Thanks, Jody Wheeler, for poisoning my morning a little bit. You just had to mention this guy, Stephen Bennett, of Stephen Bennett Ministries, who is “Emerging as One of the Nation’s Key Speakers on the Issues of Homosexuality & the Homosexual Agenda…A Man who is Not Afraid To Speak the Truth… in Love.” Here’s Stephen Bennett’s kind of love:
As a heterosexual man who once engaged in homosexual behavior for 11 years, I’ve lost numerous dear friends to AIDS. While recent news in the search for a cure for AIDS is promising, I believe this possible HIV prevention pill is only going to push a culture down an already dangerous and risky path. This pill is the equivalent to a drug rehab assisting heroine addicts in their addiction by giving them needles. What is wrong with this picture? Why can’t these intelligent scientists and doctors understand we need to educate people on abandoning their risky, unsafe sexual practices and behavior-not give them a pill to enable and encourage them?
He has lost “dear friends” to AIDS, but apparently, they got what they had coming to them, and the loving Bennett would rather that scientists and doctors abstain from trying to help people. Let them suffer, let them die—it’s the only way they’ll get the message that God cares very much about what they do with their penises.
Oh, and I can explain why intelligent scientists and doctors and pursuing this line of research: because human beings engage in a great many sexual practices, and if we can reduce the factors that make them risky and unsafe, it will make them happier and healthier. It’s a much smarter strategy than simply filling them up with self-loathing.
Why am I not surprised that a callous, stupid, hate-filled freak like this finds a home in evangelical Christianity?
This pill is the equivalent to a drug rehab assisting heroine addicts in their addiction by giving them needles.
What’s a “heroine addict”, somebody who has wet dreams about Wonder Woman?
Bennett is one of the many frauds claiming to have found heterosexuality through the saved-by-jesus route. He is a total embarrassment and props up a stepford wife, Irene, on a vile radio show called “straight-talk radio” which is a non-stop gay bashing festival of hate. He has advocated such loving christian advice such as telling parents of gay people not to allow husbands, wives, partners etc to attend family functions and to take a stand against, you know, equality. Bennett fits right in with the hypocrites of the evangelical movement because he is a lying sack of s**t.
But wouldn’t that make him bisexual and not homosexual?
I think what Bennett is forgetting is that HIV is also a blood-borne pathogen. Anybody can get. All you have to do is have a major blood loss accident and by getting treated you’re at risk.
Wow, the amount of self loathing incumbent of such a warped and cynical world view is staggering. He would make a fascinating psychological case study. Of course, I am sure he also subscribes to the “psychology can’t really solve life’s problems, only Jesus can” view.
First the “concern” over the cervical cancer vaccine,
now this.
Frankly, I would prefer to watch the “attack of the
killer centipede” video again than listen to the concerns
of these flat earthers and *FAKE* christians.
I know which one fills *me* with repulsion and disgust…
He’s also forgetting that straight people get AIDS from sexual contact just like gay people do. It’s not a gay disease.
The same logic could be used to conclude that doctors, etc. should end studies preventing deaths in childbirth. If it’s a risk related to sexual activity, it must remain a risk…
Logic isn’t really popular in the “ex-gay” community.
If I were on a jury judging somebody on trial for slipping that guy a shot of water, rather than antibiotics, I’d vote to acquit.
The fact that he didn’t die of AIDS himself is proof that God has a sick sense of humor.
I think his true kind of love is just a little farther down in the article, where he says
I suppose that he thinks it’s okay for the other 47% to suffer and die as long as it stops a few gay men from having sex?
“As a heterosexual man who once engaged in homosexual behavior for 11 years…”
Huh?
I suppose that he thinks it’s okay for the other 47% to suffer and die as long as it stops a few gay men from having sex?
Yes, I assume that he considers all those other people dying from AIDS to be acceptable ‘collateral damage’ sustained in the virtuous fundie cause of killing gay people.
I’d rather not hear his rationalization for blocking AIDS prevention in the third world, where AIDS infection mainly affects straight people, and women and men equally.
What gets me is his analogy.
Not only is what he’s trying to “prove” with his analogy full of crap (as clearly illustrated by PZ and the other commenters), but his analogy itself is bad!
Drug addicts do get given clean needles in rehab, because “cold turkey” is about as effective on drugs as it is on smoking, and clean needles are rather helpful in keeping people alive and healthy.
“heroine addicts” – people who watch too many Xena reruns.
Drug addicts do get given clean needles in rehab, because “cold turkey” is about as effective on drugs as it is on smoking, and clean needles are rather helpful in keeping people alive and healthy.
Sure. But you have to understand, that’s not how he’s thinking. For someone of his mindset, people who engage in ‘sinful behavior’ should not stay alive and healthy, at least not unless they look like they’re about to find Jesus at any minute. It’s far better for unrepentant ‘sinners’ to suffer and die, as an example of god ‘teaching them a lesson’. However, fundies know they can’t say all this and get too wide an audience beyond other fundies, so they have to dress this up with pseudo-scientific medical gibberish and feel-good psychobabble. It’s the same thing with the new fundie movement to ban more and more forms of birth control as ‘damaging women’s health’.
Their ultimate goal is to have no gay people, no abortion, and no birth control, and to have the personal costs of women having sex to be as great as possible. If they have to lie to advance that cause, they know it’s for a larger good, and that god will understand and reward them down the line. And if a few ‘innocent’ people also die along the way, well, you can’t make an omlette without breaking a few eggs.
The way these people think is not especially complicated. They’re very predictable.
Trust me on this one, Max and Miguelito. I spent a couple years in Santa Cruz, California. We don’t want to get into a discussion on the whole gender-lables thing.
He’s also forgetting that straight people get AIDS from sexual contact just like gay people do. It’s not a gay disease.
What he and a lot of people also forget is that lesbians are a very low-risk group. I’m not sure what I should read into the fact that for Dominionists, lesbians exist as strawwomen to attack feminism with, but when talking about AIDS, suddenly all homosexuals are male.
Lovely – hate is tax-deductable.
What he and a lot of people also forget is that lesbians are a very low-risk group. I’m not sure what I should read into the fact that for Dominionists, lesbians exist as strawwomen to attack feminism with, but when talking about AIDS, suddenly all homosexuals are male.
Interesting. Maybe since the physical aspects of male orgasm makes it easier to transmit AIDS (I seem to remember reading that somewhere…and it makes sense, I guess) it creates a situation where women *aren’t* punished for sex (as with the whole abortion issue) so they have to pretend it doesn’t exist.
I do like the word ‘strawwomen’.
Two points:
1) I was sort of kidding when I said the wingnuts would oppose this. I was hoping the wingnuts wouldn’t say this…
2) Needle exchange programs have been shown not to increase drug use and to lower HIV infection rates. I love faith-based epidemiology.
Maybe since the physical aspects of male orgasm makes it easier to transmit AIDS (I seem to remember reading that somewhere…and it makes sense, I guess) it creates a situation where women *aren’t* punished for sex (as with the whole abortion issue) so they have to pretend it doesn’t exist.
If I’m not mistaken, the reason why anal sex is riskier than vaginal sex is that there’s a higher chance of the act breaking the skin and some semen getting through to the bloodstream. Of course penile-vaginal intercourse still involves ejaculation and possible contact between the man’s semen and the woman’s bloodstream, but evidently penile-anal intercourse runs a much higher risk of AIDS infection.
Also, I like your theory that women aren’t punished for sex. It certainly makes sense that when trying to punish women for sex, Dominionists won’t mention the fact that lesbianism doesn’t give you AIDS or get you pregnant.
Also, I like your theory that women aren’t punished for sex. It certainly makes sense that when trying to punish women for sex, Dominionists won’t mention the fact that lesbianism doesn’t give you AIDS or get you pregnant.
I think we’re onto something. Far from being god’s way of punishing gay men, the evidence seems far better that AIDS is in fact god’s way of rewarding lesbians.
Meanwhile, at the Loom, the suggestion is raised that the reason primates tolerate different HIV strains is because the strains are already integrated into the library of 98,000 (for humans) virus genes a cell carries, thus not provoking a faulty immune response. http://loom.corante.com/archives/2006/03/31/learning_to_ignore_your_viruses.php
A fascinating article.
So Bennett the self loather and gay denier could calm down, perhaps unsafe sexual practise is its own remedy here. Or better if doable, perhaps gene therapy, since it would take away the suffering and/or medication needs.
I think we’re onto something. Far from being god’s way of punishing gay men, the evidence seems far better that AIDS is in fact god’s way of rewarding lesbians.
I know that laughing at this is kind of in poor taste, but I was drinking 7up when I read that. I think it spewed out my nose I laughed so hard.
I expect the next Dominionist who reads this thread to claim that AIDS is a lesbian conspiracy to get rid of all men and straight women, and that in parallel there’s secret research into engineering sperm from somatic cells, so that lesbians can reproduce.
“As a heterosexual man who once engaged in homosexual behavior for 11 years…”
Does this mean I’m actually a lesbian who has been heterosexually married for 22 years?
I’m so confused.
It is an inescapable fact that in this country (USA) the overwhelming vector for this particular disease is anal sex between men. If, by some means, this behavior were eraticated in the US, the disease would quickly follow suit.
Of course, people are going to continue to do whatever they please, but Bennet’s message has merit none the less.
If we cannot stop this behavior, we can at the very least discourage it…and we should.
By letting those who get the disease die miserable, painful deaths.
You nuts just don’t get it, do you?
I think what Bennett is forgetting is that HIV is also a blood-borne pathogen. Anybody can get. All you have to do is have a major blood loss accident and by getting treated you’re at risk.
No, he is probably one of the lying idiots that believe the recent stupid fundie theory of the week that AIDS is a septic disease and you only catch it by having butt sex. Or at least some similar twit. One of the first and key ideas behind clowns like this is, “If they got it, they must have been doing something bad, so they deserve it for being bad.”
Fred Hutchison is back and wants to educate us about gay sex, too! Oh, joy.
http://renewamerica.us/analyses/060402hutchison.htm
(This follows from some theory of C.S.Lewis that everyone should have chests, heads, and bellies, in case you were wondering)
Aren’t we all glad that Fred didn’t become a monstrous talking head?
I think we’re onto something. Far from being god’s way of punishing gay men, the evidence seems far better that AIDS is in fact god’s way of rewarding lesbians.
That would explain the movie “Jesus Christ: Vampire Hunter”, where Jesus Christ fights hordes of vampires who are using lesbian skin to protect themselves from daylight.
http://www.odessafilmworks.com/jcvh/index.html#
Trailer:
http://www.blogtelevision.net/p/Videos-Watch-a-Video___1,2,,9940.html
It is an inescapable fact that in this country (USA) the overwhelming vector for this particular disease is anal sex between men. If, by some means, this behavior were eraticated in the US, the disease would quickly follow suit.
Um, no it wouldn’t.
Guess you don’t much care about the parts of the world where ‘the overwhelming vector’ for AIDS is heterosexual sex (which in fact represents the great majority of worldwide cases), eh?
Ya know PZ, for a guy who claims to base his daily amphagory upon facts, you sure find it easy to fly by the seat of your pants when facts don’t work in your favor!
No one in this country is dying painfully of AIDS..no indeed. We’re shelling out billions of dollars in health related costs to keep these folks not only pain free..but healthy enough to continue to spread their death sentences to others.
Personally, I wouldn’t wish such a state of affairs upon anyone.
But despite your wish to obfuscate the situation, the inescapable fact is that if you are an American and do not engage in anal intercourse, do not use intraveinous drugs and are reasonably careful in choosing your hetrosexual partners you have a far, far better chance of being killed in a car accident than by AIDS.
So go ahead PS…hide behind your ludicris hyperbole, but beware! Some might come to the conclusion that you are a nothing more than a left-wing crack pot from an obscure college campus out here spouting nonsense.
Oops, too late.
“Guess you don’t much care about the parts of the world where ‘the overwhelming vector’ for AIDS is heterosexual sex (which in fact represents the great majority of worldwide cases), eh?”
Ahh, another one…heh.
The countries in which heterosexual relations are a significant contributer to the spread of AIDS also have populations that suffer from malnutrition, piss poor to nonexistant medical care and a myriad of other contributing factors.
It is also not being spread by people who are in monagamous heterosexual relationships but by women who have been forced into prostitution by the grinding poverty they face and by the low-life men who exploit them.
Next straw man please.
But despite your wish to obfuscate the situation, the inescapable fact is that if you are an American and do not engage in anal intercourse, do not use intraveinous drugs and are reasonably careful in choosing your hetrosexual partners you have a far, far better chance of being killed in a car accident than by AIDS.
Does Magic Johnson have to get AIDS *again* to make the point that it’s not a gay disease?
a know PZ, for a guy who claims to base his daily amphagory upon facts, you sure find it easy to fly by the seat of your pants when facts don’t work in your favor!
Which facts would those be?
No one in this country is dying painfully of AIDS..no indeed.
Oh really? Nice to hear it. I guess you must know plenty of gay people, which is why you know something no one else realizes.
We’re shelling out billions of dollars in health related costs to keep these folks not only pain free..but healthy enough to continue to spread their death sentences to others.
I assume you would prefer to let them die painfully. I concede, your morality is certainly superior to mine.
Personally, I wouldn’t wish such a state of affairs upon anyone.
You mean their painful deaths? Sounds to me like that’s exactly what you want.
But despite your wish to obfuscate the situation, the inescapable fact is that if you are an American
Hmmm. There’s that word ‘American’ again. How does your delightful theory account for causes of AIDS in the rest of the world? Or is the rest of the world unimportant?
and do not engage in anal intercourse, do not use intraveinous drugs and are reasonably careful in choosing your hetrosexual partners you have a far, far better chance of being killed in a car accident than by AIDS.
Sounds like a good reason not to work on a vaccine or cure to me!
So go ahead PS…hide behind your ludicris hyperbole,
That’s ‘ludicrous’, dumbfuck. ‘Ludicris’ is a rap singer. Doesn’t your high school teach you spelling?
but beware! Some might come to the conclusion that you are a nothing more than a left-wing crack pot from an obscure college campus out here spouting nonsense.
Or, alternately, YOU might come to that conclusion, and everyone else will come to the conclusion you have your head up your ass.
That would explain the movie “Jesus Christ: Vampire Hunter”, where Jesus Christ fights hordes of vampires who are using lesbian skin to protect themselves from daylight.
There we go again, 7up right out the nose…
What does Magic Johnson’s situation have to do with anything? What proofs do you propose it provides? Do you assume to know what sexual behaviors Johnson did or did not engage in?
Are you drunk already at this time of the morning or just generally stupid?
Gee, this is getting pathetic..I thought this crowd prided itself upon it’s thoughtful consideration of fact, but it becoming painfully clear that I could get responses that were at least witty if not less inane by visiting the Democratic Underground website.
Are you drunk already at this time of the morning or just generally stupid?
Ah, the ad hominem attack. Didn’t take too long for that to appear.
Even if we do limit the discussion to just the US, it is certainly not the case that “the overwhelming vector for this particular disease is anal sex between men”. The latest CDC stats show only about a 3:1 male:female incidence for newly diagnosed cases. Just considering sexual transmission, and recognizing that virtually all new cases among women were associated with heterosexual contact, the homosexual:heterosexual origin ratio has to be somewhere in the 1:1 range (seat of the pants estimating; don’t make too much of it)… hardly overwhelming in favor of naughty boys doing naughty things as a “vector”.
AIDS in the US got off to an epidemiologically unusual start, way back when, which certainly skewed the gay male:straight ratio, but incidence here has come more and more to resemble what is seen in the rest of the world. When talking about AIDS, its the WORLD we live in… not just the US, and AIDS is a worldwide, devastating disease with complex, multiple etiologies, that destroys lives and families. Anyone with a Hutchinsonian “gays are sexually crooked–i.e. wicked, in contrast with those who are sexually normal, i.e. straight” attitude about the AIDS epidemic SURELY has to be considered a hell of a lot wierder than a couple of young lovers getting it on in whatever way they choose to do so. I guess none of us are surprised that Bennett and Hutchinson are fruitcakes though, huh?
Uncle Don
Sorry George, I’m new here…but I’m getting the general idea…I’ll start posting everything twice to give your short attention spans a better chance of keeping up with the conversation.
Here ya go sport (in bold just for you!):
“The countries in which heterosexual relations are a significant contributer to the spread of AIDS also have populations that suffer from malnutrition, piss poor to nonexistant medical care and a myriad of other contributing factors.”
“It is also not being spread by people who are in monagamous heterosexual relationships but by women who have been forced into prostitution by the grinding poverty they face and by the low-life men who exploit them.”
It is also not being spread by people who are in monagamous heterosexual relationships but by women who have been forced into prostitution by the grinding poverty they face and by the low-life men who exploit them.
Wrong. It’s being spread to monogamous married women by their husbands, as well. Acceptable collateral damage?
Next straw man please.
It’s not a strawman at all. All we’re saying is it sounds like you oppose an AIDS vaccine on the grounds that it might prevent the deaths of people whose behavior you find distasteful. If that’s not what you’re saying, what IS your point?
Or is this just a flimsy excuse to rant about a ‘liberal’?
“Are you drunk already at this time of the morning or just generally stupid?”
Ah, the ad hominem attack. Didn’t take too long for that to appear.
Well, it certainly convinced ME of how much more ‘thoughtful consideration’ of the facts tjswift gives this, compared to the rest of us.
And of course the predictable ‘you’re all just a bunch of liberals’ rhetoric. Ouch.
AIDS in the US got off to an epidemiologically unusual start, way back when, which certainly skewed the gay male:straight ratio, but incidence here has come more and more to resemble what is seen in the rest of the world.
I think (just a guess) this would probably have to do with increased education about condom use in the gay community during the 90s (‘safer sex is hotter sex,’ etc.) and the really ignorant idea prevalent in certian segments of the straight community (and apparently in this thread) that AIDS is a gay disease.
My point is that of all the diseases and infirmities we are forced to deal with on this planet, why is it that some would brow-beat us into putting such effort into curing a disease that is completely avoidable 99% of the time by simply not engaging in activities that 92% of people on this planet find repulsive and or illegal in the first place?
How about we worry about Lukemia? Or Asthma? Or Cerebral palsy? Or Parkinsons? Get the picture?
“If every happy family is much alike, as Tolstoy thought, the marriage bed of a happy husband and a happy wife invariably has a certain regularity and predictability about it.”
Nothing’s better for a marriage than regular, predictable sex!
I’d wager that Fred’s wife is really, really, really bored.
“The countries in which heterosexual relations are a significant contributer to the spread of AIDS also have populations that suffer from malnutrition, piss poor to nonexistant medical care and a myriad of other contributing factors.”
Again, a splendid reason not to work on a cure/vaccine, and not to give drugs to people suffering from it!
Do you actually HAVE a point here, aside from hating gays and liberals?
My point is that of all the diseases and infirmities we are forced to deal with on this planet, why is it that some would brow-beat us
‘Browbeat’? Who exactly is ‘browbeating’ you, swift? Had this persecution complex for long?
into putting such effort into curing a disease that is completely avoidable 99% of the time by simply not engaging in activities that 92% of people on this planet find repulsive and or illegal in the first place?
Sounds like I nailed you dead to rights. “I dislike these people, so they deserve to die.”
Thanks for levelling with us. You can leave now.
“How about we worry about Lukemia? Or Asthma? Or Cerebral palsy? Or Parkinsons? Get the picture?”
Oh we are worrying about those as well.. and making progress in many of them. Interestingly, among the huge benefits of the funded research on AIDS has come the realization that MOST human diseases have a collosal immune component. Many of the treatments for cancers, heart disease, etc have come directly or indirectly from research funded to study AIDS… research like this that seems to lead to a vaccine.
Uncle Don
” Just considering sexual transmission, and recognizing that virtually all new cases among women were associated with heterosexual contact…”
…with men who have engaged in sex with another man.
And this is especially true among black women whose husbands, lovers, boyfriends whatever have spent time in prison. I bring this group up because it is one of the fastest growing demographics (although still not close to incedents among gay men).
But again, it can be traced to homosexual relations between men.
How about we worry about Lukemia? Or Asthma? Or Cerebral palsy? Or Parkinsons? Get the picture?
As a person who has lost loved ones to both AIDS and Parkinsons Disease, a cousin to Lukemia, and who has a close friend with Cerebral Palsy, I would prefer that ALL those diseases be cured, not just the ones that you find inoffensive.
How about we worry about Lukemia? Or Asthma? Or Cerebral palsy? Or Parkinsons? Get the picture?
I’m sorry, do they not do research on these diseases? Does curing AIDS somehow depend on not curing Parkinsons?
But again, it can be traced to homosexual relations between men.
You sure seem to have a thing against gay men, swift. Are you quite sure there aren’t some kind of, uh, unaddressed issues you have here?
Ah, the ad hominem attack. Didn’t take too long for that to appear.
Ah, the ad hominem attack. Didn’t take too long for that to appear.
Hey…you could at least *quote* me. Lol.
Ah, the ad hominem attack. Didn’t take too long for that to appear.
Didn’t refute it, I note.
Besides, I have nothing at all against gay people. It’s YOU who think that’s an ‘attack’.
I know, ‘ludicris’, isn’t it?
“But again, it can be traced to homosexual relations between men.”
You need to get in touch with the Public Health Service and let them know about this Swift… every recent epidemiologic study of the disease in the US has demonstrated that it is now certainly not a “gay disease”.
I don’t want to seem to be picking a fight or anything, but I have to agree with George… your presentation, “putting such effort into curing a disease that is completely avoidable 99% of the time by simply not engaging in activities that 92% of people on this planet find repulsive and or illegal in the first place?” … stuff like that, seem to me to undermine your argument… it becomes an argument from squeamishness rather than facts.
Uncle Don
Hah, what a classic. Are you referring to sex or blood transfusions?
Leukemia, asthma and AIDS all involve the immune system, so research in one of them might even result in something that can be used with the other two.
And all these are extensively studied already. How about putting a bit more effort into something like malaria, which affects a lot more people?
“why is it that some would brow-beat us into putting such effort into curing a disease that is completely avoidable 99% of the time by simply not engaging in activities that 92% of people on this planet find repulsive and or illegal in the first place?”
You mean like a wife having sex with her husband, which is how the majority of women in Africa contract it? Trust me, I know where you’re coming from – that’s exactly what I used to think, too, becuase that’s what my church taught me. Then I did some actual research of my own on the epidemiology. Try studying the actual statistics on the spread of AIDS in the last 20 years, and then develop your talking points.
“But again, it can be traced to homosexual relations between men.”
You need to get in touch with the Public Health Service and let them know about this Swift… every recent epidemiologic study of the disease in the US has demonstrated that it is now certainly not a “gay disease”.
I don’t want to seem to be picking a fight or anything, but I have to agree with George… your presentation, “putting such effort into curing a disease that is completely avoidable 99% of the time by simply not engaging in activities that 92% of people on this planet find repulsive and or illegal in the first place?” … stuff like that, seem to me to undermine your argument… it becomes an argument from squeamishness rather than facts.
Uncle Don
Hmm… sorry for the double post… I received a mesage about the frequency of posting blocking the message, but apparently it went through the first time anyway…
Uncle Don
“every recent epidemiologic study of the disease in the US has demonstrated that it is now certainly not a “gay disease”.”
If by this you mean to say that it has been spread into the heterosexual population..well you’re right. But as I have stated, and if you have checked the CDC figures yourself you know it to be true that with the exception of the occasional transmission via blood transfusion, the vast majority of new cases are traceable to male homosexual activity.
Here, allow me:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2004report/table8.htm
~~ Male-to-male sexual contact 159,937 172,502 184,778 199,085
~~ Injection drug use 57,287 58,959 60,113 61,799
~~ Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 21,643 22,201 22,688 23,337
~~ Heterosexual contact 34,386 37,986 41,291 44,655
Call it what you will Don..the facts are conclusive.
Hmm… sorry for the double post… I received a mesage about the frequency of posting blocking the message, but apparently it went through the first time anyway…
Uncle Don
That happens if you accidentally doubleclick on the ‘Post’ button. It thinks you’re trying to post two separate messages, but the first goes through anyway.
Call it what you will Don..the facts are conclusive.
And your conclusion is… what, exactly? “Don’t waste money curing it because only icky people get it”? “Don’t waste money curing it because it used to be a gay disease”?
Jeeze, george..you still here?
If by this you mean to say that it has been spread into the heterosexual population..well you’re right. But as I have stated, and if you have checked the CDC figures yourself you know it to be true that with the exception of the occasional transmission via blood transfusion, the vast majority of new cases are traceable to male homosexual activity.
So you’re saying that the heterosexual people who now have it and are spreading it to other heterosexual people will be magically cured of AIDS once gay men stop having sex?
If that’s not what you’re saying please correct me.
Putting aside your homophobia, that *still* sounds like a bad argument.
Jeeze, george..you still here?
You still not answering our questions, Swift?
Call it what you will Don..the facts are conclusive.
You left out the women and children, genius. I don’t think 123405 women and 6804 children got it in 2004 from male-male sex???
Read the title of the chart Swift… those are people *living* with AIDS… and, yes, because of the early spread of the disease amongst gay men in this country (an anomolous etiology in itself), coupled with the benefits of research (people can live with AIDS now), a majority of those cases still ARE ones that originated via gay contact. But the incidence data on NEW cases… ie the ones that reflect how the disease is being spread now… in no way reflect a predominantly gay male origin. Quite the contrary.
Uncle Don
” I was terrified that I might also become a monstrous talking head. That is why I did not pursue a doctorate, but did a great deal of independent reading instead.”
This also fits right into the praise of anti-intellectualism that permeates the right-wing fundamentalists (and personified right here by tjswift). I still have a few leader’s guides from back when I used to teach fundie children’s Sunday School (in my pre-atheist days), and this is a verbatim liner note:
“Some Bible texts are difficult for us to grasp. Stick to one main thought for kids. Don’t trouble yourself (or them) with the details that you don’t understand. Because of your focus on the big picture, you are helping a new generation understand God’s Word!”
You know, if my professors in college had thought that I “understood” the text sufficiently if I got the main thought but “didn’t trouble [myself] with the details”, I would have had a much higher GPA…
“So you’re saying that the heterosexual people who now have it and are spreading it to other heterosexual people will be magically cured of AIDS once gay men stop having sex?”
No, what I’m saying is that since the overwhelming majority of new cases continue to come from homosexual sex and intraveinous drug use..or a combination of both, that if we as a society were to begin to discourage these behavoirs instead of glorifying them the incedents of new cases would be drasticly reduced across the spectrum of the population.
Given time..perhaps a generation, I believe that AIDS would be a relatively rare disease among modern countries and would become so as more thrid world countries gain economic viability.
I’d slap Bennett’s website if I could.
“Read the title of the chart Swift… those are people *living* with AIDS… and, yes, because of the early spread of the disease amongst gay men in this country (an anomolous etiology in itself), coupled with the benefits of research (people can live with AIDS now), a majority of those cases still ARE ones that originated via gay contact. But the incidence data on NEW cases… ie the ones that reflect how the disease is being spread now… in no way reflect a predominantly gay male origin.”
“Quite the contrary.”
Actually, not.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2004report/table1.htm
Table 1. Estimated numbers of cases of HIV/AIDS, by year of diagnosis and selected characteristics of persons, 2001-2004–35 areas with confidential name-based HIV infection reporting
Transmission category
Male adult or adolescent
~~ Male-to-male sexual contact 16,625 16,852 16,804 18,203
~~ Injection drug use 5,171 4,379 4,177 3,828
~~ Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 1,525 1,431 1,398 1,372
~~ Heterosexual contact 5,095 4,843 4,720 4,581
We can look at the statistics in any way, shape or form you choose Don…the facts remain the same.
No, what I’m saying is that since the overwhelming majority of new cases continue to come from homosexual sex and intraveinous drug use..or a combination of both, that if we as a society were to begin to discourage these behavoirs instead of glorifying them the incedents of new cases would be drasticly reduced across the spectrum of the population.
Nice to throw IV drug users in there, which (I don’t think) you’ve mentioned yet. (Maybe I’m too drunk/stupid to notice. Hey, it’s 5:00 *somewhere.*)
I’m going to ignore your homophobia again for the sake of brevity.
And how exactly does an HIV vaccine glorify male-to-male sexual contact? Or IV drug use? It would protect the women and children who somehow get AIDS when men have sex with each other. You’d think that would be a kind, humane thing to do.
Check Tables 1 and 3 from the same CDC datapages… they relate to the incidence of NEW cases, and while the data are a little hard to pick apart since they partially conflate homosexual contact and intravenous drug use in males, they basicaly support what I was saying earlier… and all along here… there is nothing predominantly “gay” (oooh… yuck.. ptui… ptuii) about the current epidemiology of this disease. It sure as heck isn’t going away without the time tested medical procedures that have served us so well in the past… education, sure, but also stuff like… um… vaccinations? Only in a discussion of AIDS could anyone paint immunization as a bad thing. For shame.
Uncle Don
Umm, I just posted table 1 Don. Says just what I’ve been saying.
Society glorifies man-to-man sex? Honestly, what planet do you live on?
…you have a far, far better chance of being killed in a car accident than by AIDS.
So just stay away from cars then. Problem solved!
No, what I’m saying is that since the overwhelming majority of new cases continue to come from homosexual sex and intraveinous drug use..or a combination of both, that if we as a society were to begin to discourage these behavoirs instead of glorifying them
‘Glorifying’?? ‘Society’ does discourage these behaviors, swift. As you yourself were so eager to point out, these behaviors are illegal or disapproved of by most people.
the incedents of new cases would be drasticly reduced across the spectrum of the population.
Your training in epidemiology has taught you this?
Given time..perhaps a generation, I believe that AIDS would be a relatively rare disease among modern countries and would become so as more thrid world countries gain economic viability.
Again, your rhetoric seems to have no point. No one here would disagree with you as to what the causes of AIDS transmission are, although they would certainly disagree with you in terms of what the predominant ones are. And no one would disagree that the disease incidences in the 3rd world would no doubt go down if the 3rd world ceased to be poor. But you seem to want us to somehow draw the conclusion that this means we’re ‘wasting resources’ on an AIDS cure, and that the best solution would seem to be to let the ‘wicked’ people who cause AIDS die off (along with the children and monogamous women), rather than trying to cure it. I’m glad your view is not well represented in the public health field.
Transmission category
Male adult or adolescent
~~ Male-to-male sexual contact 16,625 16,852 16,804 18,203
~~ Injection drug use 5,171 4,379 4,177 3,828
~~ Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 1,525 1,431 1,398 1,372
~~ Heterosexual contact 5,095 4,843 4,720 4,581
Exactly… and those are just the male figures.. add in the female incidence via heterosexual contact and you come to something in the range of 12,000 – 13000 new cases heterosexually transmitted. If, in fact, those naughty gay men had a slightly higher incidence, I think we can hardly call it “overwhelming”… and if you study the data trends over several years, what I described is exactly what I said to begin with. It is certainly a disease that can be spread sexually, but it is just as certainly not a “gay” disease. None of which has any bearing whatsoever on the rightness or desireability of developing a vaccine.
Unce Don
I like this bit the best:
who once engaged in homosexual behavior for 11 years
“Once”, for 11 years? I mean didn’t he even take a coffee break once in a while?
We can look at the statistics in any way, shape or form you choose Don…the facts remain the same.
You are still posting only the statistics on men. I guess women and children don’t matter, either?
Here’s the new cases in 2004 summed up:
Homosexual & drug use 18241
Heterosexual & children 9908
So your “immoral” cases hardly make up an “overwhelming” majority, only about 2/3. And if science hadn’t done something about HIV, there would still be a lot more cases in hemophiliacs and children.
“who once engaged in homosexual behavior for 11 years”
“Once”, for 11 years? I mean didn’t he even take a coffee break once in a while?
I wonder how he found time for meals and holding down a job…
Okay okay okay. Let’s try a different tactic. Again putting aside your homophobia.
Which do you think is more likely to happen, swift? That gay me will stop having sex, or a vaccine be developed?
It seems common sense that gay people will *not* stop having sex, since having sex is a drive humans tend to have and gay men are actually human. Therefore, to protect the women and children who are contracting AIDS from all the gay men it seems sensible and humane to come up with an AIDS vaccine. No?
How do you suppose Don, that the men with whom females in the study contracted their disease from, contracted the disease in the first place..given the stastics we’re both looking at?
By the way, I would call a two to one margin overwhelming..but you may call it whatever you choose…the facts undisturbed remain in any case.
“So your “immoral” cases hardly make up an “overwhelming” majority, only about 2/3.”
Did someone really post that?
Umm, I just posted table 1 Don. Says just what I’ve been saying.
Posted by: tjswift | April 2, 2006 03:50 PM
Sorry, dude, our messages passed in the electronic ether… I’m a slow typist… but you didn’t post the female data from the table, which, adjusting out intravenous drug origins, brings the ratio to something like 18K:12k+, gay male sex:heterosexual sex…. hardly overwhelming and dropping as an ongoing trend. And again… durn, man… to oppose immunization for a disease even if it WAS overwhelmingly caused by something you find distasteful? Goodness…
Uncle Don
“So your “immoral” cases hardly make up an “overwhelming” majority, only about 2/3.”
Did someone really post that?
Yes.
So a one third fatality rate is acceptable ‘collateral damage’ to you?
“I like this bit the best:
who once engaged in homosexual behavior for 11 years
“Once”, for 11 years? I mean didn’t he even take a coffee break once in a while?”
LOL! Man! Thats some staying power! Maybe those gay guys know something the rest of us mortal males don’t!
Uncle Don
Dang george..still at it? And is “Windy” sitting there sharing your notes?
Well, it’s my time to go kick some dogs, scare some children and mistreat some old people.
Been real, um..well it’s been real.
“Therefore, to protect the women and children who are contracting AIDS from all the gay men… ”
And how are they contracting it from the gay men? Must be from all the great heterosexual sex that those ‘formerly gay’ men are now happily engaging in. Therefore, guys like Stephen Bennett are making the problem worse, and there shouldn’t be ANY Christian programs that try to turn gay men straight.
(windy, I know this is the opposite of the point you’re making, but I liked the quote as a summation of swift’s hypothesis)
“How do you suppose Don, that the men with whom females in the study contracted their disease from, contracted the disease in the first place..given the stastics we’re both looking at?”
Hookers. Or a previous girlfriend who got it from a previous boyfriend/husband and didn’t know it, who got it from a previous girlfriend, who got it from being raped by an insurgent because she lived in a war zone, who got it from a cut in a knife fight, etc., etc. How many generations back do you want to go with this, swift? Does nothing matter than that at one point, the virus strain may have passed through a male-male contact?
Dang george..still at it? And is “Windy” sitting there sharing your notes?
I notice YOU are still here too, Swift. And I notice that you’re still ignoring about 90% of our questions to you. You’re recycling the same non-answers over and over.
Tell you what, just call us bunch of leftwing radicals and be done with it. Come back in 4 years after you’ve acquired a little education. Cool?
Ah, convieniently leaving without actually answering any of the questions posed.
Happy trials, tjswift, we hardly knew ye.
Dang george..still at it? And is “Windy” sitting there sharing your notes?
They are called “facts”, available anywhere.
Let’s say all homo-sex and drug use ceases immediately. According to you we wouldn’t have to treat or worry about HIV anymore. So what about those more than 100,000 heterosexuals in the US and lots more elsewhere that also have HIV? They will not transmit HIV to each other or their children anymore?
Oh, me spell double plus good. Happy trails I meant.
In other news, a new fatal strain of mononucleosis, AKA, the Kissing Disease is discovered. TJ Swift denies that studies into treatment are necessary, and that we should simply “discourage kissing, because 92% of people find it disgusting anyway.”
Skipping most of the other comments:
If the FSM wanted us to be safe from HIV/AIDS, he wouldn’t have made sex so fun.
simply not engaging in activities that 92% of people on this planet find repulsive and or illegal
92% of people on this planet find sex repulsive? Speak for yourself pal.
“engaging in activities that 92% of people on this planet find repulsive and or illegal”
What? AFAIK, it’s only a matter of debate in US. The rest of us are engaging in anal sex whenever it’s mutually tempting. (Of course, feminists use to say that the girls should go down with their preferred sex toy on the guys first, but that’s bigotry.)
I sure don’t know of much remaining laws except in US, see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law.
What? AFAIK, it’s only a matter of debate in US.
Well, tjswift only really seems interested in AIDS as it affects the US anyway. You’ll note we had to drag him kicking and screaming to acknowledge that his generalizations left out the vast majority of the world’s cases.
No getting away from the fact that AIDS is a disease that carries enough stigma to put all past outbreak of disease to the test of societal attitudes. I often wonder how different attitudes would have been if AIDS had not struck the gay community, would we then be critical of other sectors of the population and use a disease as an excuse to demonize and stigmatize those people?
I am downright disgusted that people like tjswift,and most in the current crop of phoney, hate mongering power hungry christian groups, still insist on framing gay people as a set of behaviours. Get over it. It is an inate, unchangable human characteristic and is not a collection of sexual acts that the “majority of people find repugnant or objectionable”. Most gay people get to a point in life when it no longer matters if people approve or disapprove of our sex life, it is none of their business, period. A disease ought not to be framed by blaming it on certain sectors of the population. It is inaccurate, juvenile and is surrounded by that sanctimoneous attitude and demeanor so prevalent amongst evangelical christians with an agenda to shove a book of fable and fiction into legal matters. Anyone with a brain knows full well that sexual orientation is not anymore to blame for the outbreak of disease anymore than poverty, geographical location or genetic disease transmission. Homosexual people have existed since the human race evolved from its ancestors. Anal sex has been practiced by both heterosexual and homosexual people for centuries. It is a mode of transmission of the HIV virus and that transmission is stopped through the use of a latex condom. It is also transmitted through heterosexual sex as we all know, and since it is a bloodborne pathogen, through contact with open gaping wounds, blood transfusions and sharing needles. AIDS is, and always has been, a disease that affects human beings, hence the name Human Immunodeficiency Virus, and is not exclusive to homosexual men. The above being said, the onus is on everyone, hetero or homosexual to act responsibly, get tested and protect everyone against transmission. That is what has been time proven to slow the progression of the disease, not discouraging or disallowing people to have sex or blaming it one a sector of the population, gay men in this instance.
That did happen to some extent; several white supremacist groups took the fact that AIDS hit blacks harder than whites as divine support for their cause :-/
Well, since I will actually be lecturing on aspects of this tomorrow night I took the time to juggle the numbers a litle to calculate the most recent ratios of gay male sex related cases of AIDS : heterosexually acquired cases, leaving out cases that may have been intravenously or congenitally acquired. Using the figures from
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2004report/table1.htm
the ratios dont even approach the 2/3 level someone mentioned earlier… WAY less than “overwhelming” unless someone is searching diligently for demons to exorcize:
2004 1.4:1
2003 1.3:1
2002 1.2:1
2001 1.2:1
Now, this would contrast sharply with the numbers from way back in, say, the 1980’s, but as I noted earlier, the early spread of the disease in the US was most atypical compared with other countries and that anomolous epidemiology largely accounts for the elevated numbers of gay men living with AIDS today. I’m sure that Mr. Swift might point out again, as he did earlier:
“How do you suppose Don, that the men with whom females in the study contracted their disease from, contracted the disease in the first place..”
… implying that it was by having sex with gay or bisexual men who picked it up in homosexual encounters. Early on during the time that the disease was working its way into the US “straight” (gay, straight.. how silly are these labels?) population, probably this was one of the primary routes, along with intravenous drug use (not an insignificant route, by the way even today). But there is *nothing* in the recent data to suggest that gay guys are rushing out in mass numbers to infect unsuspecting heterosexual women. It’s simply a horrid disease that is usually sexually transmitted (since thats the main way we exchange fluids) and thats how we need to treat it. Clearly some folks get all icky feeling at the thought of gay men having sex and that fuels the those-nasty-people-are-just-getting-what-they-have-coming syndrome… oh well… I’ll bet most of us are not all that pretty when we are “doing it” to tell the truth! I’m not very fetching when I’m standing around fully clothed!
And damn… anyone who is opposed to medical interventions that can halt or even slow the spread of something this deadly that affects 100’s of thousands of people in just this one country and ***millions*** worldwide, is… just… well they need to get their minds out of other people’s bedrooms and britches and put them to work figuring out what to do with all the hate they contain.
Uncle Don
wow, I think it takes a special kind of blinders over ones eyes to see something like a vaccine as undesireable. Not to mention the idea that somehow the gay portion of the world’s population (but only the men!) will somehow die of aids for their sinfulness leaving the rest of the nonsinful portion of the world to rejoice. Oh, and the only place that exists is America. I mean there’s the rest of the world, but it’s all just a mess of poor people, right?
Someone quotes Fred Hutchison: “I was terrified that I might also become a monstrous talking head. That is why I did not pursue a doctorate, but did a great deal of independent reading instead.”
Well, we can certainly attest that Fred managed to avoid cerebral hypertrophy, can’t we? Now, general cranial hypertrophy, OTOH…..
(BTW, PZ: what’s up with the debate?)
I’ve been letting Hutchison slide. I need to reply to his last email, but geez, he is boring.
Actually, while Bennett is dead wrong on the benefits or hazards of giving drug users clean needles (which they don’t do in rehab, btw), he does raise a valid point about the HIV/AIDS prevention pill. I just got back from a NAPWA (National Association of People With AIDS) conference, and a speaker rightly raised the issue that this pill may encourage people to engage in risky behavior, thinking they would be protected. This could have the effect of 1. lowering the pill’s efficacy if/when the virus mutates, and 2. putting multiple sex partners at risk. Let’s say someone (gay, straight, using, sober) pops the pill and feels invincible, and engages in unprotected sex with numerous partners over the course of a weekend — what happens if his/her sex partners are not on the pill? People need to engage in safer behaviors, not put their faith in the latest medical breakthrough. By SAFER, of course, I mean using condoms/gloves/dental dams, and not sharing needles/cookers/paraphernalia. And abstinence fits in there too. Along with regular HIV testing.
“abstinence fits in there”
Abstinence isn’t a safe sexual behaviour, it’s a behaviour.
It’s not a safe behaviour either, since for men it raises the occurence of testicular cancer. (The proposed mechanism is that semen carries away heavy metal contamination.)
Perhaps you are thinking of single partner sex, aka masturbation?
Now, general cranial hypertrophy, OTOH…..
“Incoming message from the Big Giant Head!”
Apparently Fred Hutchison’s comedy talents are more in the areas of gay sex and general relativity than in evolutionary biology.
Feh. When jerkholes like this start “loving” me the way they do, I wish they’d Just Stop.