news on the real reason for homosexual marriage need.

sitarro

Gold Member
Nov 17, 2003
5,186
1,028
153
USA
While this is good news to anyone who has contracted HIV/AIDS, check out the cos per month. If there is 1.1 million infected that we know of in the U.S., that comes to 1 BILLION 320 Million per month.......wonderful.

This disease should have been a national crisis when the first homosexual flight attendant started spreading it across the nation. The homosexual community was extremely slow in their reaction and then demanded that nothing would really be done about it in it's early stages......they were more afraid of being ostracized than dying. Records were kept secret and nothing was done about the bathhouses that contributed to the spread that eventually made it into normal society. Many say that it was spread into the heterosexual world by homosexuals that felt it would get more attention that way, it was definitely brought to women by husbands that cheated on their wives with other men and also the intravenous drug users.

Thanks boys, what a great contribution to our world.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/h...=1152417600&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

New Medicine for AIDS Is One Pill, Once a Day

By ANDREW POLLACK
The first complete treatment for AIDS that is taken once a day as a single pill is expected to be available soon.

The pill, which combines three drugs made by two companies, would be a milestone in improving the simplicity of treatment for the disease, experts say. It should make it easier for people to take their medicine regularly, which is important for keeping the virus that causes the disease in check.

Only a decade ago, when cocktails of AIDS drugs were first used, patients often had to take two or three dozen pills a day, some with food, some without, some so frequently patients had to get up in the middle of the night. Since then, the regimens have been whittled down to as few as two pills a day, and now, one.

"Going down to one pill a day is amazing," said Keith Folger of Washington, who started on 36 pills a day about 11 years ago and expects to switch to the new pill when it becomes available.

Mr. Folger, who is just leaving a job as director of community mobilization for the National Association of People With AIDS, said the pill would be "remarkable, especially for people who are starting on medication for the first time and are sort of freaked out that they will have to take pills for the rest of their lives."

The new drug is a combination of drugs already on the market — Sustiva, sold by Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Truvada, sold by Gilead Sciences. Truvada is a combination of two Gilead drugs, Viread and Emtriva.

The Food and Drug Administration is expected to approve the new drug as soon as this week. The agency has until October to act but is expected to do so much sooner, partly because the government has been encouraging companies to do just this sort of collaboration to come up with simpler AIDS drugs.

The companies have not revealed the new drug's name or its price, though they have suggested it will cost roughly the same as Sustiva and Truvada bought separately, which is about $1,200 a month.

There are already other AIDS pills that combine three drugs. One, made by a company in India, was recently approved by the F.D.A. for use in developing countries. But those other three-in-one pills generally contain older drugs and are taken twice a day.

The drugs in the new pill already constitute the most widely prescribed regimen in the United States and one of the most effective.

Doctors and securities analysts expect most people now taking Sustiva and Truvada separately to switch to the new pill.

It is somewhat less certain how many people taking other drug combinations will switch. Some of them will not because the virus in their bodies is already resistant to one of the drugs in the new pill or because they cannot tolerate side effects. Sustiva, also known as efavirenz, can cause unsettlingly vivid dreams and birth defects.

In addition, the new salmon-colored pill is about 1,500 milligrams, the size of a large vitamin pill, and some people may find it difficult to swallow.

Going to a single pill could be especially important in poor countries, where patients have less access to medical care and more people are illiterate or uneducated. The vast majority of the nearly 40 million people in the world infected by H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS, are in developing nations. In the United States there are about 1.1 million.

Bristol-Myers and Gilead say they will make the new pill available at a sharply reduced price for developing nations, but details are still being worked out. They are negotiating with Merck & Company, which sells efavirenz in those countries under the name stocrin.

A once-daily treatment did not become feasible until a few years ago, with the development of individual drugs that needed to be taken only once a day.

Still, no one company controlled all the drugs needed for an effective combination. It is rare for rivals to collaborate, though it has been done. Merck and Schering-Plough, for instance, have put two of their drugs into a combination cholesterol treatment called Vytorin.

Executives at Bristol-Myers, discussing in 2003 how to increase sales of Sustiva, came up with the idea of approaching Gilead, which already had two once-a-day pills, Viread, also known as tenofovir, and Emtriva, or emtracitabine. Gilead, based in Foster City, Calif., is now the largest supplier of H.I.V. drugs.

Talks were given further urgency when the F.D.A. summoned the two companies and Merck to a meeting in Washington in April 2004. The government was trying to encourage development of simpler pills as part of the president's plan to provide antiviral treatments to poor countries. The next month, the three companies announced their plan.

But carrying it out was not easy. Simply combining the three chemicals produced a mixture that melted easily.

"We made the first formulation and went out for lunch, and when we came back from lunch we had glue on our hands," said Reza Oliyai, a Gilead scientist. The eventual solution was to keep Truvada and Sustiva in separate layers.

It also took about a year to find a formulation that would produce the same level of the three drugs in a patient's blood as the three drugs taken separately, which is the main requirement for approval of a combination drug. Gilead tested five different formulations in healthy volunteers.

The failure of patients to take their drugs faithfully is a major problem, experts say, because it allows H.I.V. to develop resistance to the drugs.

Still, it is unclear exactly how much better people with H.I.V. will stick to a once-daily regimen compared with one requiring two pills a day.

Bob Huff, who edits a newsletter on new treatments for the Gay Men's Health Crisis, a patient advocacy group in New York, said a drug's potency and side effects were more important to patients than convenience.

Still, he said, "For some people it's just what they need to make treatment doable." A single pill may also mean a single insurance co-payment, he said, instead of two or three now that can cost people $100 a month.

Michael Weinstein, president of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, a Los Angeles organization that runs clinics in the United States and abroad, said other problems besides inconvenience — like drug addiction, depression and mental illness — kept people from sticking to their AIDS drugs.

Still, Mr. Weinstein called the new pill a "high-water mark" for simplicity and the way it was developed. "To have two companies collaborating — that's going to be significant for the future if it sets an example."

While other companies are expected to try to develop once-daily treatments, no other existing drugs can yet be as readily combined, said Dr. Calvin Cohen, research director for the Community Research Initiative of New England, a nonprofit organization that does clinical trials of H.I.V. drugs and provides patient education.

Dr. Cohen, an adviser to Gilead, Bristol-Myers and other drug manufacturers, said there was already some concern among AIDS experts that having a once-a-day treatment would make people lose their fear of H.I.V. "We still want people to respect that prevention of the disease is better than treatment," he said.
 
There was a local physician who used to write letters-to-the-editor all the time who kept complaining that the state was treating AIDS like a privacy issue with health concerns, when they should have been treating it like a health issue with privacy concerns. His argument was that AIDS should be treated like any other sexually transmitted desease. Reporting it to the Health Department, and notification to all known sex partners.

The gay lobby always came out in force whenever one of his letters got published. They called him every name in the book. Bigot. Homophobe. Never failed.

Of course, notifying all known sex partners only works when you know who your sex partners are.
 
Any and everything possible has been done to disassociate HIV/AIDS with gays. Once it was spread to the hetero community, the pro-gay folks began deflecting the argument to "not just gays get AIDS." One of their standard arguing points now.

The fact is, AIDS is the direct result of homosexual behavior -- a behavior that "doesn't hurt anyone." It just isn't PC to say so.
 
GunnyL said:
Any and everything possible has been done to disassociate HIV/AIDS with gays. Once it was spread to the hetero community, the pro-gay folks began deflecting the argument to "not just gays get AIDS." One of their standard arguing points now.

The fact is, AIDS is the direct result of homosexual behavior -- a behavior that "doesn't hurt anyone." It just isn't PC to say so.

Let’s cut through all of the emotional hype and stick to the scientific facts. According to dictionary.com

AIDS is a severe immunological disorder caused by the retrovirus HIV, resulting in a defect in cell-mediated immune response that is manifested by increased susceptibility to opportunistic infections and to certain rare cancers, especially Kaposi's sarcoma. It is transmitted primarily by exposure to contaminated body fluids, especially blood and semen.

It is a serious (often fatal) disease of the immune system transmitted through blood products especially by sexual contact or contaminated needles.


By the way, sometimes, consenting adults get hurt as a result of the decisions that they make.

Being gay and engaging in promiscuous homosexual behavior is no guarantee that you will get AIDS. Being straight and engaging in promiscuous heterosexual behavior is not guarantee that you will not get AIDS. While I think that there is slightly statistically higher chance of getting AIDS through promiscuous homosexual behavior, there is no guarantee. In summary, you basically get AIDS by coming in contact with contaminated blood, semen, and needles.
 
mattskramer said:
Let’s cut through all of the emotional hype and stick to the scientific facts. According to dictionary.com

AIDS is a severe immunological disorder caused by the retrovirus HIV, resulting in a defect in cell-mediated immune response that is manifested by increased susceptibility to opportunistic infections and to certain rare cancers, especially Kaposi's sarcoma. It is transmitted primarily by exposure to contaminated body fluids, especially blood and semen.

It is a serious (often fatal) disease of the immune system transmitted through blood products especially by sexual contact or contaminated needles.


By the way, sometimes, consenting adults get hurt as a result of the decisions that they make.

Being gay and engaging in promiscuous homosexual behavior is no guarantee that you will get AIDS. Being straight and engaging in promiscuous heterosexual behavior is not guarantee that you will not get AIDS. While I think that there is slightly statistically higher chance of getting AIDS through promiscuous homosexual behavior, there is no guarantee. In summary, you basically get AIDS by coming in contact with contaminated blood, semen, and needles.

No. let's DON'T take the context out of the argument in favor of your usual, dishonest literalizations.

Your little post here only reinforces what's already been said .... you will do any-and-everything to disassociate AIDS with gays.

The fact is, AIDS exists because gays exist. Stating who can and cannot contract HIV/AIDS is not in response to anything I posted, and is irrelevant.

Homosexuality is aberrant sexual behavior, and AIDS is a result of homosexuality that has spread beyond the gay community to be a threat to any-and-everyone.
 
GunnyL said:
No. let's DON'T take the context out of the argument in favor of your usual, dishonest literalizations.

I’m not taking the issue out of context. My comments are not dishonest.

GunnyL said:
Your little post here only reinforces what's already been said .... you will do any-and-everything to disassociate AIDS with gays.

Read my post again, very carefully. I said, …While I think that there is slightly statistically higher chance of getting AIDS through promiscuous homosexual behavior… I will not do any-and-everything to disassociate AIDS with gays. I will stick to facts. Yet, it looks like you are trying to equate gays with AIDS as if they are the same thing.

The fact is, AIDS exists because gays exist. Stating who can and cannot contract HIV/AIDS is not in response to anything I posted, and is irrelevant.

No. It can’t be concluded that AIDS exists because gays exists. If, today, there were no gays, it is highly likely that AIDS would still exist. The fact that AIDS can be contacted in other ways is relevant.

Homosexuality is aberrant sexual behavior, and AIDS is a result of homosexuality that has spread beyond the gay community to be a threat to any-and-everyone.

The notion that homosexuality is an aberrant sexual behavior is irrelevant. AIDS is the result of coming into contact with contaminated blood, semen, or needles. If you prove to me that AIDS originated as a result of homosexual contact, I will merely say that it is regrettable that it was how AIDS started. I will still stand by my statement. Yet, even if AIDS originated with homosexual contact, it does not mean that today, homosexual behavior is the only way to contact AIDS.
 
mattskramer said:
Let’s cut through all of the emotional hype and stick to the scientific facts. According to dictionary.com

AIDS is a severe immunological disorder caused by the retrovirus HIV, resulting in a defect in cell-mediated immune response that is manifested by increased susceptibility to opportunistic infections and to certain rare cancers, especially Kaposi's sarcoma. It is transmitted primarily by exposure to contaminated body fluids, especially blood and semen.

It is a serious (often fatal) disease of the immune system transmitted through blood products especially by sexual contact or contaminated needles.


By the way, sometimes, consenting adults get hurt as a result of the decisions that they make.

Being gay and engaging in promiscuous homosexual behavior is no guarantee that you will get AIDS. Being straight and engaging in promiscuous heterosexual behavior is not guarantee that you will not get AIDS. While I think that there is slightly statistically higher chance of getting AIDS through promiscuous homosexual behavior, there is no guarantee. In summary, you basically get AIDS by coming in contact with contaminated blood, semen, and needles.

Obviously you just don't get it do you Matts. Like a great many like you, you don't seem to understand that the human body was designed with specific functions in mind. When functions are altered to use different body parts that weren't designed for such use the usual result is tearing of tissue and of course bleeding. This is, along with the ridiculously promiscuous lifestyle, the reason HIV/AIDS has been so successful in the homosexual people. This is also why homosexuals have so many problems with the sphincter area if they live to an age older than 40.

I worked with one guy who use to constantly come in complaining about how his ass hurt and he thought he might have an infection......my responce was always...."No shit dumbass, quit sticking things into an area that is designed for holding stuff in!" His whole life revolved around his perverted lifestyle, he was extremely nonproductive in his work(he was black and worked for the city government in HUD). I would have to go and shoot photographs of the HUD houses he was "working" on and I would always make him drive otherwise he would try to put his disgusting hands on me.....now that I think back on those days I should have sued the city for forcing me to work in an environment of sexual harassment. A very disgusting time for me when I was working thru ciollege.
 
mattskramer said:
Read my post again, very carefully. I said, …While I think that there is slightly statistically higher chance of getting AIDS through promiscuous homosexual behavior… I will not do any-and-everything to disassociate AIDS with gays. I will stick to facts. Yet, it looks like you are trying to equate gays with AIDS as if they are the same thing.



No. It can’t be concluded that AIDS exists because gays exists. If, today, there were no gays, it is highly likely that AIDS would still exist. The fact that AIDS can be contacted in other ways is relevant.



The notion that homosexuality is an aberrant sexual behavior is irrelevant. AIDS is the result of coming into contact with contaminated blood, semen, or needles. If you prove to me that AIDS originated as a result of homosexual contact, I will merely say that it is regrettable that it was how AIDS started. I will still stand by my statement. Yet, even if AIDS originated with homosexual contact, it does not mean that today, homosexual behavior is the only way to contact AIDS.

How old are you Matts? I am old enough to remember a time without AIDS. When it first showed up it was nothing but a homosexual disease! Rent Philidelphia or any of the other movies about gays and AIDS. You are either incredibly naive or ridiculously stupid....whatever, don't reproduce!
 
mattskramer said:
I’m not taking the issue out of context. My comments are not dishonest.



Read my post again, very carefully. I said, …While I think that there is slightly statistically higher chance of getting AIDS through promiscuous homosexual behavior… I will not do any-and-everything to disassociate AIDS with gays. I will stick to facts. Yet, it looks like you are trying to equate gays with AIDS as if they are the same thing.

It IS the same thing. Without gays, there wouldn't be AIDS as we know it. Any and all HIV/AIDS is the direct result of homosexual behavior.

That it isn't something restricted solely to the gay community is a crying shame. Heterosexuals don't deserve to be stuck with a life-ending disease created by sexual perverts.


No. It can’t be concluded that AIDS exists because gays exists. If, today, there were no gays, it is highly likely that AIDS would still exist. The fact that AIDS can be contacted in other ways is relevant.

Speculative. The fact is, AIDS DOES exist because of homosexuality. If it existed and gays did not, it would be the result of something else and have an entirely different meaning to it.

The notion that homosexuality is an aberrant sexual behavior is irrelevant. AIDS is the result of coming into contact with contaminated blood, semen, or needles. If you prove to me that AIDS originated as a result of homosexual contact, I will merely say that it is regrettable that it was how AIDS started. I will still stand by my statement. Yet, even if AIDS originated with homosexual contact, it does not mean that today, homosexual behavior is the only way to contact AIDS.

Rather than repeat it, I'll just refer you to Sitarro's post. And THIS is where your argument abandons context and becomes dishonest.

I haven't seen anyone yet state that homosexual contact was the only way to contract HIV/AIDS, and if fact, I have addressed it specifically.

The FACT is that homosexuality is aberrant sexual behavior is very relevant, as the results of such aberrant behavior has created a disease with no known cure that has spread far beyond the perpetrators to infect completely innocent people.
 
sitarro said:
Like a great many like you, you don't seem to understand that the human body was designed with specific functions in mind. When functions are altered to use different body parts that weren't designed for such use the usual result is tearing of tissue and of course bleeding.

I understand this. The bridge of one’s nose was not “designed” to carry reading glasses, but it certainly helps. Also, anal intercourse between gay or straight people may result in anal bleeding.

This is, along with the ridiculously promiscuous lifestyle, the reason HIV/AIDS has been so successful in the homosexual people.

As I said before, there is probably a higher chance of getting aids through homosexual activity than through heterosexual activity. There is no argument here.

I worked with one guy who use to constantly come in complaining about how his ass hurt and he thought he might have an infection......my responce was always...."No shit dumbass, quit sticking things into an area that is designed for holding stuff in!" His whole life revolved around his perverted lifestyle, he was extremely nonproductive in his work(he was black and worked for the city government in HUD). I would have to go and shoot photographs of the HUD houses he was "working" on and I would always make him drive otherwise he would try to put his disgusting hands on me.....now that I think back on those days I should have sued the city for forcing me to work in an environment of sexual harassment. A very disgusting time for me when I was working thru ciollege.

That was an interesting case story. Why did you mention that he was Black? Do you have a prejudice against Black people? Was he a homosexual? Just because one likes anal sex does not make one a homosexual. I remember a woman who liked anal sex. He tried to put his hands on you. That sounds like a different issue. Did he persist? If so why didn’t you file sexual harassment complaints? Wow. How you bring up so many issues in one paragraph is amazing. Anyway, I hope that this one incident did not prejudice you against Black people who like to touch and have anal sex.
 
sitarro said:
How old are you Matts? I am old enough to remember a time without AIDS. When it first showed up it was nothing but a homosexual disease! Rent Philidelphia or any of the other movies about gays and AIDS. You are either incredibly naive or ridiculously stupid....whatever, don't reproduce!

I’m just curious about how the first human received AIDS. Was it a military science project that went bad (See the movie Outbreak)? Was it a mutated flu virus transmitted from horse to human through bestiality? How did the first human get it? Did it just appear out of nothing in a promiscuous homosexual like – Abracadabra?
 
mattskramer said:
I’m just curious about how the first human received AIDS. Was it a military science project that went bad (See the movie Outbreak)? Was it a mutated flu virus transmitted from horse to human through bestiality? How did the first human get it? Did it just appear out of nothing in a promiscuous homosexual like – Abracadabra?

the are pretty sure it was from slaughtering monkeys and blood to human contact during that process....the infected parties then enganged in sex with both male and female prostitues in camps.....
 
GunnyL said:
Without gays, there wouldn't be AIDS as we know it. Any and all HIV/AIDS is the direct result of homosexual behavior.

Wrong. There are some heterosexuals with AIDS. If there were no homosexuals tomorrow, AIDS would still exist. Be clear about your verb tense. People get AIDS, today, through various ways. How AIDS originated is still up for debate.

That it isn't something restricted solely to the gay community is a crying shame. Heterosexuals don't deserve to be stuck with a life-ending disease created by sexual perverts.

I would agree if no heterosexual ever gave AIDS to a homosexual. Perhaps it is too bad that heterosexuals did not always stay with heterosexuals.

The fact is, AIDS DOES exist because of homosexuality.

Is it that the first AIDS victim was a homosexual? If so, from where did he get AIDS? Prove your “fact” that AIDS DOES exist because of homosexuality. Where is the historical scientific evidence?
 
Anyway, of what relevance is this stuff? For the sake of argument, let’s assume that AIDS originated in homosexuals and that these homosexuals spread it to heterosexuals. Shame on these homosexuals for what they did. Okay. Now what? All we have is a hypothetically agreed to statement. In and of itself, it does it mean that we should not allow gay marriage? No, for there is no proof that gay marriage will increase promiscuity. Does it mean that we need to register people as gay/straight and keep such groups apart – segregation? – Well?
 
mattskramer said:
Wrong. There are some heterosexuals with AIDS. If there were no homosexuals tomorrow, AIDS would still exist. Be clear about your verb tense. People get AIDS, today, through various ways. How AIDS originated is still up for debate.

The fact that there are now heterosexuals with AIDS is irrelevant. HIV/AIDS was identified as coming first from the homosexual community; which, is my point, not who has what NOW.



I would agree if no heterosexual ever gave AIDS to a homosexual. Perhaps it is too bad that heterosexuals did not always stay with heterosexuals.

A heterosexual who does not stay with heterosexuals is NOT heterosexual.

Is it that the first AIDS victim was a homosexual? If so, from where did he get AIDS? Prove your “fact” that AIDS DOES exist because of homosexuality. Where is the historical scientific evidence?

The first recognised cases of AIDS occurred in the USA in the early 1980s (more about this period can be found on our history page). A number of gay men in New York and San Francisco suddenly began to develop rare opportunistic infections and cancers that seemed stubbornly resistant to any treatment. At this time, AIDS did not yet have a name, but it quickly became obvious that all the men were suffering from a common syndrome. The discovery of HIV, the Human Immunodeficiency Virus that causes AIDS was made soon after. While some were initially resistant to the connection (and indeed remain so today), there is now clear evidence to prove that HIV does cause AIDS. So, in order to find the source of AIDS, it is necessary to look for the origin of HIV, and find out How, When and Where HIV first began to cause disease in humans.

http://www.avert.org/origins.htm

Just because someone can't come up with the specific date and time the first microorganism infected so gay dude's butt doesn't negate the "if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be a duck" common sense.
 
mattskramer said:
I’m just curious about how the first human received AIDS. Was it a military science project that went bad (See the movie Outbreak)? Was it a mutated flu virus transmitted from horse to human through bestiality? How did the first human get it? Did it just appear out of nothing in a promiscuous homosexual like – Abracadabra?

It is hard to get any information on the history of the AIDS outbreak, it seems to have been revised to be as pc as possible. I remember that it was determined many years ago to have been brought to the U.S. by an International flight attendant(white male homosexual). There was talk also about a monkey he had picked up overseas somewhere but I don't remember exactly. Maybe he performed ''oral'' on the monkey, Bill Clinton taught us that ''oral'' isn't sex after all.

Note that I mentioned he was a white male, do you think I have a prejudice against white males now?
 
sitarro said:
It is hard to get any information on the history of the AIDS outbreak, it seems to have been revised to be as pc as possible. I remember that it was determined many years ago to have been brought to the U.S. by an International flight attendant(white male homosexual). There was talk also about a monkey he had picked up overseas somewhere but I don't remember exactly. Maybe he performed ''oral'' on the monkey, Bill Clinton taught us that ''oral'' isn't sex after all.

Note that I mentioned he was a white male, do you think I have a prejudice against white males now?

Check out the link I posted. It has all the accepted theories. Here's a good one for you:

The Conspiracy Theory
Some say that HIV is a 'conspiracy theory' or that it is 'man-made'. A recent survey carried out in the US for example, identified a significant number of African Americans who believe HIV was manufactured as part of a biological warfare programme, designed to wipe out large numbers of black and homosexual people. Many say this was done under the auspices of the US federal 'Special Cancer Virus Program' (SCVP), possibly with the help of the CIA. Some even believe that the virus was spread (either deliberately or inadvertently) to thousands of people all over the world through the smallpox inoculation programme, or to gay men through Hepatitis B vaccine trials. While none of these theories can be definitively disproved, the evidence they are based on is tenuous at best, and often ignores the clear link between SIV and HIV, or the fact that the virus has been identified in people as far back as 1959. They also fail to take into consideration the lack of genetic-engineering technology available to 'create' the virus at the time that AIDS first appeared.

Guess that makes me prejudiced too!:laugh:
 
Okay okay. Anyway, of what relevance is this stuff? For the sake of argument, let’s assume that AIDS originated in homosexuals and that these homosexuals spread it to heterosexuals. Shame on these homosexuals for what they did. Okay. Now what? All we have is a hypothetically agreed to statement. In and of itself, it does it mean that we should not allow gay marriage? No, for there is no proof that gay marriage will increase promiscuity. Does it mean that we need to register people as gay/straight and keep such groups apart – segregation? – Well?
 
mattskramer said:
I understand this. The bridge of one’s nose was not “designed” to carry reading glasses, but it certainly helps. Also, anal intercourse between gay or straight people may result in anal bleeding.

The glasses were designed to fit on the bridge of the nose not the other way around....no wonder you don't have a problem doing a guy in the ass, you don't know anything about design. Your last statement is so stupid it doesn't deserve a response.

mattskramer said:
As I said before, there is probably a higher chance of getting aids through homosexual activity than through heterosexual activity. There is no argument here.

Gee what a stretch.

mattskramer said:
That was an interesting case story. Why did you mention that he was Black? Do you have a prejudice against Black people? Was he a homosexual? Just because one likes anal sex does not make one a homosexual. I remember a woman who liked anal sex. He tried to put his hands on you. That sounds like a different issue. Did he persist? If so why didn’t you file sexual harassment complaints? Wow. How you bring up so many issues in one paragraph is amazing. Anyway, I hope that this one incident did not prejudice you against Black people who like to touch and have anal sex.



I guess I could have given his name....Branell...you could have guessed his skin color from that. I mentioned that he was black and nonproductive because he fit the standard stereotype so perfectly, I thought that it was both sad and funny. A black "gay" male working in government for HUD, you couldn't make that up. I also find homosexual blacks funny anyway, it just seems so out of place. Was he homosexual??????? He spoke with a lisp, walked like a woman, wore really faggy shoes, talked about his ass hurting every Monday after weekends he described as "getting real busy at the bath house", and he tried to convert young college kids like me to his lifestyle.... he told me "he just loved young white boys". When I would tell him I was straight he would respond with the standard "how do you know until you try it" bullshit. We are suppose to respect the idea that they are born homosexual and yet they think they can convert normal people to what they claim to be born with..... hypocritical?

I never even thought about a sexual harassment lawsuit, what normal white male would bother trying that back in the late seventies.

Are you saying that you like anal sex and that doesn't make you a homosexual?
 

Forum List

Back
Top