Re: The Dangerous Nature of Homosexuality
| Posted On: 08/09/07 06:14:13 PM |
Age 20, NY |
You know that according to the CDC women who have sex with women are statistcly the least likely to contract HIV/AIDS? So maybe it's not homosexuals that spread AIDS so much as men, as the faster growing demographic for HIV/AIDS contaction is amoung women who sleep with men. Being a man yourself, it's probably a bad idea to be brining all this to light, although I agree it is important to spot dangerous behaviors such as having relationships with men.
Click here to reply to this post
|
Re: The Dangerous Nature of Homosexuality
| Posted On: 07/12/07 05:25:53 PM |
Age 50, VA |
I am getting a mixed message here. I have knowledge of a case that this author participated in. In this case this author represented a husband against a wife who was trying to get a divorce. This author called the wife an adulterer, murderer (abortion) and various other names, the chattel was evil and had to be destroyed.
The author's crusade lasted for five years against, the chattel, her new boyfriend and all who supported her. We agree at this point that the author was correct, that the escaping chattel was evil and must go back to her master, the author, members of the "Church of God" and a Christian counselor told her this.
The reason that this evil woman left her husband was because he called her up while she was at a Church camp to tell her that he was going to have the operation to turn into a woman, she found the doctors bill, the wife's clothes were no longer serviceable because he had stretched them out wearing them, allegedly he had handcuffed her to the bed and gave her to three of his friends as he watched. The husband accomplishments included an affair the result of which was an illegitimate child in Ohio and allegedly felony rape conviction.
Once the chattel escaped with her minor son, she was plagued by stalking, assaults, preaching and threats from the husband. For some reason the wife's attorney rolled over supposedly he was running for political office and may have needed a gullible demographic, so the authors "misstatements" were never refuted.
The abortion, was because of stress, one day the chattel was bleeding out, blood was everywhere, she was hemorrhaging as a result of stress caused by this author and his client a year and a half after she escaped. We heard about this event from the author for the remaining three and a half years, so we are murderers.
Now for the children that this author took from their mother, her son finally contacted her from a hospital, apparently he tried to commit suicide by jumping off a building. The daughter years later related to me that her father had relations with her. Where were the Christian's who were so instrumental in separating the mother from her children and marginalizing her so that she could not do anything ? Family values ?
Now what I question here is if the author had been successful, the wife remained with her master and he turned into a she, then it would have been a "woman" on "woman" marriage or "Gay" marriage. Who would be the chattel and who would be the master ? Ironically the author would have facilitated this marriage in the name of Chistiananity with the support of the church. For five years we heard the argument in court that the "wife must remain with her 'husband'", that it was a "sin" to leave. It should be noted the zeal of the author and those who aided him in this crusade to defend an individual who chose an alternate lifestyle. I am confused between what the "message is" and the "works that are done" I know about, apparently alternate lifestyles are embraced in the closet ? Are "Gay" marriages even legal in Virginia ? So if the wife had remained and the husband changed, not only would they have been living in "sin" but they may have been committed a "crime". I have a headache ....
The author is a great "attorney" I can attest that his strategy is devastating, he and members of the church were telling the chattel to go back, go back for more - they were NOT there for the beatings, the assaults, rape or apparently the children, after their success - by their "works shall ye be judged".
http://boards.billmaher.com/showthread.php?p=1014385#post1014385
Click here to reply to this post
|
Re: The Dangerous Nature of Homosexuality
| Posted On: 09/13/06 11:09:26 AM |
Age 62, OH |
Mr. Sharman I think your article was good but
failed to mention a greater danger, that of
hate and prejudice. When I reread your
article I didn't feel that you were motivated
by hate or prejudice but a concern about
behavior that brings about tragic consequences. When I read the articles that
disagreed with you they seemed to be filled
with hate and prejudice. One person even
compared you to Hitler. Hitler didn't go
down in history for what he thought but for
what he did .He had millions of people killed
because of what they thought,where they were
born,or who their parents were.If Hitler
was brought before a court I think most people would think he would deserve to die.
Is this person saying that you deserve to die.If that is the case aren't they saying
you deserve death for what you think.Dosen't
that way of thinking resemble Hitlers way of
thinking.What I observe about homosexuals is
that so many of them seem to have so much
hate and prejudice.The Bible shows this same
thing in the story in Genesis 19. Lot
offered his two virgin daughters to the men
of Sodom. But these men preferred to try to
force an act of hate and violence with
extreme prejudice on two strangers. God
judged Sodom,Gomorrah and all the cities in
the entire plain(except for tiny Zoar)not
only for their behavior but for their
rebellion against God and the hate and
prejudice they showed their fellow man.
Click here to reply to this post
|
Re: The Dangerous Nature of Homosexuality
| Posted On: 08/08/06 10:12:43 AM |
Age 50, NC |
Mr Sharman's use of statistics and lack of enlightenment with current AIDS trends is about as up to date as his use of the 20+ year old term Gay Bowel Syndrome. I am shocked by the fact he didn't once mention IV drug use,and heterosexual sex, since they represents the greatest segment of the population with HIV infection increases percentage wise in recent years. His attitudes and prejudices and misconceptions about HIV/AIDS are 15-20 years out of date. Get with the program.
Click here to reply to this post
|
- Re: Re: The Dangerous Nature of Homosexuality
| Posted On: 08/11/06 12:15:45 AM | | Age 40, SD |
Perhaps you should re-read the artical. Mr. Sharman said "The acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) was first identified in 1981. Before that time, the malady was just called Gay Bowel Syndrome.[2]"
He is merely reciting what it was first called, and jesting about it at theHis data seems pretty up to date (although in 2003 was the last year), not much has changed in 3 years, but go worse. Here are some more alarming statistics you should know.
In the early 1980s, gay bathhouses helped fuel the AIDS crisis, as homosexual men cruised those locations looking for numerous casual-sex encounters. Today, according to one story by ABC News, the Internet may be fulfilling the same role as the bathhouses.
The Internet is a new venue associated with high-risk sex. It is a quick and easy way to meet new partners, said Sabina Hirschfield of the Medical and Health Research Association in New York City.
Hirschfield and other researchers surveyed nearly 3,000 homosexual men who use www.Gay.com, which describes itself as the worlds largest gay & lesbian [Internet] destination. According to ABCNews.com, 84% of respondents said they met sex partners online, while nearly 66% said they had recently had anal sex without using condoms. The survey also found that about 25% said they had had more than 100 sex partners over the course of their lives.
This growing willingness to participate in risky sex is particularly dangerous, because a sizable percentage of people infected with HIV are unaware that they have the virus. According to the CDC, although 900,000 people in the U.S. are infected with the AIDS virus, almost one-third of those individuals dont even know they have HIV.
We are still very concerned about the estimated 280,000 people in America who are infected with HIV and dont know it, NCHSTP deputy director Dr. Ron Valdiserri told the 10th Annual Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections in Boston in February.
More disturbing is what appears to be the growing phenomenon of bug chasers within the gay community homosexual men trying to get infected with the AIDS virus. An article in Rolling Stone by writer Gregory Freeman found that [s]ome want HIV because they think once they have it they can go on with a wild, uninhibited sex life without constant fears of the virus.
Dr. Bob Cabaj, director of behavioral health services for San Francisco County, told Freeman that he estimated that 25% of all newly-infected homosexual men fall into the bug chaser category, and that AIDS groups and homosexual public health officials are covering up the phenomenon.
Yeah, its an active cover-up, because they know about [bug chasing]. Theyre in denial of this issue, Cabaj told Rolling Stone. This is a difficult issue that dredges up some images about gay men that they dont want to have to deal with. They dont want to shine a light on this topic because they dont want people to even know that this behavior exists.
When the Rolling Stone article broke, however, Cabaj was immediately blasted by homosexual activists for his comments. He has since denied using the 25% figure.
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: Re: Re: The Dangerous Nature of Homosexuality
| Posted On: 08/10/07 12:25:03 AM | | Age 20, NY |
Gay bowel syndrome actualy is not a reference to AIDS, it's a reference to the taring of the rectum sometimes caused an anal sex, but this is more likely to occur in women who engage in anal sex with men, because their smaller rectal size. AIDS was originaly identify in The United states as GRID (Gay-related immune deficiency) however this was dispelled once it was revieled that the first cases of HIV actualy originated in Africa as a mutation of (SIV) Simian immunodeficiency virus, transmitted by accident through the butchering of baboon meat. Perhaps a little research and citing would make this article more credible, although since the facts are against the claim. I understand why such meansures wouldn't be taken by the author.
Source: Perspectives on human sexuality SUNY Press 2004
Click here to reply to this post
Erroneous argument
| Posted On: 08/08/06 09:52:22 AM |
Age 23, NY |
Sharman's thinking is flawed in two ways. The first is his claim gay sex is bad because it is 'dangerous', i.e. because it is easier to get AIDS from gay sex than straight sex. This claim is simply unsupportable since one can contract STDs from straight sex as well. If danger is what makes gay sex bad then it makes straight sex bad as well.
Sharman's second mistake is to assume all gay sex is fundamentally promiscuous. Unprotected casual sex is dangerous, whether it is heterosexual or homosexual, but Sharman, in claiming that homosexual sex is inherently dangerous, also seems to be implying that it is fundamentally promiscuous as well, since there would be nothing at all 'dangerous' about two gay men in a monogamous relationship having sex. I find it troubling that Sharman's argument seems to rely on negative stereotypes of gay people.
Click here to reply to this post
|
- Re: Erroneous argument
| Posted On: 08/11/06 12:29:06 AM | | Age 40, SD |
First of all, he did not say that it is easier to get aids from gay sex than straight sex, he said, 'HIV/AIDS, of course, is probably the most well known danger, yet as a society we continue to deny that HIV and AIDS are for the most part totally preventable diseases caused primarily by homosexual behaviors.
If you would read the article clearly and in context, he is using just gay men in this article due to the debate obout okaying gay marriages.
This article is not about all the ways to get aids, it is about the morality of (or the lack of) men getting married.
It is not clean biologically, or else men would not get aids.
Promescuity is not clean biologically, or there wouldn't be heterosexuals getting aids either.
God new best when he ordained marriage between one man and one woman. Although it was customary for men in the O.T. to have more than one wife, God frowned upon it.
Statistically, people who are not promiscuous and choose to stay with their one mate do not get aids unless they are the unfortunate recipient of the virus through bad blood transfusion, from a Dr. or dentist with aids. These cases, however, are very rare (thank goodness) in comparison to the majority of men who have aids, and the growing number of heterosexuals.
Click here to reply to this post
Re: The Dangerous Nature of Homosexuality
| Posted On: 08/08/06 07:43:14 AM |
Age 34, DC |
Mr. Sharman,
with your ignorance and hatred you would have made Hitler proud. The problem is that you might even take this as a compliment.
Carsten Schmidt
Click here to reply to this post
|
- Re: Re: The Dangerous Nature of Homosexuality
| Posted On: 09/13/06 06:22:24 PM | | Age 19, OH |
Mr. Sharman stated facts with absolutely no emotion that I could detect. To me, it seemed like he had genuine concern for people in general, both homosexual and heterosexual. I do not see how a grown man could mistake that for resembling the hateful doctrine of Hitler. What next? Are we going to say that people who try to make the public aware of the dangers of pedophilia should be labled as "haters" and that they are "intolerant" of pedophiles?
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: Re: The Dangerous Nature of Homosexuality
| Posted On: 08/11/06 12:33:01 AM | | Age 40, SD |
Since when is stating medical facts hatred? He is not condemning the homosexuals to hell, he is just stating an obvious biological fact.
Homosexual life style is not safe biologically. It is a choice. The rest of America should not be co-ersed into accepting this behavior as normal.
Heterosexual promescuity is not good either. Look at all the problems it causes. Unwanted pregnancies, heart ache, many forms of STDs, etc.
Click here to reply to this post
Re: The Dangerous Nature of Homosexuality
| Posted On: 08/08/06 05:41:33 AM |
Age 20, SA |
Mr Sharman,
Your article is very interesting. You seem to be making two points here, a) that AIDS is a homosexual disease and that b) homosexuality is a disease.
Firstly, your notion that AIDS is a homsexual disease is biased and antiquated. The HIV virus is transmitted through the transfer of bodily fluids such as blood, semen, breast milk etc, irrisepcitve of the sexual preferences of the transmitter and reciever.
(1): "Stigmatizing attitudes are strongly correlated with misunderstanding the mechanisms of HIV transmission and overestimating the risks of casual contact."
Secondly the notion that homosexuality is a disease has also been dismissed time and time again by the scientific community.
(2): "All major mental health organizations, including the American Psychological Association (APA), have stated that homosexuality is not a mental disorder."
Due to this, the idea that it is "curable" is also baseless.
(3): "The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable." American Psychological Association 1998
(3): "Clinical experience suggests that any person who seeks conversion therapy may be doing so because of social bias that has resulted in internalized homophobia, and that gay men and lesbians who have accepted their sexual orientation positively are better adjusted than those who have not done so." American Psychiatric Association, 1994
As a family friendly religious site you could be doing so much to help teach tolerance, diversity and peace. I am saddened Mr Sharman that instead you're promoting the view that homosexuality is nothing more than a disease and that AIDS is contracted by those people because of it.
You may post my details publicly if you wish, and will accept any rebuttals. Thank you Mr Sharman.
REFERENCES
(1) HIV-Related Stigma and Knowledge in the United States: Prevalence and Trends, 1991-1999
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/ajph2002.pdf
(2) Homosexuality: Facts for Teens
http://familydoctor.org/739.xml
(3) OutFront Minnesota Fact Sheet:
The Truth About "Converting" Gay People
http://www.outfront.org/library/fact.html
Click here to reply to this post
|
- Re: Re: The Dangerous Nature of Homosexuality
| Posted On: 08/11/06 12:42:24 AM | | Age 40, SD |
It is funny how those of you who are irate at this article put words into it that are not even there. I am finding hard to not laugh.
First of all, he never said once in his article that homosexual is an illness or a disease. He says the behaior is what causes the disease. This is a medical fact that can not go away from political correctness.
"Clinical experience suggests that any person who seeks conversion therapy may be doing so because of social bias that has resulted in internalized homophobia, and that gay men and lesbians who have accepted their sexual orientation positively are better adjusted than those who have not done so." The quote you used here is not fact, just a suggestion because of what may be happening.
Here they and all who go along with this statement are quite wrong. I personally know homosexuals who have chosen to "go straight" because they were unhappy in that life style, not because of social stereotype. They are happier now in their heterosexual life style than they ever have been. They are happy with their spouses and children they brought into this world by nataural love making.
Click here to reply to this post
Re: The Dangerous Nature of Homosexuality
| Posted On: 08/07/06 07:09:59 PM |
Age 65, NH |
Thank you J. Michael Sharman for your article on this subject and your bravery for putting it here.
First of all I am a retired Nurse and very aware of the correct use of the parts of the body. God Who did create them, intended them for specific uses and not for the abuse that this behavior brings in the name of "love". In medical circles the urinary tract is considered a sterile field therefore, the acts that are practiced in this evil behavior are filthy at best.
Second, I am also an ex-lesbian. Jesus came into my life and drew me to Himself and out of that behavior. No one is "born homosexual". Male and female He created them. Thank you again.
Click here to reply to this post
|
- Re: Re: The Dangerous Nature of Homosexuality
| Posted On: 08/08/06 10:35:47 AM | | Age 50, VA |
Thank you so much for your encouragement and willingness to talk about God's love for you.
If you'd be willing to, could you please share how, while you were a lesbian, you were chose to yield to God.
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: Re: The Dangerous Nature of Homosexuality
| Posted On: 08/08/06 10:35:31 AM | | Age 50, VA |
Thank you so much for your encouragement and willingness to talk about God's love for you.
If you'd be willing to, could you please share how, while you were a lesbian, you were chose to yield to God.
Click here to reply to this post
|
|
|
