Homosexuality is Bad for Your Health

[William Joyce]

You know that guy, Fred Phelps, who goes around yelling?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/health/15infe.html?em&ex=1200546000&en=01e523c3a20fda7c&ei=5087

Well, he may not be so diplomatic, but the truth is that homosexual sex is a disease factory.

 

[Dr Grump]

You know that guy, Fred Phelps, who goes around yelling?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/health/15infe.html?em&ex=1200546000&en=01e523c3a20fda7c&ei=5087

Well, he may not be so diplomatic, but the truth is that homosexual sex is a disease factory.

So's hetrosexual sex is you don't take precautions and are promiscuous...your point being?

 

[jillian]

I just think it funny that he's using the NY Times as a source.

 

[watermark]

You know that guy, Fred Phelps, who goes around yelling?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/health/15infe.html?em&ex=1200546000&en=01e523c3a20fda7c&ei=5087

Well, he may not be so diplomatic, but the truth is that homosexual sex is a disease factory.

Buttsex is generally bad for you. But hey, so is smoking.

 

[William Joyce]

So's hetrosexual sex is you don't take precautions and are promiscuous

No, it isn't, actually. Homosexual (male) "sex" speads disease much faster because the anus isn't built for penis penetration. The vagina is. the former has "columnar" cells that rupture, while the latter has "plate" cells that do not. The result is that cells tear far more easily and blood and fluids pass more easily, thus transmitting disease. This is why homosexual sex spread AIDS like fire.

But beyond physical reasons, homosexual sex by the admission of homosexuals involves frequent encounters with many different partners, much more than heterosexual relations.

I'm not advocating stoning homosexuals here, but when I read gays saying that Ronald Reagan is at fault for AIDS, it makes me want to scream, "No, sticking your dick in another man's asshole is what causes AIDS, Bruce!"

 

[jillian]

No, it isn't, actually. Homosexual (male) "sex" speads disease much faster because the anus isn't built for penis penetration. The vagina is. the former has "columnar" cells that rupture, while the latter has "plate" cells that do not. The result is that cells tear far more easily and blood and fluids pass more easily, thus transmitting disease. This is why homosexual sex spread AIDS like fire.

not to mention that men can only *give* AIDS to women (which is the largest current source of new AIDS viruses) and can't get it from them.

 

[watermark]

No, it isn't, actually. Homosexual (male) "sex" speads disease much faster because the anus isn't built for penis penetration. The vagina is. the former has "columnar" cells that rupture, while the latter has "plate" cells that do not. The result is that cells tear far more easily and blood and fluids pass more easily, thus transmitting disease. This is why homosexual sex spread AIDS like fire.

But beyond physical reasons, homosexual sex by the admission of homosexuals involves frequent encounters with many different partners, much more than heterosexual relations.

I'm not advocating stoning homosexuals here, but when I read gays saying that Ronald Reagan is at fault for AIDS, it makes me want to scream, "No, sticking your dick in another man's asshole is what causes AIDS, Bruce!"

It doesn't have to be one or the other. Maybe Reagan was at fault for being slow to raise awareness, and therefore made the plague worse. To say that he's completely at fault is stupid but to completely ignore any fault he may have is also stupid.

 

[watermark]

And anyway, the difference in rupturing doesn't really matter. If you have AIDS, and you cum on a woman, she then has AIDS too. Wear a condom, and the chance of AIDS is the same either way.

 

[Kagom]

Sex in general spreads diseases, regardless whether it's anal, vaginal, or oral. Hell, if we want to live in a society where there is virtually NO chance of getting any kind of disease, etc., we might as well ban sex, ban swapping of bodily fluids of any kind (kissing as example), whatnot.

 

[eots]

Ron Paul 'Homophobic' Newsletter Claim Is Actually True
Kirchick's sloppy research and smear agenda exposed
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, January 15, 2008



Amidst the smear, distortion and guilt by association attack pattern employed in the recent New Republic hit piece on Congressman Ron Paul, one claim attributed to the presidential candidate and scorned as homophobic actually turns out to be true - the fact that some gay men actually want HIV and call themselves "bug-chasers".

Who spouted this outlandish, anti-gay hate crime rhetoric in January 2003? David Duke? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? The John Birch Society? No, it turns out it was that bastion of right-wing, narrow minded, bigoted intolerance - Rolling Stone Magazine.

"Commenting on a rise in AIDS infections, writes James Kirchick in his hit piece, "one newsletter said that "gays in San Francisco do not obey the dictates of good sense," adding: "[T]hese men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners." Also, "they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."



In another newsletter, writes Kirchick, "Readers were warned to avoid blood transfusions because gays were trying to "poison the blood supply."

Some gay men enjoy living with HIV? Some gay men actively pursue the disease thereby increasing the AIDS risk to others? Is this claim homophobic as Kirchick insinuates? Whatever your view on homosexuality, the fact that there is a community of gays that actively seek to catch AIDS is widely accepted as fact.

Highly publicized at the time and featured prominently on the Drudge Report, Rolling Stone Magazine's January 2003 "Bug Chasers" article lifted the lid on how some homosexuals actually want to be infected.

In the essay, writer Gregory A. Freeman details an "Intricate underground world that has sprouted, in which men who want to be infected with HIV get together with those who are willing to infect them. The men who want the virus are called "bug chasers," and the men who freely give the virus to them are called "gift givers."

How far removed is the newsletter claim that HIV infected gays "enjoy the attention and pity" from having AIDS than, as reported in the Rolling Stone piece, that gays "Feel lost and without any community to embrace them, and they see those living with HIV as a cohesive group that welcomes its new members and receives vast support from the rest of the gay community, and from society as a whole."

The Rolling Stone article quotes Harvard's Dr. Marshall Forstein, who states that "Gay men who are doing this haven't a clue what they're doing. They're incredibly selfish and self-absorbed. They don't have any idea what's going on with the epidemic in terms of the world or society or what impact their actions might have. The sense of being my brother's keeper is never discussed in the gay community because we've gone to the extreme of saying gay men with HIV can do no wrong. They're poor victims, and we can't ever criticize them."


So yes Mr. Kirchick - the contention made in the newsletter, that some gay men enjoy catching HIV, is a fact.

In highlighting the fact that some claims Kirchick attempts to pass off as lunatic fringe thinking are actually true, I am not attempting to lend credence to the other claims cited in the newsletters. Most are taken wildly out of context by Kirchick and others are distasteful, as Ron Paul himself has admitted.

Others are outright made-up, like Kirchick's ludicrous assertion that Ron Paul called Martin Luther King a "gay pedophile".

However, the fact that Kirchick was completely unaware of the widely publicized 2003 Rolling Stone article proves once again that his agenda was to throw the kitchen sink at Ron Paul in a blatant smear attempt absent any semblance of journalistic integrity or regard for the truth.

 

[Alucard]

The phisical health risks of sex between men is clear...

What I have noticed is the mental illness that seems to fallow later in life... I have 3 gay men I presently associate with at some level... one through work, one is a neighbor , and the other is a childhood friend I see from time to time...


All three are depressed and are starting to deeply regret the CHOICES they made in their lives.... No motivation ,alcaholism and drug addiction developing in their late 40's...

 

[doniston]

No, it isn't, actually. Homosexual (male) "sex" speads disease much faster because the anus isn't built for penis penetration. The vagina is. the former has "columnar" cells that rupture, while the latter has "plate" cells that do not. The result is that cells tear far more easily and blood and fluids pass more easily, thus transmitting disease. This is why homosexual sex spread AIDS like fire.

But beyond physical reasons, homosexual sex by the admission of homosexuals involves frequent encounters with many different partners, much more than heterosexual relations.

I'm not advocating stoning homosexuals here, but when I read gays saying that Ronald Reagan is at fault for AIDS, it makes me want to scream, "No, sticking your dick in another man's asshole is what causes AIDS, Bruce!"

Apparently you don't realize that Hetros indulge in anal sex too. Get with it if you want to be reasonably credible

 

[doniston]

not to mention that men can only *give* AIDS to women (which is the largest current source of new AIDS viruses) and can't get it from them.

Where in hell did you get that bit of garbage?

 

[doniston]

The phisical health risks of sex between men is clear...

What I have noticed is the mental illness that seems to fallow later in life... I have 3 gay men I presently associate with at some level... one through work, one is a neighbor , and the other is a childhood friend I see from time to time...


All three are depressed and are starting to deeply regret the CHOICES they made in their lives.... No motivation ,alcaholism and drug addiction developing in their late 40's...

I hate to break it to you fella, but "REGRET" is NOT a mental illness.

 

[rayboyusmc]

"No, sticking your dick in another man's asshole is what causes AIDS, Bruce!"

No, that spreads AIDS, it doesn't cause it. Hasn't AIDS beent traced to branch of frigging monkeys somehere?

We need to shoot all gay monkeys to be safe.

 

[mattskramer]

Homosexual behavior is dangerous. Are you trying to make a point beyond this?

 

[jillian]

Where in hell did you get that bit of garbage?

Probably would have been better to say far less likely. But the receptive partner is always at greater risk. In heterosexual sex, I think we can agree the woman is the receptive partner, yes?

And perhaps your question could have been phrased more politely. Is that beyond you?

 

[watermark]

Ron Paul 'Homophobic' Newsletter Claim Is Actually True
Kirchick's sloppy research and smear agenda exposed
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, January 15, 2008



Amidst the smear, distortion and guilt by association attack pattern employed in the recent New Republic hit piece on Congressman Ron Paul, one claim attributed to the presidential candidate and scorned as homophobic actually turns out to be true - the fact that some gay men actually want HIV and call themselves "bug-chasers".

Who spouted this outlandish, anti-gay hate crime rhetoric in January 2003? David Duke? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? The John Birch Society? No, it turns out it was that bastion of right-wing, narrow minded, bigoted intolerance - Rolling Stone Magazine.

"Commenting on a rise in AIDS infections, writes James Kirchick in his hit piece, "one newsletter said that "gays in San Francisco do not obey the dictates of good sense," adding: "[T]hese men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners." Also, "they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."



In another newsletter, writes Kirchick, "Readers were warned to avoid blood transfusions because gays were trying to "poison the blood supply."

Some gay men enjoy living with HIV? Some gay men actively pursue the disease thereby increasing the AIDS risk to others? Is this claim homophobic as Kirchick insinuates? Whatever your view on homosexuality, the fact that there is a community of gays that actively seek to catch AIDS is widely accepted as fact.

Highly publicized at the time and featured prominently on the Drudge Report, Rolling Stone Magazine's January 2003 "Bug Chasers" article lifted the lid on how some homosexuals actually want to be infected.

In the essay, writer Gregory A. Freeman details an "Intricate underground world that has sprouted, in which men who want to be infected with HIV get together with those who are willing to infect them. The men who want the virus are called "bug chasers," and the men who freely give the virus to them are called "gift givers."

How far removed is the newsletter claim that HIV infected gays "enjoy the attention and pity" from having AIDS than, as reported in the Rolling Stone piece, that gays "Feel lost and without any community to embrace them, and they see those living with HIV as a cohesive group that welcomes its new members and receives vast support from the rest of the gay community, and from society as a whole."

The Rolling Stone article quotes Harvard's Dr. Marshall Forstein, who states that "Gay men who are doing this haven't a clue what they're doing. They're incredibly selfish and self-absorbed. They don't have any idea what's going on with the epidemic in terms of the world or society or what impact their actions might have. The sense of being my brother's keeper is never discussed in the gay community because we've gone to the extreme of saying gay men with HIV can do no wrong. They're poor victims, and we can't ever criticize them."


So yes Mr. Kirchick - the contention made in the newsletter, that some gay men enjoy catching HIV, is a fact.

In highlighting the fact that some claims Kirchick attempts to pass off as lunatic fringe thinking are actually true, I am not attempting to lend credence to the other claims cited in the newsletters. Most are taken wildly out of context by Kirchick and others are distasteful, as Ron Paul himself has admitted.

Others are outright made-up, like Kirchick's ludicrous assertion that Ron Paul called Martin Luther King a "gay pedophile".

However, the fact that Kirchick was completely unaware of the widely publicized 2003 Rolling Stone article proves once again that his agenda was to throw the kitchen sink at Ron Paul in a blatant smear attempt absent any semblance of journalistic integrity or regard for the truth.

Ron Paul didn't write that letter, and he abhors it. Only a member of Stormfront would agree with that shit.

 

[watermark]

Where in hell did you get that bit of garbage?

A man is less likely to get AIDS from a women than vice versa, but obviously, if you couldn't get AIDS from a women the disease would've died out a long time ago.

 

[Shogun]

The phisical health risks of sex between men is clear...

What I have noticed is the mental illness that seems to fallow later in life... I have 3 gay men I presently associate with at some level... one through work, one is a neighbor , and the other is a childhood friend I see from time to time...


All three are depressed and are starting to deeply regret the CHOICES they made in their lives.... No motivation ,alcaholism and drug addiction developing in their late 40's...

CLEARLY all the product of homosexuality.




So, is wife beating a product of heterosexuality? Since, statistically, more heteros sexually abuse their kids than gays does this mean that heterosexuality causes the sexual abuse of children? You fall for a logical fallacy because it falls in line with your opinion of gays. It's cool, dude. Archie Bunker lasted well past the 60s too.