RTE have it all figured out, Marriage is causing HIV to spread.

by Yanky Comment Sun Jul 11, 2004 00:15

Tides are turning as truth comes out about homosexuality, condom effectiveness and sexually transmitted diseases.

(ooops, have all the Christians clicked off this post? I know, I know, we hate to dwell on these topics, but for the sake of our children, we better deal with it)

"A Seattle AIDS group has published a manifesto that has stirred controversy among homosexuals because it acknowledges homosexual men must take responsibility for sexual excesses that spread the disease" See article

They state:

"Gay, Bisexual, and other men who have sex with men must act against the behaviors and attitudes responsible for the increased spread of these diseases. Today, one in seven Gay, Bisexual, and other men who have sex with men are infected with HIV. Among Gay men in King County, syphilis rates are 100 times higher than in the general heterosexual population, and are estimated to be 1000 times higher among HIV positive Gay men than among the general heterosexual population. These rates show we have stopped doing the things that protect us and our sex partners from needless infection." See manifesto

Meanwhile, Three Maryland researchers have admitted fabricating interviews with teenagers for a study on AIDS prevention that received more than $1 million in federal funds. See article

The U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services and the U.S. National Institute of Health report condoms are only 85% effective. Even the CDC admits condoms are not 100% effective.

Would any of us fly on an airline with an 85% success rate, crashing only 15% of the time???

Summary of the 2001 NIH Report on Condom Effectiveness
This summary report was prepared by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and has not found contrary results to date.

S.T. Disease
Condom Effectiveness

HIV/AIDS 85% risk reduction
Gonorrhea Women: No clinical proof of effectiveness
Men: Some risk reduction
Chlamydia No clinical proof of effectiveness

Trichomoniasis No clinical proof of effectiveness

Chancroid No clinical proof of effectiveness

Syphilis No clinical proof of effectiveness

Genital Herpes No clinical proof of effectiveness

HPV No clinical proof of effectiveness


The condom, this "great gay hope" of the liberal left and planned parenthood is boomeranging. "Condom effectiveness" rates are frightening even if properly used, contrary to what public schools teach our children. As our public schools continue to promote homosexuality in our schools, LIABILITY LOOMS.

Frank Burger, a middle school science teacher at Carman-Ainsworth, has kicked off his open recruitment effort for GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network). In the Flint Township News, Burger lists his goal to "ensure that the national education agenda to create effective schools includes lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual issues.

The Flint Township article states, "Mr. Burger is not just arguing against name calling or harassment aimed at homosexuals. By his actively recruiting for GLSEN, and his conspicuous display of his "partner's" picture, Burger is encouraging students to open conversation with him on the subject of his homosexuality. One might argue that someone in such a leadership role promoting the homosexual agenda could sway students, who might be "on the edge," to decide in favor of homosexuality."

Burger threatens lawsuits if anyone opposes him. Burger encourages high school students to start groups, and states,

"If a school administration opposed such a group, it could leave a school district open to litigation."

School boards cave in quickly to open recruitment of homosexuality. Many of our school boards have proven that they will only listen to FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES. It is a shame that the health of our children doesn't seem to be much of a factor for consideration.

I encourage any parent whose child contracts any disease due to homosexual behavior, consider holding our public schools accountable and pursue a lawsuit. School districts are opening up themselves to "litigation" by promoting activities that lead to a hugely increased risk of AIDS, syphilis and so many other forms of detriment.

For the love or our children, do something. Stand up for what's right, what's healthy, what's wholesome for our children. Do not fear vocal assaults of being "intolerant." Public schools are literally killing our kids. If you don't stand up for your children, someone else already has, and they are halfway out the door with them. Act, and act fast. Let your objections be known. Call your student's high school sex education facilitator. Ask him what is being taught. Ask him specifically what is being said about homosexuality and sex education. Just asking questions alerts that teacher that YOU ARE WATCHING! Even that alone has a seriously huge impact on what is said in class!

by sexologist Thu Jul 08, 2004 13:21

one of the issues that's rarely discussed in this debate is the mechanics of HIV infection.

the likelihood of a woman passing HIV on to a sexual partner is small (i don't have the figures), because very little bodily fluid which might carry the virus is transferred from the woman to her partner.

however, the likelihood of a man passing HIV on to a sexual partner is high, because sexual intercourse without a condom usually entails the man ejaculating semen (which can carry the virus), and leaving this behind in his partners body!

so those most at risk of becoming infected with HIV through sexual contact, are all those people who have unprotected sex with men (ie. heterosexual women and homosexual men).

but the debate around the spread of HIV concentrates too much on the sexual transmission, and simply acknowledges that there are other ways the virus is spread (eg. intravenous drug use - sharing needles).
this aspect of the debate is, of course, more about controlling people's sex lives and habits rather than any real concern for the spread of HIV/AIDS and the consequences for those living with it.

by mrtinfoilhat Thu Jul 08, 2004 01:28

Seems i have tarnished myself there, i would have replied earlier but i was out raping and pillaging, deary me, your last line there was pure homophobic magic, or was, it i dont care i just want to get you riled.

My main comment was mainly that rte are not orchestrating some sort of conspiracy though i got side lined a bit. Admit it though, they arent up to anything, they are just expressing their views, the original poster was just too sensitive to their bias and seems not to realise that all communication is biased, there is no such thing as objectivity. If you cant sort the wheat from the chaff when listening to the communications of others you will find yourself over-reacting to bias which is an inherent element of all forms of communication.

Strangely enough i dont have aids myself as you suggested i am in danger of, phew, never knew humdrum life was knestled on a knife edge, a bit of personal regulation goes a long way, but i dont think the family and marriage are neccessarily the source of people controlling themselves. To say that would be to try and absolve ourselves of personal responsibility and maintain our morals only in the face of some institutionalised dogma. This leaves out self determination, as if i would only be loyal if i was married or that i could blame the position of a single male in todays society on my promiscuity. That is the ridiculous position that is promoted as being the opposite to marriage by default because of the shining terms with which marriage is described.

On the other hand you have to admit it is true that once married an uninfected woman can be expected to get aids off an infected husband if she performs her martial duties, her getting aids will then of course increase the numbers infected, of course he presumably got it off a woman, and on and on we could go blaming either gender. Basically people should be educated about the virus and educated into getting tested and asking their partners to be tested, making their decisions on that basis if they wish, and being empowered to do so even if that goes against the traditions of whatever patriarchal or (hmm balanced just for you) matriarchal system system they live under, personally i don't know of any society that demands male virginity before marriage however the opposite is not true.

I would of course write a longer reply but i couldnt be bothered reading all of your lengthy post, not as an insult, but overly long diatribes without good layout could never hold my feeble attention, that and i have to keep checking to see if my hgillbilly dungaree pants have fallen down and your malicious disease angels are magically infecting me in the name of all that is good and pure.

by Newswatch Thu Jul 08, 2004 00:22

A man should never be ashamed to own he has been in the wrong, which is but saying... that he is wiser today than he was yesterday. ~Alexander Pope, in Swift, Miscellanies

The only real mistake is the one from which we learn nothing. ~John Powell

You know, facts are a most productive way to pass information and through that medium to learn more, particularly when there is a problem to be solved for example the spread of HIV.

The fact is that HIV is spreading worldwide and another fact is that it seems that the Ugandan government has figured out a way to at least reduce the amount of new infections. They did not have to use any major brilliance, they simply recognised that when people confine themselves to a regulated method of cohabitation and remain monogamous and faithful to each other (ie get married) they automatically protect themselves, their spouses and most importantly their offspring.

I am reminded of a most powerful document I read from Civitas who are the Institute for the Study of Civil Society was launched early in 2000 as an independent registered charity (No. 1085494). It is politically non-partisan and is financed by private donations. It accepts no government funding.

Quote: http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/experiments.php

John Stuart Mill famously called for ‘experiments in living’ so that we might learn from one another.
For about 30 years we have been conducting such an experiment with the family. The time has now come to appraise the results.

‘As it is useful that while mankind are imperfect there should be different opinions, so is it that there should be different experiments of living; that free scope should be given to varieties of character, short of injury to others; and that the worth of different modes of life should be proved practically, when any one thinks fit to try them.’

In this passage from On Liberty (1859) the nineteenth century champion of freedom, J.S. Mill, argued that there could be a public benefit in permitting lifestyle experimentation. His reasoning was that, just as we distinguish truth from falsehood by the clash of opinion, so we might learn how to improve human
lives by permitting a contest in lifestyles. However, Mill did not expect such experiments to go on forever. ‘It would be absurd,’ he said:

‘to pretend that people ought to live as if nothing whatever had been known in the world before they came into it; as if experience had as yet done nothing towards showing that one mode of existence, or of conduct, is preferable to another.’ In the 1970s and 1980s many people argued that the traditional family – based upon a married biological father and mother and their children – was outdated.

Under the guise of ‘freedom of choice’, ‘self-fulfilment’, and ‘equal respect for all kinds of families’, feminists and social rebels led a campaign to experiment with different family structures. Sometimes it was claimed that women and children did not need men, and were, in fact, often better off without them. On occasion it was said that families were not breaking down, they were just changing; that the most important thing for children was their parents’ happiness and self-fulfilment; and that children were resilient and would suffer few negative effects of divorce and family disruption.

The idea of ‘staying together for the children’s sake’ was often derided. Some parents embraced the new thinking, but not all of those who took part in the ‘fatherless family experiment’ were willing subjects. As the idea that mothers and children did not need fathers took hold, many social and legal supports for marriage weakened. Some mothers and children were simply abandoned. Some fathers were pushed away. Mill’s argument formed part of his wider case for avoiding social control unless the interests of other people were harmed. People were entitled to act on their own opinions ‘without hindrance, either physical or moral, from their fellow-men’ so long as it was ‘at their own risk and peril’. This last proviso, he said, was ‘of course indispensable’. He insisted that:

‘When ... a person is led to violate a distinct and assignable obligation to any other person or persons, the case is taken out of the self-regarding class, and becomes amenable to moral disapprobation in the proper sense of the term.’ He specifically mentions the responsibility of a father for his children: ‘If, for example, a man, through intemperance or extravagance, becomes unable to pay his debts, or, having undertaken the moral responsibility of a family, becomes from the same cause incapable of supporting or educating them, he is deservedly reprobated, and might be justly punished; but it is for the breach of duty to his family or creditors, not for the extravagance.’

After three decades of experimenting with the fatherless family, we are now in a position to evaluate the results.

I completely concur with Mr. Mills and find the comments on this topic to be at least naïve if not downright stupid. Could it be possible that ‘Mr. Tinfoilhat’ actually suggests that even though the statisticians confirm that Ireland’s response to the plague of HIV is not working that we should continue without learning from the error of our ways. Is the man (woman?) a fool? Are you a fool ‘Mr. Tinfoilhat’? Does it not shock even you that in reply to documented facts on what is working and what is not working to stem the spread of HIV that your only reply is to mutter words like ‘hermitically sealed individual containers’ and ‘Croagh Patrick’ as if being a smart-ass is an alternative to intelligence?

Both Rena and you have lashed out with totally unfounded drivel that seems to be designed to tarnish all husbands and all marriages because maybe a number of men spread their ‘wide oats’ but neither you nor I could possible know if in fact it might have been their wives that did the damage when they went foraging for wild oats but who cares! What we can say, is that if they each had practiced common sense and decency and found a similar partner, married them to establish their mutual devotion and stayed together then there would be very little chance that they could have been infected with AIDS.

A thought strikes me. If you both continue to play the ostrich with your heads buried in sand away from reality, then by natural physical posture you would be offering your (smart) asses to all who pass by and if by chance one of those strangers has lived by and practice what you preach, then you could be the next link in the HIV chain.

by rena Wed Jul 07, 2004 17:06

Married women are one of the most vulnerable to HIV/AIDS as unlike single women, they cannot refuse to have sex with their husbands, so as the above commenter noted, they become infected through their husbands promiscuity before marraige.

by mr tinfoilhat Wed Jul 07, 2004 13:30

A pretty good rundown of last nights news reports from various groups. However married women getting aids and women getting aids faster than men means that women who were abstaining before marriage when their husbands sowed their wild oats are reaping the benefit of their husbands previous partners. Most men may not be having sex as young or as often as some women but all those women have to be having sex with someone, and if that person is infected and sleeping with multiple partners, well there you go.

I dont think rte were really trying to destroy the family and tear the institution of marriage apart. More likely they were throwing together a news report with some figures that would grab peoples attention. But i'd be careful if i was you, who knows they might be trying to get bertie to ban marriage and tear families apart to be housed in hermitically sealed individual containers under croagh patrick where we will all be safe.