Kinsolving: "Will Bishop-elect Robinson and his male lover be tested for HIV-AIDS?"

worldnetdaily ^ | Aug. 12, 03 | Les Kinsolving

[RobbyS]

Saying gays can't get syphillis?

[scripter]

Saying gays can't get syphilis?

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:

Syphilis Cases On The Rise In Bay Area

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.

[aBootes]

This is the kind of writing young people used to be taught explicitly to recognize as biased, incendiary propaganda.

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.

[sausageseller]

Are you "biased" to the views of the left or right?

FYI. I have no problems bing called "biased" as defined by websters. ie. person preference.

[sauropod]

Lester is a national treasure!

[bmwcyle]

I have given over two gallons of blood at my church to INOVA. I would want to know if AIDS is present in my church.

[hellinahandcart]

I don't like the article much, and I like his title even less. Kinsolving using the question of whether the abomination and his boyfriend's AIDS screening would come up clean, or even suggesting they should submit to testing (as if that would have any meaning at all in view of the enormity of what happened last week) as his very first point makes him appear petty and childish. To me. I don't care how others see it.

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.

[sauropod]

You're missing the point.

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.

[hellinahandcart]

I'm not missing the point.

His point is a very petty one, in this case, and his choice of title reinforces my opinion that he's decided to dwell on the irrelevant aspects of the Robinson fiasco. They're about to install a practicing gay man and apostate as BISHOP IN MY CHURCH, and Kinsolving thinks it might be even worse if he has an EARTHLY DISEASE? Give me a break...

[RobbyS]

No, I heard the usual "pity the poor gays" lament, whiile ignoring the obvious fact that-morality aside--gay sex tends to be unhealthy. More than that, gays lie about what they want.
Apart from the tiny percentage who want to enter into settled relationships, the whole gay marriage thing is a joke. If so many straight males can get all the sex that they want without marriage, why should we expect gays to be any different?

[aBootes]

I recognize both as biased. Can you?

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.

[mtbopfuyn]

His point is a very petty one, in this case, and his choice of title reinforces my opinion that he's decided to dwell on the irrelevant aspects of the Robinson fiasco. They're about to install a practicing gay man and apostate as BISHOP IN MY CHURCH, and Kinsolving thinks it might be even worse if he has an EARTHLY DISEASE?

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?

[RobbyS]

You are asserting that gay sex is no unhealthy when the life span of such people is less than 50? That one characteristic of that life style is not promiscuous sex? That an increasing number of normal sexual relations occur outside marriage? Believe me as a guy when I say the obvious--that most guys get married because we want a sexual partner. We STAY married because we want someone who is more than that and--believe it or not-- because we want children. But it is evident that fewer and fewer guys are buying into the traditional marriage, one being that it avoids the very real possibiity of divorce in a society where so many women want the same things as men. Gays live in the same society and marriage offers fewer benefits.