much use for homosexuals, cares that they are giving each other syphilis. I agree. The obsession some people have with this subject is, well, queer, for lack of a better word.
13
posted on
11/28/2001 11:36:50 AM PST
by
Cu Roi
To: Stewart McKinney
To: Jaxter
I've noticed that myself. The guy a couple of days ago apparently had his thread pulled, so I can't look up his name. I can't figure out why the guy that posted this thread, who apparently doesn't have much use for homosexuals, cares that they are giving each other syphilis. 1) Poster joins FR.
2) Poster floods board with posts about homosexuals.
3) Poster bumps the same people, implying that they are homosexual.
4) Poster gets banned.
5) Poster repeats steps 1 through 4 on the next day.
15
posted on
11/28/2001 11:39:18 AM PST
by
OWK
To: Stewart McKinney
"Isn't this a lifestyle we need to condemn? "
Can't we all just get along?
To: OWK
It was NEVER a good idea to sleep around profusely - gay or straight. You cannot deny that there is a prevalent strain in the gay community which seems to cherish sleeping around profusely beyond any other consideration.
Very well, they can do as they please, so long as it doesn't hurt others. That means, preventing them from contributing to the blood supply as a high risk group, full disclosure of HIV infected personnel in medical professions, and switch off the tap of public funds to help them. Because quite frankly, unlike cholera or yellow fever or many of the great epidemics of past centuries, transmission is entirely dependent upon personal behaviour. If they haven't the sense to see they are committing suicide, the rest of the public should not have to pay for it.
Are you seriously going to object?
Regards, Ivan
17
posted on
11/28/2001 11:44:22 AM PST
by
MadIvan
To: Stewart McKinney
"Sens. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and Bill Frist, R-Tenn., have introduced a bill that would provide $3.2 billion to fund an array of public health defense programs." Oh, brother. For victory & freedom!!!
Comment #19 Removed by Moderator
To: MadIvan
If they haven't the sense to see they are committing suicide, the rest of the public should not have to pay for it. You won't find me supporting ANY socialist expenditures... for ANY reason.
Just as men should be free to choose their own path (provided they do not violate the rights of others in the process)... they should also be free to suffer the consequences of their poor choices alone... without infringing on their neighbors to subsidize their stupidity.
20
posted on
11/28/2001 11:51:18 AM PST
by
OWK
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-144 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson