Christine O'Donnell is not "Pro-Life"

[johnny karate]

That's a mystery to you? She thinks it promotes promiscuity. Right or wrong about what that event celebrates, promiscuity sure as hell increases HIV transmission.

Not all gays are promiscuous, and a celebration of the gay lifestyle is not a promotion of promiscuity. That she, or anyone else, thinks that it is nothing more than an expression of homophobia.

Were these industries holding government-sponsored celebrations encouraging the use of their products?

Is it your belief that the government sponsors "drag queen balls" to celebrate the gay lifestyle? Because I don't see that indicated anywhere in the link in the OP.

 

[thaiboxerken]

http://www.indecisionforever.com/20...onnell-says-condoms-dont-stop-spread-of-aids/

 

[Magyar]

Ahh a voluntary condition that became so widespread because people didn't know they had volunteered. One of the most important part of researching aids is education as it can be the key to prevention and others will not have to unwillingly volunteer.

When christians label it as a lifestyle disease they mean a dirty homo disease or a punishment from god. Face the fact that anyone from a nun to bum can contract aids from any number of causes. Most STD'd are transmitted unknowingly as most carriers do not know they have one. Saying "piss off and die" to all of these volunteers is so very christian. What ever happened to love the sinner, hate the sin?

And isn't there something about their precious savior spending all kinds of time with lepers? Yes, I am quit certain I read that SOMEWHERE

 

[thaiboxerken]

Magyar.. WWJD is not something they actually believe in trying. It's just something they put on their car bumpers to feel smug.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

Not too often. But I'll tell you what happens all the bloody time. In fact, it happens so often, and it's so expected and accepted, that you didn't even consider it: people are excluded from romantic relationships to begin with for being fat. Frankly, that's a much bigger deal.

Isn't this consideration just as true concerning sexual preferences as well? Even though bisexuals and others may be acceptable to either group, homosexuals and heterosexuals are generally expected to not date one another. Something to do with attractiveness. Also yes, there is discrimination in bisexuals being excluded from romantic consideration of both heterosexuals and homosexuals, so it is not just the issue of biological sex.

 

[johnny karate]

There's nothing hypocritical about it, johnny. We all pick our pet issues. There's no obligation to spend your energies equally between different issues.

Fine, then we'll just stick with homophobia.

Not too often. But I'll tell you what happens all the bloody time. In fact, it happens so often, and it's so expected and accepted, that you didn't even consider it: people are excluded from romantic relationships to begin with for being fat. Frankly, that's a much bigger deal.

So none then.

Nobody tracks that, so how would you even know? Why would you think you'd even hear about it?

So none then.

Yeah, them gays. They've just got it so good in America, don't they?

 

[johnny karate]

And isn't there something about their precious savior spending all kinds of time with lepers? Yes, I am quit certain I read that SOMEWHERE

Ah, but those lepers weren't icky homos, were they?

 

[thaiboxerken]

O'Donnell also thinks "the gay" can be cured.

 

[Ziggurat]

Not all gays are promiscuous

But the rates of promiscuity are much higher.

and a celebration of the gay lifestyle is not a promotion of promiscuity.

Not axiomatically, but given of what I've seen of the San Francisco Gay Pride parade, you'll have to forgive me for thinking that some such celebrations actually are. And would be considered as such even if you turned all the elements heterosexual.

That she, or anyone else, thinks that it is nothing more than an expression of homophobia.

I won't claim to know what motivates O'Donnell, but I will say that plenty of religious conservatives see considerable celebration of promiscuity among homosexuals AND heterosexuals.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I won't claim to know what motivates O'Donnell, but I will say that plenty of religious conservatives see considerable celebration of promiscuity among homosexuals AND heterosexuals.

That's what the goggles of bigotry do to people. They see all kinds of nonsense that isn't true.

 

[Ziggurat]

Isn't this consideration just as true concerning sexual preferences as well?

It's not equivalent, at least not fore purely homosexual versus heterosexual (which was the comparison being made). Those groups mostly self-segregate along sexual orientation lines. Sure, a gay guy might have a crush on a gay guy, but generally speaking, what a gay guy really wants is another gay guy. Not so with fat people: they don't self-segregate, they mostly just get excluded.

 

[thaiboxerken]

But the rates of promiscuity are much higher.

I doubt it.

http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/gayhealth.html

 

[johnny karate]

But the rates of promiscuity are much higher.

Citation needed.

Not axiomatically, but given of what I've seen of the San Francisco Gay Pride parade, you'll have to forgive me for thinking that some such celebrations actually are. And would be considered as such even if you turned all the elements heterosexual.

And yet we don't hear O'Donnell condemning so-called heterosexual celebrations of promiscuity (which, by your standards, are far more rampant in American society) for the spread of disease.

I won't claim to know what motivates O'Donnell, but I will say that plenty of religious conservatives see considerable celebration of promiscuity among homosexuals AND heterosexuals.

And yet it seems that it's the homosexuals who are primarily targeted. At least in this case it is.

 

[Brainster]

I am hoping that is the only thing you think she is right on from her quote. Do you have the 1997 figures handy BTW?

Research it yourself and get back to us.

 

[Puppycow]

She's an idiot about a lot of things, but not this one. The government does spend far too much money on AIDS research compared to other diseases.

Wow. Lies, damn lies and statistics. This one is just a disingenuous way to rationalize hatred.

 

[Brainster]

Wow. Lies, damn lies and statistics. This one is just a disingenuous way to rationalize hatred.

I also think the government spends too much money on breast cancer and not enough on prostate cancer. I must hate women and love men, huh?

 

[Ziggurat]

I also think the government spends too much money on breast cancer and not enough on prostate cancer. I must hate women and love men, huh?

Of course. Which also means you're a closeted homosexual.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I also think the government spends too much money on breast cancer and not enough on prostate cancer. I must hate women and love men, huh?

That would depend on the other things you've said about it. O' Donnell has not kept it a secret that she thinks gay is a curable disease.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

But the rates of promiscuity are much higher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promiscuity#Female_promiscuity

Lesbians who had a long-term partner reported having fewer outside partners than heterosexual women.[10]

Studies seem to indicate it is a gender discrepency more than a sexual preference discrepency.

Not axiomatically, but given of what I've seen of the San Francisco Gay Pride parade, you'll have to forgive me for thinking that some such celebrations actually are. And would be considered as such even if you turned all the elements heterosexual.

Many elements of the SF Gay Pride Parade are sexually charged, but most of the people in attendance and even marching tend to be dressed in every day attire. It also might be a weather issue. Pride parades further south tend to the more scantily clad performances, as do many non-pride parades in the south. Pride parades in the north are a bit less so. Yes, you will find the scantily clad and specifically sexually provocative people in the north as well. Go to http://www.sfpride.org/ and click on the About Us page. No mention of promiscuity. Pride organizations tend to be neutral with regards to promiscuity. More of a personal informed choice than a community ethic.

I won't claim to know what motivates O'Donnell, but I will say that plenty of religious conservatives see considerable celebration of promiscuity among homosexuals AND heterosexuals.

Fair enough. Considering she claimed that masturbation leads to promiscuity I would not doubt she considers most of the US promiscuous.

 

[Puppycow]

The problem here is that not all medical funding is equal. There are many reasons that HIV/AIDS receives such high funding where other diseases might not. The impact on those born with the disease. The relative more recent introduction to the public consciousness. The ease at which it spreads infection coupled with high morbidity. New possible avenues of research. The effectiveness of the spending. I think that last point should really resonate with the deficit hawks. HIV/AIDS spending has been highly effective in prolonging life and increasing qualifity of life for those under the effects. In 30 years it is has pretty much gone from a 1 year terminal prognosis to a 10 year terminal prognosis in median. The prognosis with treatment is actual about 20 years but not everyone in the world has access. Seriously, we have a disease that we cannot cure but lengthen the life expentancy from exposure twentyfold. That is very effecitve. Though it is very expensive.

The other major diseases have for the most part had half a century to a full century of modern medical research. Sure, not every year is as equal to modern years but it has had cumulative effects. Is the total government spending on HIV/AIDS research higher than that of cancer over the long haul? I can see the spending on HIV/AIDS start to diminish once treatments come down in costs and new avenues of research start to dwindle.

So HIV/AIDS spending is higher per patient death. How about per patient saved from death? How about number of years lost to death? There are so many ways of reformatting the discussion. Related to the subject of dollars per patient death, the FAIR charts (click the The Facts link at the bottom) show that dollars spent per patient is 3/4ths that spent on cancer in general and breast cancer in specific. Other cancers receive much less funding. Of course the chart displayed in arguements also leaves out West Nile Virus, which is $1,464,285 per patient death and $ 64,364 per patient. It is on their facts page at least. Why none of the complaints about West Nile Virus spending?

Great post. Thank you.

Furthermore, if anyone thinks other diseases are underfunded, they should be arguing to increase that funding, not arguing to cut funding for HIV/AIDS research. O'Donnell's mask slipped off when she said that AIDS victims are not victims. She and FAIR are searching for a way to rationalize their hatred.

Suppose we graphed the money we spend fighting terrorism versus the number of deaths by terrorism. That would dwarf the HIV/AIDS ratio. And BTW, that's only deaths in the US. It's much, much higher in Africa.