Report: HIV continues to increase amongst gay men

In view of recent remarks by Jim Wallace of the Australian Christian Lobby, where he stated that the figures for gay sex disease transmittal were still as high as those for tobacco smoking illness numbers and should be brought to people’s attention, it is interesting that there is a report which confirms that instances of HIV amongst MSM are not falling despite the information available to people and the campaigns to reduce the occurence of sexually transmitted diseases.

This report from Time, Healthland:

HIV Continues to Spread Amongst Gay Men, Studies Show

Alice Park, July 20, 2012
As the world’s leading AIDS researchers gather for the International AIDS Conference in Washington, D.C., scientists report that despite gains in controlling the spread of HIV, the disease has continued to spread at an alarming rate in the very population in which it first appeared — gay men.

In a series of papers in the Lancet dedicated to the dynamics of HIV among gay men — a group epidemiologists define as men who have sex with men (MSM) — scientists say that the continued burden of AIDS in this group is due to a combination of lifestyle and biological factors that put these men at higher risk. Rates are rising in all countries around the world.

In one study, led by Chris Beyrer, of the Center for Public Health and Human Rights at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, researchers analyzed surveillance reports and studies of HIV among MSM, including data that were part of routine United Nations reporting from member nations. Rates of HIV among gay men ranged from 3% in the Middle East to 25% in the Caribbean. In all reporting nations, rates were on the rise, even in developed nations like the U.S., Australia and the U.K. where HIV is declining overall.

In fact, says Beyrer, income does not seem to matter when it comes to HIV trends among MSM. In the U.S., for example, infection rates among gay men have been increasing by 8% each year since 2001, contributing to a 15% prevalence rate and putting the U.S. on par with countries like Thailand, Malaysia and some African and Caribbean nations where neither awareness of HIV/AIDS nor drug treatments are as widespread. HIV prevalence rates among MSM in Brazil, Canada, Italy and India range between 11% and 15%, while many western European countries have lower rates of around 6%.

Public health experts have been concerned about the rising rates among MSM for years now, viewing the current epidemic as the second wave — the first having occurred in the 1980s. Today’s infections, they say, are affecting a new generation of men who didn’t live through the initial devastation of AIDS’s early days, when there were no drug treatments and a diagnosis was a death sentence. Public health messages about safe sex practices and testing targeted to gay men have waned in the intervening years, and now, some experts say, a new generation of at-risk men have to be educated about the disease.

HIV has always been more common among gay men, but Beyrer and his colleagues say the traditional risk factors may not entirely explain the surge in many cases. Traditionally, HIV experts have pointed to high-risk behaviors such as unprotected sex, having multiple partners, injection drug use and drug use in general for making gay men more vulnerable to infection. But there may be biological reasons for the enhanced risk as well. For example, there is an 18 times greater risk of HIV transmission through anal sex than through vaginal sex, which may explain why the virus continues to thrive in gay men, despite the fact that they still receive the bulk of HIV awareness and treatment public-health messages. “If HIV infection in MSM is heavily biologically determined, do present approaches to HIV programming for MSM, which rely heavily on information, education and behavior change strategies, make sense?” the authors write. “The epidemiology suggests that urgent reform is needed.”

That’s why the latest data on using HIV treatments to protect healthy people from infection, a strategy known as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), are of particular interest to public health experts. In another paper in the Lancet series, researchers estimate that about 25% of new infections among MSM might be avoided if prevention practices such as PrEP could be combined with existing strategies, such as safe sex counseling and condom use.

But the key to making these efforts work is in bringing the health care community on board. In another paper in the series, researchers document the fact that many health care providers aren’t trained or equipped to screen, treat or advise gay men about their HIV risk. In some countries, stigma about HIV continues to thwart physicians’ ability to provide adequate care to MSM at risk of infection. “Optimum clinical care for sexual and gender minorities is a fundamental human right, and the support of health care professionals is needed for its provision,” write the authors.

The series highlights both how far we have come in understanding and controlling HIV, and how, despite advances in drug therapy and social awareness, we’re still allowing HIV to get the best of us.

Posted by Steve


245 thoughts on “Report: HIV continues to increase amongst gay men

  1. The quote from Wallace didnt mention HIV

    “I think we’re going to owe smokers a big apology when the homosexual community’s own statistics for its health – which it presents when it wants more money for health – are that is has higher rates of drug-taking, of suicide, it has the life of a male reduced by up to 20 years,
    “The life of smokers is reduced by something like seven to 10 years and yet we tell all our kids at school they shouldn’t smoke.”

    Drug-taking and suicide are more prevalent in tne gay community, and hence the reduction in life expectancy.

    Why would the gay community have such health issues? One possibility is that they are still being stigmatised by some groups.

    To equate this complex issue, whether it is due to HIV, suicide or mental health issues with tobacco use is ridiculous. They are co,pletely different public health issues.

    But if you really are so concerned about gay health and want to promote safer sex among the gay population, why go against their wish to marry? Surely that would be a step in the right direction?

  2. We don’t have actual figures of how many gay men would actually want a monogamous sexual lifestyle, or remain faithful to one partner. It really is a closed society in terms of readily discussable information on sexual practices and the consequences of unprotected homosexual sex.

    Surely Wallace is saying that young people should be warned of the potential risks of homosexual relationships just as they are warned of the risks of smoking. He says that the context of the discussion he was having was all about packaging.

    One of the issues we have is that of the oversensitive nature of any kind of discussion of gay sex. If the gay community genuinely believes male to male sexual intercourse is completely safe they should be happy to discuss the issue with Wallace rather than call him homophobic, as Kevin Rudd suggested yesterday.

    Why would a monogamous homosexual relationship be less risky to them anyway? There is still the risk of infection between a couple who remain faithful to each other, unlike monogamous heterosexual relationships.

  3. The reality of this is that the PM, unwisely, made this a political issue, and has given the sensitive wing of the gay lobby fresh ammunition whilst at the same time saving face amongst her left wing colleagues who seek gay marriage as part of their agenda.

    NOw Jim Wallace is being demonised for raising a valid concern.

  4. “rather than call him homophobic”

    It’s pretty much par for the course that if you say anything against gay marriage you will be called homophobic, or just simply that you “hate gays”.

  5. It’s pretty much par for the course that if you say anything for gay marriage you will be called liberal, or just simply that you “hate God”.

  6. You think so?
    “liberal”, I can understand, because people often use that to define themselves, and often as a badge of honor. But while I’ve been told that I hate homosexuals (let, me think -who was it? lol), I’ve never told anyone who supports gay marriage that they hate God. Not to my recollection anyone.

    On the other hand, I’ve heard some people who support gay marriage say abusive things about God and the bible. But not all do.

    I think there are people who love God, and who in feel they are seeking after God who support gay marriage.

    And actually, Bones, I’ve rarely heard in the media at lest recently anyway of someone who supports gay marriage being told they hate God. Did this happen to you? Or to a politician recently? A church leader?

    But “homophobic” and “hate gays”? Read it just about everyday in the news.

    It’s a sad situation.

  7. “NOw Jim Wallace is being demonised for raising a valid concern.”

    No, he’s being a tool. He’s not raising this issue out of any concern for gay people. He’s actually making Gillard’s job of not legalising gay marriage harder with his stupid comments.

    And his solution for HIV is ….

    Don’t let them marry.

    I wonder if that logic works for diseases spread through hetro sex.

  8. But not as sad as these tragic figures which give a bit more detail to the problem.

    “Gay and bisexual men are more severely affected by HIV than any other group in the United States (US).
    Among all gay and bisexual men, blacks/African Americans bear the greatest disproportionate burden of HIV.
    From 2006 to 2009, HIV infections among young black/African American gay and bisexual men increased 48%.
    Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)1 represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2009, MSM accounted for 61% of all new HIV infections,”

    Tragic.

  9. “And his solution for HIV is ….”

    Given the billions spent on aids research in the United States, what’s your solution Bones? All the money on condoms and education on safe sex hasn’t been enough. You think it’s gay marriage? Seriously?

  10. Jim seems so concerned about the rates of suicide among gay people.

    His solution:

    Don’t be gay

    or get married to a gay person.

    Or something like that.

  11. I was heartbroken when I watched Four Corners decades ago about the new disease among gays in San Francisco hen commercial TV said nothing about it.

    And since then I’ve seen condoms go from something people didn’t talk about to being everywhere. Education, education, education was heralded as the solution. Condoms. That was it. Condoms. Safe sex. We’ve been hearing about that for decades. They’ve been handed out, their usage demonstrated. And here we are.

    Tragic. So now your answer is gay marriage?

  12. My solution Q is the same for hetro sex.

    Don’t sleep around. Be faithful to your spouse – sorry partner.

    If people are going to sleep around and have sex with multiple partners than how stupid are they.

    It’s a bit like drug education – it won’t happen to me.

  13. Okay, so Bones, you think that we will solve both suicide and aids among MSM (new term for me), by allowing MSM to get a marriage license?

    That’s it? That’s your answer as a Christian man?

  14. “Don’t sleep around. Be faithful to your spouse – sorry partner.”

    Okay, so your solution to the growing Aids problem i
    s to tell them “Don’t sleep around. Be faithful to your partner”.

    My, my, my. You’re getting more conservative each day.

    But you’re sure “Just say no” will work?

    But good to hear. Go preach it Bones!

  15. It was a hundred years ago that a lot of the sexually transmitted diseases were a serious problem At one stage the US had more soldiers being treated for STDs than wounds in WWII.

    Syphilis was a terrible disease causing insanity and death.

    Now those STDs (herpes, the clap) are rarely mentioned (not that they don’t happen).

    They had condoms back then too.

  16. Education only goes so far.

    No matter how much you educate you’re still gonna have:

    People who drink drive and speed
    People who do drugs
    People who have unprotected sex.

    That goes for Christians too.

  17. As I asked earlier, why would gay marriage make gay sex any safer?

    I think you’ve shifted the argument somewhat. Surely the answer to HIV amongst the gay community is in their hands as much as anyone’s.

    Jim Wallace’s argument, as I see it, was to make young people aware of the risks inherent in what is still a potentially risky lifestyle amongst men. That he compared it to the nanny-state hysteria over cigarette packaging was logical.

    Why is unprotected anal sex a taboo subject when it is clearly such a risk to males, and, in a bisexual environment, potentially to the rest of the community? An irreversible, deadly risk. Much like smoking related diseases.

    This is a real head in the sand moment for the PM.

    Do you think it is solely the gay community which is investing billions into the research for a preventative or cure for AIDS and HIV? I think the whole community, Christians included, is involved in some way.

    But, surely, if there is a cure or a medical solution will it be any more morally acceptable to us than the use of RU486? And what is the eventual cost going to be to the rest of society to help prevent the human body’s natural reaction to unprotected anal sex?

    Once there is a preventative or cure will we see an increase in levels of homosexual or bisexual activity amongst the young? Will this be a good thing? Has the rise in promiscuity made society a better place, a safer place, a more acceptable place to raise families?

  18. Do you think the rates of hetro STDs have dropped? If so, is it because we are less promiscuous or are better educated in safe sex or better medical treatments.

    When I was at school we used to talk about it. I don’t hear much about them now.

  19. “Has the rise in promiscuity made society a better place, a safer place, a more acceptable place to raise families?”

    In case you get some strange answers to that, I’ll be the first one to answer what is most likely a rhetorical question, but will no doubt be answered anyway.

    No.

  20. Bones,
    Don’t sleep around. Be faithful to your spouse – sorry partner.

    Why does this make anal sex any less of a threat to a gay couple?

    It’s not the same as a monogamous heterosexual couple, where intercourse is perfectly safe provided they maintain basic hygienic standards.

    Could a gay monogamous couple then have unprotected anal sex?

  21. Bones, I’m talking about monogamous relationships. STDs tend to be rife amongst those who sleep around and don’t have protected sex. You’re obscuring your own argument.

  22. “It was a hundred years ago that a lot of the sexually transmitted diseases were a serious problem At one stage the US had more soldiers being treated for STDs than wounds in WWII.Syphilis was a terrible disease causing insanity and death.”

    Now your preaching it. Promiscuity has always been a problem.

    Now those STDs (herpes, the clap) are rarely mentioned (not that they don’t happen).

    I think you need to get out more. Or at least read more.

    “They had condoms back then too.”
    Exactly!

  23. So is lesbian sex ok?
    I didn’t realise lesbians had penile penetrative sex. Not that I’ve gone into it in any detail, but I don;t see how they could possibly consummate a marriage.

  24. Steve, hetro couples have anal sex too.

    Oral sex can be dangerous too

    This article is hilarious.

    Recent studies in Creation Science show us that oral sex can be extremely dangerous! We know this to be a fact. For those of you young people who have not yet been to Bible College, and are reading this article, “oral sex,” means the placement of a hoochie or a tallywhacker into a human mouth. Creation research indicates that Satan is using the human tongue to infiltrate the soul by way of the vagina, anus, and hole in the tip of the penis (enormous penises have bigger holes, allowing for a greater number of demons to gain entrance, which is why black men commit so much crime). Creation Scientists have not yet determined exactly how thousands of tiny little demons extract themselves from human semen and vaginal excretions, but they are convinced that the human tongue is being used as their makeshift nest. “It is on the palette where the devil’s minions spawn and reproduce like a swarms of tiny red maggots.” says Landover Baptist Creation Scientist, Dr. Jonathan Edwards. “Once enough of them are bred, an army is assembled. They exit the nesting area and enter the throat. It is at this point, you are infected, and the battle for your soul begins.”

    Creation research on oral sex was started about a year ago when Pastor Horace Wilkins of Freehold, Iowa, through means his son is now reconciled with, once acquired some of his boy’s own semen in the middle of the night, and used a tongue-depressor and a large eye-dropper to splash torrents of the gooey liquid down a bullfrog’s gullet. The frog died instantly. As a follow up experiment, Creation Scientist, Dr. Jonathan Edwards tried the same thing on a cat, using a sample of coagulated secretions he found inside of his mother’s vagina. The pussy died within fifteen minutes. Our researchers have come a long way since those first two experiments, but these results alone should be enough to raise the hair on the back of your neck and make you think twice about committing oral sex. Oral sex is like playing Russian roulette, but instead of holding a steel gun to your head, you are placing a gun made of skin into your mouth.

    http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0504/oralsex.html

  25. but I don;t see how they could possibly consummate a marriage.

    I’m sure there are married disabled people who can’t consummate. Your point being.

  26. Bones [having a light bulb on moment],
    It’s just the guys who have a problem.

    I think that’s what Jim was saying, Bones. And also what the article from the Tomes was saying.

    I don’t think the girls give each other HIV since they don’t have anything to add a condom on to to protect them from anything in sexual penetration. Nor do they have penetrative anal sex, as far as I know. As I said, I haven’t really gone into the ins and outs of how gays do it.

    It takes a while, but if you’re patient with Bones he starts to cotton on…

    But no, lesbian sex is not a reason for marriage.

  27. Does anyone find something disturbing with this extract?

    Creation research on oral sex was started about a year ago when Pastor Horace Wilkins of Freehold, Iowa, through means his son is now reconciled with, once acquired some of his boy’s own semen in the middle of the night,

  28. So two completely medically clean lesbians could, conceivably, through oral sex, contract HIV? or a completely clean heterosexual couple in a monogamous relationship could contract HIV?

  29. this started with the tragic problem of HIV increasing among even American men who have sex with other men. After billions on research and extensive education about safe sex it’s increasing. I gave even more statistics to show just how terrible this is.

    Bones made an attack on me to the effect that I didn’t care. And then posts an “hilarious” article.

    Finished laughing Bones? People are dying as a DIRECT result of activity that conservative Christians warn against.

    We’ve been called kill-joys, people out of touch, people who hate sex for decades now. The answer was said to be not that os stopping the wrong behavior, but condoms. Safe sex. Condoms.
    In schools and universities on TV and billboards. Safe sex. It was shocking at first but we were told we had to bring it all out and talk about it.

    And now after all this time, men who have sex with men are dying.

    And Bones, goes on the attack against Christians once more, bringing up articles that he finds hilarious.

    Still laughing Bones?

  30. Well let’s look at Africa, Q.

    Senegal and Uganda have reversed the AIDS epidemic, dropping rates to 9% in Uganda (and in some age groups by half) and 1-2% in Senegal. In Africa HIV is mainly transmitted through heterosexual sex.

    How have they done this?

    In 1991, the campaign grew into an intensive multi-sectoral and multi-media saturation effort. Condoms were distributed and voluntary HIV testing carried out. Counseling and support services were provided, while pop songs, billboard and radio messages popularizing anti-AIDS messages were created. Drama performances and open-air seminars on sex education were held routinely.

    The country’s pioneering efforts in combating AIDS have changed social mores: teenagers are postponing sex, casual sex is declining, and unmarried adults are practicing abstinence. Once unheard of, more and more men and women of all ages are now using condoms. (Some 14 mn condoms were distributed in 1997 in a country of 19 million people.) And in a country where parents once would not discuss sex with their children, sex and HIV/AIDS are discussed almost routinely all over Uganda.

    As a result, HIV/AIDS prevalence, which had soared until 1993, has been dropping for the last five years. HIV prevalence among women in urban antenatal clinics, for example, fell by half, from roughly 30 per cent in 1991 to 15 per cent in 1996. The estimated HIV infection rate at the end of 1997 was 9.5 per cent of adults aged 15-49. The decline in infection rates has been faster in the urban areas, where the public information campaign is concentrated, than in rural areas where infection rates have been relatively lower. Recent surveys indicate the following achievements:

    — 98 per cent of Ugandans now know that HIV is transmitted mainly through sex, not witchcraft.

    — The proportion of girls and boys aged 15 to 19 who have not had sex rose from 20 per cent in 1990 to 50 per cent in 1995.

    — Among adolescents, 36 per cent of boys and 25 per cent of girls reported using condoms, compared to 15 per cent and 7 per cent respectively in 1989. For the 25 to 39 age group, 31 per cent of men and 19 per cent of women use condoms, compared to 11 per cent and 3 per cent in 1989.

    — Smaller numbers say they have sex with non-regular partners. Among those involved in non-regular sex, 60 per cent have only one sexual partner. In 1989, the majority reported multiple sexual partners.

    — HIV prevalence among pregnant women has dropped from 30 per cent some years ago to around 10 per cent.

    — At clinics for sexually transmitted diseases in Kampala, AIDS infection rates have declined from 44 per cent in 1989 to 30 per cent in 1997.

    Senegal ropes in religious leaders

    When AIDS was detected in Senegal, the government also promptly organized an education and awareness campaign. Although with a population of only 9 million and far lower rates of HIV/AIDS prevalence than Uganda, mass media messages were similarly created, discouraging high-risk sexual behaviour and promoting the use of condoms. Media interventions, targeted information campaigns, and research activities were designed to help slow the spread of the HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).

    With donor and non-governmental organization support, Senegal established effective HIV/AIDS/STD services. A pilot project on social marketing of condoms exceeded its expected level of sales by 42 per cent in the first 10 months and condom sales soared from 800,000 in 1988 to 7 mn in 1997. Condoms are now available in 252 pharmacies and 80 pharmacy depots throughout the country. Senegal has also involved its religious leaders in the fight against AIDS. For example, it organized two national conferences on HIV/AIDS prevention in late 1995 and 1996 in which Islamic and Christian leaders became better informed about HIV/AIDS and identified their roles and responsibilities in preventive efforts. This was a first in Africa. In Kenya, for example, some religious leaders fight against the use of condoms and sex education.

    Senegal’s strategic interventions to reach targeted groups with critical preventive information and services have ensured that national rates of HIV/AIDS prevalence have remained low — at around 1.7 per cent (1998 figures).

    The bold, innovative and pioneering efforts of both Uganda and Senegal in combating AIDS have received international recognition. In December 1998, the seventh conference of the Society for Woman and AIDS in Africa (SWAA), held in Dakar, presented both President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda and President Abdou Diouf of Senegal with excellence awards in recognition of their commitment in the fight against AIDS.

    The example provided by Uganda in particular has attracted the attention of other countries and researchers. During an experts’ panel discussion at the SWAA meeting, Ms. Noerine Kaleeba of the Joint UN Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) said that African countries need to copy Uganda’s anti-AIDS strategy. And World Bank HIV/AIDS Coordinator Debrework Zewdie recently told Africa Recovery that the Bank is trying to determine why infection rates have been going down in Uganda. “The findings will be useful not only for the Bank’s projects in Uganda but in other countries as well,” she said.

    http://www.un.org/en/africarenewal/subjindx/124aids2.htm

  31. Good informative article, and good to see the attack on Christians stop.

    And fantastic to see abstinence, and promiscous sex decrease, and that seen as positive and not something to sneer about.

    So, in American HIV is increasing among MSM. They have education, they have condoms, and not many people think that Aids is caused by witchcraft.

    Not having sex with multiple partners, young people prolonging sex. Isn’t that good news!
    Imagine the HIV rates in Uganda if sex was confined to marriage.

  32. Q, Africans have had to change their culture as multiple sex partners was a sign of success

    It is common knowledge that the African continent has been hit hardest by the HIV and AIDS epidemic. Over the past 25 years, Africa has been the prime victim of a small, but highly intelligent virus, which has infected and killed millions of people, and significantly hampered the growth and development of a land with abundant potential. The epidemic has ravaged Africa far more viciously than any other continent, and the reasons for this continue to be explored in an array of research. A primary reason, which has been confirmed by a small library’s worth of literature, is that various African cultural beliefs and traditions encourage risky sexual practices, which in turn increase the risk of exposure to HIV. A recent study in Tanzania, for example, describes the unfortunate “peer pressure” that is regularly placed on the youth to have multiple concurrent sexual partners, with men who limit themselves to just one partner being ridiculed, and called “domo zenge”, meaning “slow to move”. On the contrary, men who succeed in having concurrent sexual relationships with several women are commended, and referred to as either “mshua” (the connoisseur) or “kichwa kikali” (the gifted).

    A recent Kenyan study, published in AIDS (1), discusses how the tradition of “disco matanga”, or “disco funerals”, put people at a significant risk of becoming HIV-infected. These parties are held by the relatives of a person recently deceased, in order to raise funds for the funeral. The “disco funerals” are characterised by loud music, singing, dancing, bidding games and risky sexual behaviour. These studies are just two examples, drawn from an abundant amount of research that has confirmed the fact that high-risk sexual behaviour is prevalent in Africa, and is often supported by beliefs and traditions. These behaviours are subsequently far more difficult to change than if they were instead inconsistent with the beliefs and moral standards of the people. It is for this reason, and many others that I will not delve into in this newsletter, that an abstinence and faithfulness-only stance to HIV prevention in Africa is nonsensical, and should have been completely ruled out as an option many years ago.

    http://www.consultancyafrica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=357&Itemid=217

  33. The HIV infection rates for MSM in all western countries are increasing, from a low at around the turn of the century. They are still not back up to rates in the 80s and early 90s when the safe-sex campaigns began.

    A new generation is growing up not having seen the devastation caused by AIDS, and with knowledge of the new drug-regimes which in most cases make living with HIV bearable and can delay progression to AIDs. The safe-sex message is also not as all-pervasive as it was in the 80s.

    There are now around 900 HIV infections in Australian males per year, with AIDs diagnosed in less than 100 males per year. The incidence of full-blown AIDs has been decreasing every year.

    Source : http://www.avert.org/aids-hiv-australia.htm

    From a practical standpoint ,if we are not totally successful in convincing people to have sex with a condom – how successful will we be in convincing them to have no sex at all? Surely the rational and practical choice is to continue to educate and to promote safe sex.

    Wallace has made the comparison with smoking, and in 2003 there were 15,511 smoking-related deaths in Australia. It was the cause of 14% of all deaths for Men and accounted for nearly 8% of the burden of disease and injury.

    The two issues are quite separate public-health matters, but since Wallace has made the comparison – I think smoking dwarves the HIV issue.

  34. Bones, you might like to do some more reading on the very latest situation in Uganda and the frustration faced concerning the recent upswing in infections, the trend away from the promotion of abstinence and morality in favor of condom usage without the change in behavior.

    Culture – people’s behavior and their attitudes to behavior is the most powerful answer. The changing of attitudes toward promiscuity and sex before marriage had profound effect in Uganda.

    And this idea of men having multiple sex partners in order to be cool or masculine can also be seen in the west.is needs to change.

    God’s ways are perfect.

    Living according to the word of God works in Uganda and the US.

    Abstinence. Who would’ve though it huh?

  35. Also, you talked about STD’s in ww2. It was there in ww1 also, and mainly due to prostitutes. Which is why Japan set up the so called comfort women system. Strictly regulated prostitution. Go read their stories and see behind the scenes. Not pretty. Condoms can reduce STDs if they are always used and properly used. But, there’s a better way.

  36. @Steve

    ” I haven’t really gone into the ins and outs of how gays do it.”

    Is it wrong that I giggled when I read this?

  37. And for what it’s worth, I’d rather have to worry about my son smoking than having sex with other men. How about you Bones?

  38. “Is it wrong that I giggled when I read this?”

    Is it wrong that I felt a little sick? (Just being honest – I don’t hate homosexuals)

  39. Bones, you might like to do some more reading on the very latest situation in Uganda and the frustration faced concerning the recent upswing in infections, the trend away from the promotion of abstinence and morality in favor of condom usage without the change in behavior.

    After a wildly successful campaign against AIDS in the 1990s, Uganda is now the only country in East Africa where the AIDS rate is actually rising. Some people attribute this to a Bush-era abstinence-only approach to AIDS prevention, a policy at odds with patterns of sexual behavior in Uganda.

    Uganda was once a shining example of successful AIDS prevention, when, in the 1990s and early 2000s, it managed to slash its infection rate from around 15 percent to 6 percent. But for the past five years, infections have once again been on the rise, leading many people to question what went wrong.

    Exact statistics on mounting infection rates are not due to be published until next year. But on December 1, World AIDS Day, the Ugandan government launched a new HIV Prevention Strategy to address the worrying trend.

    Changing sexual behaviors

    Zainab Akol of the Ministry of Health says that one of the reasons for the rise is complacency, but she admits that attempts to change people’s sexual behavior were not very successful. She says that in the future, Uganda intends to focus more on medical and educational methods to prevent transmission and treat those who are already infected.

    “We are talking about scaling up anti-retroviral treatment, we are talking about male circumcision, we are talking about scaling up HIV counseling and testing. We now understand that it’s very difficult to deal with sexual behavior,” Akol explained. “We hadn’t understood. We thought people would just hear the threat and develop fear, but we now see that fear doesn’t work all the time.”

    Abstinence-only backfires

    Many experts blame the rising infection rate on a communication strategy that promoted abstinence only until marriage, without encouraging the use of condoms. This was the message of the American-funded PEPFAR, which stands for President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.

    Established in 2003 under former U.S. President George W. Bush, PEPFAR has provided hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for Uganda’s AIDS programs. Its focus on abstinence was eagerly adopted here, where the message fit in well with a culture of conservative Christianity.

    But now, with the rate of new HIV infections rising fastest among married couples, this strategy seems to have backfired. Asia Russell, of the advocacy organization Health GAP, says that PEPFAR’s approach has expanded in recent years to include encouraging condom use. But, she adds, the U.S. government still funds programs focusing on abstinence.

    “About 46 percent of new infections in this country are between married, co-habitating people in stable relationships. And yet, if you drive around Kampala you see many billboards that communicate that marriage protects people. That’s false information,” Russell said. “It’s wasteful, and it’s harmful. Meanwhile, we all know of facilities where people can’t get free condoms. We’re concerned that some of these messages still find their way into the community, and still receive investments from the U.S. government.”

    Moralistic approach not a solution

    Leonard Okello, of the International HIV/AIDS Alliance in Uganda, says the problem is that using moral values such as marriage to fight the spread of HIV has given married people a false sense of security. With Uganda’s widespread culture of marital infidelity, he says, abstaining can still put you at risk.

    “If you adopt a more moralistic approach, you get these problems. I think we need to recognize that it is not just about morals. Even abstinence has its limitations, because not everybody is abstaining. They go to church, wed this one and only wife and one and only husband, and then lead a traditional polygamous life. It seems to be an acceptable norm,” Okello stated.

    But, Okello explains, even being faithful is not always safe. He was married for eight years to a woman who was HIV positive, a situation, he says, that the abstinence-only message fails to address.

    “My wife was HIV positive, and I was HIV negative. I was faithful to my wife. She got HIV infected earlier, but we didn’t know. By remaining faithful, I was actually at risk. So it doesn’t necessarily mean being faithful is safe,” he noted. “Those are the realities we did not know then. When PEPFAR was pushing very much the abstinence agenda, we forgot that the epidemic was changing rapidly.”

    AIDS activist Rukia Nansubuga, who is HIV positive herself, says that one of the main obstacles to controlling the virus among married couples is simple fear of disclosing your status to your spouse.

    “When a woman comes out to be tested, she fears to disclose to her partner. Once the woman declares that ‘I’m HIV positive,’ then that’s the end of the marriage,” Nansubuga said. “When I disclosed and my husband knew my status, he abandoned me. Now I’m a single mother living with HIV/AIDS, with seven children.”

    More resources needed

    Increasing medical interventions and treatments in Uganda just became more difficult, as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria announced last month that no new funding would be available until 2014.

    Russell says that in order to bring infection rates down, Uganda will have to commit more of its own resources to the struggle. She also hopes the current crisis will re-galvanize the country’s leadership, including President Yoweri Museveni, because over the past several years, she says, political will has begun to slip.

    “One feature that distinguished the response in this country is Museveni and other high-profile leaders speaking in an extraordinarily committed way to the fight against HIV. That changed over the last few years. I think people noticed a silence, and noticed more stigmatizing language about people with HIV coming out of statehouse,” Russell noted.

    Both Russell and Okello agree that with the treatments available and enough information, an HIV-free generation is within reach. But it remains to be seen whether Uganda can summon the political commitment and resources to make it happen.

    http://www.voanews.com/content/hiv-infections-on-the-rise-in-uganda–134832053/148964.html

  40. And for what it’s worth, I’d rather have to worry about my son smoking than having sex with other men.

    They are not mutually exclusive, and you dont necessarily have to pick one or the other.

    But on the statistics, smoking is more likely to shorten his life and cause health problems.

  41. “After a wildly successful campaign against AIDS in the 1990s, Uganda is now the only country in East Africa where the AIDS rate is actually rising. Some people attribute this to a Bush-era abstinence-only approach to AIDS prevention, a policy at odds with patterns of sexual behavior in Uganda.”

    Retread your first copy and paste.
    “some people” is the important phrase here.
    Some other people in Uganda think the big difference is that abstinence isn’t stressed the way it used to.

    Change the patterns of behavior.

  42. “They are not mutually exclusive, and you dont necessarily have to pick one or the other.”

    Of course. But which one would bother you more Wazza?

  43. Bones and Wazza, would you be concerned if your sons were having sex with men? If you’re too afraid to answer I understand.

  44. Smoking is a problem but so is the obesity problem in Australia.
    Plenty of people who exercise, eat moderately and smoke occasionally who will live longer than many of the obese people who can’t control their eating.

  45. But people still have to eat.

    Would you rather your son be in a gay relationship and have a relationship with Jesus or a hetero married atheist.

    How many more conundrums can we pick:

    Would you rather die quick and clean or slowly with your family around you?

    You guys made more sense when you just stuck to the Bible/

  46. I was really just interested – wanting to know your true thoughts on gay sex. Many people are too afraid to say these days.

  47. 1. Hetero married atheist
    2. Slowly with my family around me.
    Then I could tell them about God’s ways, how much I love them and pray for them

  48. “But people still have to eat.”

    Yeah, moderately. And they don’t need to smoke or have gay sex.

    Pretty basic stuff.

  49. Frankly Q, yes I would be concerned.

    I would be more concerned if he was promiscuous than if he was in a monogamous gay relationship. But in both cases I would be concerned about him.

  50. Really Wazza? To me that’s evidence of the feminization of Australia. But, you’re being honest. Tell you what guys, I think I’ll stick to more pleasant topics. We probably won’t agree on this. And rather than me needing to harden up, I need to soften, and so I’ll stick to Steve’s non-controversial posts. So, see you on them sometime.

  51. That’s interesting, Q. You would rather your son be an atheist than a gay believer. I suppose they’re all gonna burn eh. Does that go for christians who get drumk?

    Of course the elephant in the room is promiscuity, straight and gay has consequences.

  52. Of course I’m assuming that he would later believe. But a son going through a period of not believing in God and sleeping with women easier to deal with than being shacked up with a man….

    Yep. Definitely. And with that, I’ll stick to Steve’s other post. Esp seeing Bones is too scared to answer.

    Actually there are other elephants in this room. It’s like a zoo in here.

    But ciao.

  53. Bones,
    Some people attribute this to a Bush-era abstinence-only approach to AIDS prevention, a policy at odds with patterns of sexual behavior in Uganda.

    Of course, it has to be George W. Bush’s fault! In fact, Bush was the chief architect and promoter of an effective and highly resourced campaign o slow down the effects of AIDS and HIV in Africa.

    This from the left-wing Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson on July 26:

    ‘This is a moment for all Americans to be proud of the best thing George W. Bush did as president: launching an initiative to combat AIDS in Africa that has saved millions of lives.

    All week, more than 20,000 delegates from around the world have been attending the 19th International AIDS Conference here in Washington. They look like any other group of conventioneers, laden with satchels and garlanded with name tags. But some of these men and women would be dead if not for Bush’s foresight and compassion.

    Those are not words I frequently use to describe Bush or his presidency. But credit and praise must be given where they are due, and Bush’s accomplishment — the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR — deserves accolades. It is a reminder that the United States can still be both great and good.

    When the Bush administration inaugurated the program in 2003, fewer than 50,000 HIV-infected people on the African continent were receiving the antire­troviral drugs that keep the virus in check and halt the progression toward full-blown AIDS. By the time Bush left office, the number had increased to nearly 2 million. Today, the United States is directly supporting antiretroviral treatment for more than 4 million men, women and children worldwide, primarily in Africa.

    This is an amazing accomplishment, especially because it wasn’t supposed to be possible.

    Before PEPFAR, the conventional wisdom was that the drug-treatment regimens that were saving lives in developed countries would not work in Africa. Poor, uneducated people in communities lacking even the most basic infrastructure could not be expected to take the right pill at the right time every day. When the drugs are taken haphazardly, the virus mutates and becomes resistant. Therefore, this reasoning went, trying to administer antiretroviral treatment in poor African countries might actually be worse than doing nothing at all.

    The Bush administration rejected these arguments, which turned out to be categorically wrong.

    Africans are every bit as diligent about taking their HIV medications as are Americans or other Westerners. While there has been a “modest, contained and not alarming” rise in resistance to one class of drugs, according to a World Health Organization researcher who presented a study at this week’s AIDS conference, scientists no longer envision a nightmare scenario in which drug-resistant strains of the virus run rampant.

    According to a survey by the charity Doctors Without Borders, 11 African countries — including some of the hardest-hit by the epidemic — are providing antire­troviral drug treatment to well over half of their citizens infected with HIV. Treatment not only extends the patient’s life but also decreases the likelihood that he or she will pass the virus to an uninfected person. The end of the AIDS epidemic is not yet in sight. But it is no longer unimaginable.

    Bush’s initial multibillion-dollar commitment to PEPFAR was not really justifiable on grounds of national security, except perhaps in the broadest possible sense. The administration was motivated instead by altruism. It was the right thing to do.

    So far, the United States has spent about $46 billion through the program. President Obama has been sharply criticized for proposing a cut of nearly 12 percent in PEPFAR funding for the 2013 fiscal year. Administration officials say they are actually just shifting money to complementary programs and that overall HIV/AIDS funding will rise to an all-time high. Advocates for the PEPFAR program argue that any way you look at it, fewer dollars will ultimately mean fewer people receiving lifesaving drugs — and, potentially, more new infections.

    The Obama administration has a point when it complains that, at a time when the U.S. economy is struggling, it is only reasonable to expect other wealthy countries to bear more of the cost of providing antiretroviral treatment in Africa. Administration officials also have a point when they note that, under Bush, the biennial international AIDS conference could not even have been held in Washington — because HIV-positive individuals were denied visas to enter the country. Obama ended this discriminatory policy during his first year in office.

    But if Africa is gaining ground against AIDS, history will note that it was Bush, more than any other individual, who turned the tide. The man who called himself the Decider will be held accountable for a host of calamitous decisions. But for opening his heart to Africa, he deserves nothing but gratitude and praise.’

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-george-w-bushs-greatest-legacy–his-battle-against-aids/2012/07/26/gJQAumGKCX_story.html

    Not always a complementary piece from Robinson, as you’d expect from a left of centre journalist, but even he acknowledges the Bush legacy for Africa.

  54. The thing we’re all agreed on though, is that the HIV statistics are both tragic and growing.

    Even if the comparison with the way in which cigarette companies are obliged, by law, to print warnings on their packaging and the dangers or risks of unprotected gay sex is, for gay supporters, challenging, the fact is that the introduction of gay marriage would almost certainly glamourise something which could be seen as an extreme potential health risk.

    Even a relationship between a ‘clean’ male couple isn’t safe unless they use condoms. There are numerous reasons for this, and all pretty obvious.

    But the question is whether young men should be warned, or if they should be allowed to engage in the current promiscuous recommended practice of experimentation with various partners before making a decision about ‘the one’.

    Both wazza and Bones argue that marriage is the obvious solution, but why? What would an official document do that either a civil union, which is already available in most States, or a strictly monogamous relationship couldn’t?

    The argument that a marriage contract would change anything is surely spurious.

    The real issue we clearly face is that of increased cases of HIV amongst gay men, despite the billions, the hype, the promotions, the free contraception, and the clearest advert yet – the men who have died young in agonising and degrading conditions because they took the risk anyway.

  55. And here’s another thing to consider. Researching this, I read a National Geographic article on AIDS, which had pictures of needle using drug addicts a woman in a mortuary, a brothel, drug addicts n Rome, an artist who lived 10 years longer than expected through a daily regime of injections and medical care, but not one single reference int he whole article to the increase of HIV and AIDS amongst gay men. Not one.

    Under the carpet, next to the people who bury their heads in the sand.

    On another site, which won’t publish, but which you can research, there are very explicit photographs of the ravages of the full blown AIDS virus amongst those who are near the end. It is heart-breaking. Mostly of men who contracted the disease through unprotected gay sex.

    But there was one haunting picture of an infant girl who was infected. How could this be, you have to ask! What morality allows this? I can’t tell you what this does to me emotionally. Not just for the revulsion of the infection of an innocent little gel, but also the tragedy unfolding every day amongst young men who discover they are infected.

    15,000 people every day!

    Women have been infected by contageous bisexual men, and so it spreads through the brothels in nations where women are second-class citizens, used by the men. No-one really wants to talk about it

    And, of course, these things have to be obscured. Hidden away because thy are not good PR for the marriage equality push.

    If condoms contained some of these images you can be sure they would scare off some of our young men from the life that would otherwise lay ahead of them.

    Yes, sharing needles in drug dens is one way, and brothels are another, but the truth needs to be out about what is happening.

    The more I go into this, the more I applaud Jim Wallace for having the guts to keep it an issue, even if his methodology was somewhat confrontational. But not as confrontational as those images, and not as confrontational as the discover of the disease in those young men must be the day they are told they have contracted it.

  56. I have a friend with HIV, having contracted it through unprotected sex with another man, even though he was in a “monogamous” relationship with his boyfriend. These two guys have been together for about 20 years, yet both of them used to regularly have sex with other men at events such as Mardi Gras and dance parties. I think once my friend contracted HIV he stopped doing that, but my point is that it has been shown in various studies that the majority of men in “monogamous” homosexual relationships will still regularly have sex with other men, regardless of their relationship status, and the idea that “marriage” will stop this is simply naive.

  57. You are picking and choosing facts and statistics and jumping to emotive extreme sites in order to justify the conclusion you have already arrived at.

    15,000 people every day is the world-wide figure. But this is not all because of gay sex. If everyone suddenly decided never to be homosexual at all, the disease would still spread.

    In sub-saharan africa which contributes a large proportion of the infection statistics, women and girls are more likely to be infected. Prostitution and non-monogamous lifestyles are contributing to the problem whether it is homosexual or heterosexual behaviour.

    Anal sex is more likely to spread the disease, but it is still a huge problem in many countries with heterosexual transmission. Its not a gay issue, it is a human issue.

    And as I said before, if you want to stop the spread of AIDS why wouldnt you support social institutions which give structure and value to monogamy in the gay community? An argument was put on the right-wing ‘Counterpoint’ program on ABC RN, that Gay marriage is a conservative issue which conservatives should support.

    Why would a monogamous homosexual relationship be less risky to them anyway? There is still the risk of infection between a couple who remain faithful to each other, unlike monogamous heterosexual relationships.

    The HIV virus is a disease like any other. If it is present in one partner there is a risk of transmission – whether homosexual or heterosexual. If it is not present, then if the couple are monogamous they will not be infected.

    If Wallace is concerned about healh in the gay community, is his private company – the ACL doing anything to help? Are any of the churches he is associated with doing anything to help?

    We dont owe smokers a big apology, but we also shoudnt call for prohibition. They dont need demonisation and endless repetition of health statistics, as if they are somehow different from us. We owe them an education campaign and support to improve their health.

  58. It’s all about changing people’s lifestyle and culture. That’s what worked in Uganda. And lifestyle and culture needs to change in Australia and America and everywhere else.

    Gay sex, promiscuous heterosexual sex, use of prostitutes, sharing
    of needles. Change that! Stop doing it. Tell people that there is an alternative lifestyle. (remember when “alternative lifestyle” meant something completely different?)

    We need to change the culture. Change people’s minds and hearts and that leads to behavior change.

    The President of Uganda and his wife went around in jeeps pleading with girls to not have sex until marriage. That’s how passionate they were and their efforts in changing the attitudes to sex saw the big change in Uganda.

    So, how are we changing the culture? Are we promoting the best, safest, lifestyle there is – no gay sex, no sex outside of marriage, no prostitution, no drugs? What culture are we building? Working towards?

    From Mark Driscoll, to Houston and Pringle, to John Macarthur to Rick Warren, Billy Graham etc etc. To the average Mom and Dad out there who are trying to teach their kids life. They all are.

    It’s simple. Let’s build a culture based on Godly (but also just plain sensible) principles.

    Teach our boys to become men who don’t sleep around but get married to a WOMAN and be faithful to her. And teach our girls to also wait until they are married to a man to have sex, and then to be faithful to him. And work at ourselves being faithful.

    To the extent that we achieve this kind of society, we will see reductions in HIV.

    Work for good, pray for good, teach Godly principles.

    Change the culture!

    Men have to be men. Don’t have sex with other men, and don’t be intimidated by others who think you aren’t masculine unless you have as much sex with as many women as you can. Don’t go to prosttutes and don’t rape women.

    What’s weird is that what I just said sounds extremist. But it’s what Uganda and Australia needs to hear. But nobody watching TV or even listening to liberal christians would hear it.

    We don’t even hear it enough in our churches.

  59. wazza,
    The HIV virus is a disease like any other. If it is present in one partner there is a risk of transmission – whether homosexual or heterosexual. If it is not present, then if the couple are monogamous they will not be infected.

    Even with unprotected anal sex? There is no risk of infection? Can you confirm this?

    Why are you calling education on the facts ‘demonisation’? Isn’t that the issue here? The refusal to accept facts. You say I demonise and then you want to romanticise it all as OK if we’ll only let them marry. That is too naive.

    Why are the statistics not important to you? They are not being repeated endlessly. They are being hidden. That is the point. That is Jim Wallace’s argument. They are being obscured by the twin claims that anal sex is not a choice and that it is perfectly safe in a monogamous relationship. The facts seem to refute this. Face them.

    We all accept that smoking is harmful, but not that unprotected anal sex is a smoking gun.

    You are picking and choosing facts and statistics and jumping to emotive extreme sites in order to justify the conclusion you have already arrived at.

    That is a ridiculous claim. I googled ‘AIDS risks’, or something similar. I came across several sites. The one which startled me was National Geographic was the least graphic, and the most deceptive because it sad nothing at all about the gay community, but pointed the finger at drug users and brothels.

    The other sites had explicit photography of the effects of AIDS in sufferers. it not only increased my awareness but it shocked me into wanting to firs of all help people who are unfortunately in it, and secondly make people more aware of the very high risks involved.

    I ‘jumped’ nowhere. I researched my information. Thus far I have given a very soft picture of a very graphic issue. I’v left it for you and your conscience to investigate the truth further.

    But I’ve dropped a very serious hint.

  60. “You are picking and choosing facts and statistics and jumping to emotive extreme sites”

    I think that was supposed to be the joke of the day, Steve.

    But if not, don’t worry. For some here, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association page is an extremist site.

  61. The HIV virus is a disease like any other. If it is present in one partner there is a risk of transmission – whether homosexual or heterosexual. If it is not present, then if the couple are monogamous they will not be infected.

    Even with unprotected anal sex? There is no risk of infection? Can you confirm this?

    Yes! of course I can confirm this.

    It seems you are missing a basic piece of scientific knowledge – crucial for understanding the debate.

    AIDS is NOT CAUSED by homosexual sex. It is transmitted by homosexual sex, among other things like heterosexual sex and injecting.

    People were having homosexual relations for 20,000 years and never got AIDS before 1920. Around then it is likely that a simian AIDs virus crossed over from a monkey population to humans.

    It is not homosexual disease. Get that through your head. Its a human disease which affects homosexuals more than others.

  62. @Wazza

    “If it is not present, then if the couple are monogamous they will not be infected.”

    “Monogamous” relationships within the homosexual community are virtually non-existant. It is common for gay men to have several sexual partners apart from their “spouse”.

    You’re twisting yourself in knots trying to somehow prove that gay sex is normal, yet the actual facts are that AIDS is mainly spread by homosexual sex, and that the cases involving heterosexuals and infection from needles are ALL as a result of one of the individuals somewhere along the line having unprotected anal sex with another man. While the disease can obviously be spread via non-homosexual means, it’s beginnings come from gay sex.

  63. No, thats incorrect. Its beginnings are from eating “bush-meat” – monkeys, and was initially spread via heterosexual sex.

  64. So they say!

    The gays are the victim. It was all started by the heterosexuals!

    Confuse the picture with a scrambling theory and the blame has to be removed from reality.

    You realise the monkey meat claim has huge racist overtones!

  65. Whatever.. you can go with your conspiracy theories. I’d prefer to use established scientific fact.

    Do you now at least concede that two uninfected individuals cannot contract HIV by having homosexual sex with each other?

  66. What exactly are the racist overtones of the monkey meat theory?

    Only thing I can think of is that some Christians believe HIV came about by Africans having sex with monkeys and is God’s punishment for bestiality.

    Which would be impossible.

    The having sex with monkeys bit that is.

  67. Dem African Negro bush men ate monkey meat with tainted blood, caught monkey HIV, which developed in to full-blown human AIDS, den dey had homosexual sex, bisexual sex, heterosexual sex, intrasexual sex, undrasexual sex, sex, sex, and off went the virus across the community and de negro boys started it all.

    Dem white boys, dey had nothin’ to do wid it.

    It’s interesting to me that the bush men didn’t start eating monkey until the 1920s.

  68. Its not racist to state that the HIV virus appears to have originated from Africa. Just like its not racist to say that bird-flu appears to have originated in Asia.

    I’m not blaming any group for “starting it” but are you?

    OK, can you please state your theory of the origin of AIDS, including your answer to the question of whether two uninfected monogamous homosexuals can contract HIV.

  69. In fact, both questions are irrelevant to the premise, and a detour.

    The origin may be, a best, uncertain, or obscured, but it is a known fact that HIV was considered a pandemic amongst the gay community in the 80s and 90s, when it first came to light, then it became a major pandemic in African and Asian nations amongst both homosexual and heterosexual, as well as bisexual, communities, especially in developing nations where neither the prevention nor the treatment was affordable without subsidy.

    The claim was that it was diminishing in developed nations because of education, and there was, apparently, a lull in activity in the West, which was hopeful.

    However, the figures indicate an upsurge in the instances of HIV amongst gay men.

    This is what both Jim Wallace and the article cover. The discussion on this thread, predictably, took us away from the main question of what to do about the alarming upsurge in HIV prevalence amongst gay men, and whether we should be giving stronger warnings to young men who are considering their sexuality.

    I don’t see how blaming anyone for the origins is helpful, but we can identify the source of the current increase amongst gay men, can’t we?

  70. In fact, either way you look at it, what the figures indicate, if you are correct about the way in which HIV spreads, is that many of the old hands with HIV are infecting young guys coming into the fold.

    Do you think this is morally acceptable? What should be done about it?

  71. I dont think the questions are a detour at all. You have ridiculed my statement about the origin of AIDS, but refuse to state your own position on it. What do you think is the likely origin of AIDS?

    And the question of how AIDS spreads is crucial to any debate on the issue and any proposed remedy or assesment of moral acceptability. I will ask again, do you believe that an uninfected monogamous homosexual couple can contract AIDS?

    These are basic facts that you should be able to answer if you are publishing an article of opinion on the subject. You have a responsibility to ensure your opinion is based on Informed research, and you should therefore be able to answer fundamental questions on the subject.

    If you dont know the answer, say so.

  72. wazza,
    These are basic facts that you should be able to answer if you are publishing an article of opinion on the subject. You have a responsibility to ensure your opinion is based on Informed research, and you should therefore be able to answer fundamental questions on the subject.

    Huh? Why? What does the post state that makes a claim to anything?

    Are you now setting the new benchmark for posts?

    Nonsense.

    You add loosely-connected issues and state that they must be addressed for a poster to have credibility.

    The issue is the growing number of HIV infections amongst the gay community and how young men should be addressed with the concern for their safety.

    Someone is infecting young gays with HIV.

    Even you cannot exclude the gay community from any kind of responsibility. That is part of the issue.

    Whether a ‘clean’ couple can be infected or not is not the issue. It is probable that they will not be infected. If you are correct, then it is obvious that infected gay men are contaminating new sexual partners.

    Is this acceptable?

    Should young men considering their sexuality be warned?

    These are the issues.

    The origins of HIV are your personal interest and not related. I do not think even you can exclude the gay community from any kind of responsibility. That is an important part of the issue.

  73. After Bone’s post led to more reading about the situation in Uganda, I was impressed again at how well they were able to enact widespread cultural change. There are so many good reasons for sexual fidelity and protection from HIV is just one of them.

    Sorry for wandering off the point. But, we need a sexual revolution.

  74. If you are not clear in your mind about what the disease is and how its transmitted, you will never be able to make any sound judgement on the ethics or morality of any behaviour related to it.

    I’m not excluding the gay community from responsibility, but this seems to me to be a fundamental point that must be addressed in order to have a rational discussion on the issue.

    Does anyone else disagree with me?

  75. Wazza, I thought your questions were addressed only to Steve.

    But if you were to ask me.

    ” do you believe that an uninfected monogamous homosexual couple can contract AIDS?”

    I think the simple obvious answer is no. Unless they contract it though some other non-sexual way.

    A lot of what you are saying, and said in your other post is basic undeniable science.

    If what you are looking for is for someone to agree that aids could be reduced if every homosexual were monogamous or that if they used condoms when they weren’t monogamous, then I agree with you.

    The same is true for heterosexuals.

    As to the origins of Aids and how it came to western countries etc, I don’t think there’s 100% concensus on that.

    And I’m actually not interested in whether or not the gay community “accepts responsibility”. It seems obvious from everything that I’ve read that Aids spread in the US and then Australia mainly due to the promiscuity in the gay community. But, in a sense I don’t “blame” them for that, because nobody knew much about it in the early days.

    For those interested I found the first Four Corners program about it that I remember watching – showing my age. It’s from 1985 and on their website.

    To me, as a Christian, a parent, and someone who is interested in the betterment of society as a whole, I wish there would be a much stronger society-wide emphasis on morality as a way of protection from all kinds of STDs. Education on the value of abstinence wasn’t the only factor for the decrease of aids in Uganda, but it was a very major factor. Lifestyle is the most important factor.

    Teaching people (on a continual basis – I need to remind myself too!!) about sexual fidelity is usually criticized for being ineffective, but one of the reasons for that is that while a few people are trying to get the message across, there are unfortunately more telling people its unreasonable and impossible, and our whole entertainment world ridicules virginity.

  76. Having said all that, the attacks on Jim Wallace are unwarranted but totally predictable.

    Rick Warren who has gone further than just about any high profile evangelical leader in understanding HIV, encouraging testing, being non-confrontational with gays, criticizing other leaders who appear judgemental etc – is hated and villified by many members of the gay community.

    In the end, unless you agree to gay marriage, and refrain from stating that gay sex is sin, you will be attacked and hated.

    It’s just the way it is – at least in the US and Australia.

    On the flipside, many people in the country I live don’t understand CHristianity because they see the US as a Christian country and can’t understand why gay marriage is being promoted and why people are hated for the opposition to it.

    So, the gay community has succeed to a great extent in changing the culture of the US and Australia.

    I want to change it back. We need God’s culture.

  77. Has anyone considered the negative effects of homosexual sex apart from HIV? The high incidence of anal cancer for instance, fatal when it metastasizes to other organs?

    Data includes anal cancer among non-gay patients is only 0.9/100,000 with that number increasing to 35/100,000 for homosexuals.

    Gay bowel syndrome?

    Contaminated faeces finding and infecting the mouth of the partner?

    I’m seriously trying to understand how anyone would suggest God blesses any of this…..

  78. Margot ….all this time I was hoping you’d come back and discuss John Piper Steve’s Psalm 37 reference and stuff like that, and what do It get?? You just put me off my coffee…..

  79. The risks of heterosexual sex should not be underestimated too, with HPV leading to risk of cancer, and the risk of other STDs including AIDs.

    It seems the safest sexual behaviour is WSW.

  80. Even with unprotected anal sex? There is no risk of infection? Can you confirm this?

    Steve are you suggesting that if you don’t have the HIV virus and your partner doesn’t have the HIV virus but you still engage in anal sex that you could still contract HIV?

    That is simply ridiculous – no virus=no risk of contracting HIV pure and simple.

  81. Q said:

    btw wazza. You’re quite articulate if you don’t mind me saying

    Are you trying to come on to wazza? BTW, its ok if you are, he seems quite handsome

  82. I’m pretty sure he was talking about HIV. I have asked him to state his opinion unequivocally several times, by asking the direct question :

    do you believe that an uninfected monogamous homosexual couple can contract AIDS?

    (or similar) And he has refused to answer.

  83. wazza, I’m conceding, until I have further evidence, that is it is probable that two ‘clean’ gays can’t contract HIV from unprotected sex with one another, or it will not form in either. I did add this earlier.

    Your reference to sexually transmitted diseases would generally be based on promiscuous behaviour, not in a monogamous relationship.

    A monogamous heterosexual relationship is generally STD free, provided they remain hygenic. And they would never have to use condoms.

    But are there risks to a condom-free monogamous gay couple?

  84. Yes seems the solution is…..

    wait for it…..

    more education.

    Trends going up with hetero STDs especially chlamidea.

    19 Million

    STDs are one of the most critical health challenges facing the nation today. CDC estimates that there are 19 million new infections every year in the United States.

    $17 Billion

    STDs cost the U.S. health care system $17 billion every year—and cost individuals even more in immediate and life-long health consequences.

    CDC’s surveillance report includes data on the three STDs that physicians are required to report to local or state public health authorities—gonorrhea, chlamydia, and syphilis—which represent only a fraction of the true burden of STDs. Some common STDs, like human papillomavirus (HPV) and genital herpes, are not required to be reported.

    The latest CDC data show troubling trends in three treatable STDs:

    Gonorrhea: While reported rates are at historically low levels, cases increased slightly from last year and more than 300,000 cases were reported in 2010. There are also signs from other CDC surveillance systems that the disease may become resistant to the only available treatment option.
    Chlamydia: Case reports have been increasing steadily over the past 20 years, and in 2010, 1.3 million chlamydia cases were reported. While the increase is due to expanded screening efforts, and not to an actual increase in the number of people with chlamydia, a majority of infections still go undiagnosed. Less than half of sexually active young women are screened annually as recommended by CDC.
    Syphilis: The overall syphilis rate decreased for the first time in a decade, and is down 1.6 percent since 2009. However, the rate among young black men has increased dramatically over the past five years (134 percent). Other CDC data also show a significant increase in syphilis among young black men who have sex with men (MSM), suggesting that new infections among MSM are driving the increase in young black men. The finding is particularly concerning as there has also been a sharp increase in HIV infections among this population.

  85. But you are avoiding the point I have raised that this now points to infected gays contaminating young men because the figures show that HIV is on the rise amongst gays.

    Do you concede that this must be the case?

  86. I agree with Bones that here should be more education, but wasn’t there a barrage of information in the 90s and 00s?

    What has gone wrong? Why are gays ignoring the warnings?

  87. Complacency. Also new generation coming through hasn’t seen the devastation that those who went through it in the 80s and 90s did.

    Same with the heteros.

  88. Bones, there are people who have all the condom education in the world who still engage in risky behavior.

    There is more that can be done about Aids and stds than telling people to use condoms. Condoms are not the answer to the world’s problems.

    “What has gone wrong? Why are gays ignoring the warnings?”

    For the same reason that lots of people ignore warnings. Because even with the knowledge people have sex on the spur of the moment. Especially those who are brought up with the concept that sexual feelings don’t need to be denied, and that everyone from junior high school age needs and deserves to have sex or there’s something wrong with them.

    But this is all hard to legislate for – that comes from within the hearts and minds. So then, the more kids and more people being exposed to God’s teachings, and environments where sex is taught to be within marriage the better. For example, like the big churches where thousands of young people are being attracted to like Hillsong and …

    oh, yeah, I forgot. People are so busy attacking them.

    Really, how many places are there today, where kids and adults are encouraged to only have sex with the person they marry.
    And that behavior is far superior to condom education.

    If you start with the culture that says that sex should be experienced as much as possible, within that culture there will always be an increased probability of people at times not ruining the moment, the chance, or the pleasure with the inconvenience of using a condom.

    Talk to people in the real world a little and you’ll know what I mean.

  89. oh and guys, stds are increasing in middle aged men in western countries at levels that concern health authorities.

    That’s you guys between 40 and 59, You know who you are!

  90. That’s you guys between 40 and 59, You know who you are!

    I’m in that age range but that’s not me mate.

    Bones, there are people who have all the condom education in the world who still engage in risky behavior.

    No kidding. I know guys who literally think with their penis and hang the consequences.

    Same goes with drug education, driving education, alcohol education, heath education, smoking education.

    People still take drugs, drive too fast, drink too much, eat too much and smoke.

    Really, how many places are there today, where kids and adults are encouraged to only have sex with the person they marry.

    Church kids still have sex outside of marriage.

    But gays can’t get married.

    You’re arguing against promiscuity by denying the only stable institution which can combat it.

    f you start with the culture that says that sex should be experienced as much as possible,

    Has anyone stated that. I don’t know anyone on here that believes that. There are of course native cultures that sees sex as natural even for kids. I question that that is a common attitude in the community.

  91. “You’re arguing against promiscuity by denying the only stable institution which can combat it.”

    Yes. Gays shouldn’t even have sex. It’s absurd, ridiculous, illogical, and sinful. Yep, they should stop it.

    It’s a common attitude in our popular culture that sexual feelings and the desire to have sex shouldn’t be resisted.

    You are a Christian need to be showing people the better way.
    Condoms aren’t the answer.

  92. “You’re arguing against promiscuity by denying the only stable institution which can combat it.”

    Okay Bones. Can we just clarify this. You’ve stated before something to the effect that we should make gay marriage legal because we can’t impose Christian beliefs on non-Christians.

    Are you now saying that you want to vote in gay marriage to stop HIV? To stop gays from being promiscuous?

    So you are fully in favor of gay marriage? Not just because it’s an imposition, but because you want to encourage gays not have more than one partner but to be married and have safe sex and live happily ever after.

  93. And you too Wazza? You would vote for gay marriage?

    Seriously? If there were a referendum you would both vote in favor of gay marriage?

  94. Yes. The Conservative Christian response to Gays is essentially the opposite of the Nike slogan.

    Just dont do it.

    So homosexuals are not using condoms as much as they were previously. They cant control themselves to have sex responsibly. So we’ll just tell them not to have sex at all. Yeah, that will work…

    Or, lets tell them they cant get married, because that would weaken or destroy the whole institution of marriage. But they should still be monogamous. Yeah, thats not a mixed message.

  95. Yep, they should stop it.

    Seems some want to go back to legislating for the criminalisation of homosexuality.

    It’s the only way of reading these comments.

    Hence the smokescreen of how terrible it is that people are getting HIV.

  96. So Wazza you beliefs are as follows

    1.Homosexuals aren’t using condoms as much as they were previously.
    2. They can’t control themselves to have sex responsibly
    3. therefore homosexuals should be able to be married.

    RIght…. and you claim to be a Christian? Not a conservative one?
    But what kind. Sounds like a Claytons Christian to me.

    Wazza, if Claytons Christians – okay liberal Christians think like that, then it’s really no wonder that liberal CHristianity started dying decades ago, and is almost extinct. It’s just irrelevant.

    It offers nothing. It’s not only against sound doctrine, sound thinking and basic Godliness, but it has no attraction to anyone.

    That’s why as much as many people here don’t like Hillsong or C3 or Driscol style reformed Churches, those types of churches are growing. They are an alternative to the world.

    What’s your solution to the HIV crisis Mr Gayman?
    Condoms and gay marraige.
    What’s your solution to the HIV crisis Mr Atheist?
    Condoms and gay marriage.
    What’s your solution to the HIV crisis Rev Clayton from the local liberal church (for want of a better word)
    Condoms and gay marriage.

    The modern day book of Acts of the Liberals.

    “Silver and God have I none, but what I have I give thee”.
    Step right up – I’ve got a whole box of condoms and marriage certificates.

    That’s not true Christianity.

  97. What a complete load of crap.

    Islam’s growing faster than most churches.

    An abstinence only message will NEVER work.

    Ever.

    Your true Christianity is to slate people for being promiscuous and then deny them the stability of marriage.

    You’re the one who’s illogical.

  98. “It’s the only way of reading these comments.”

    I never advocated here the criminalization of homosexual sex.

    But now that you bring it up – and you love to bring other issues up instead of just answering questions – I don’t think that the decriminalization of homosexual sex, and the public acceptance of and existence of gay bars, gay night clubs and gay mardi gras has helped reduced the increase in homosexual sex (which you Bones have previously said is sin), or HIV.

  99. “Islam’s growing faster than most churches.”

    Islam is not a section of Christianity. But interestingly enough, it teaches against homosexual sex and gay marriage too. So, they have more understanding of some issues than liberal Christians. Now isn’t that ironic.

    “An abstinence only message will NEVER work.”

    First, I never said abstinence only. You are the one who is making that up. Secondly, because not everyone will abide by an obvious truth, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be emphasized on the basis that it will “Never work”.

    The simple obvious answer to the disgusting obesity problem in Australia is for people to not consume more calories than they use.
    In other words, most of the fat people in your country (and it’s full of them) just need to eat less and/or get off their fat backsides.

    Now many Australians would rather spend billions on medicines, supplements, psychology books, hypnosis and any other stupid waste of money idea and tell me that telling people to not eat so much will never work.
    BUT IT WOULD WORK AND ITS FREE.

    But because Australians live in a culture where most of the people are fat and a significant number are obese, people just can’t see the obvious. And they think it’s impossible.

    Simple is not always easy, but it’s the best.

    “Your true Christianity is to slate people for being promiscuous and then deny them the stability of marriage.”

    I love marriage. It’s beautiful. It should be praised, nurtured and protected. But marriage is between a man and a woman. I don’t slate people for being promiscuous. I simple say that we should try not to be promiscuous. Like we should all avoid rape, murder, gossip etc etc. Yes, I simply say what most people in most societies and what the bible teaches, and wait for it…..what God desires/ what the Holy Spirit teaches, what are conscience tells us –
    that men should not have sex with men and lots of different women, but to one woman who they are married with

    “You’re the one who’s illogical.”

    No, Just biblical. And normal.

  100. The Holy Spirit would never lead a man to marry a man.
    Do you agree with that Bones?

    God doesn’t want a man to marry a man.
    Do you agree with that Bones?

    I’m on the same side as God and the Holy Spirit. That’s the right side Bones. I’m sure if you repented, and really sought the Lord, you would know that if gay men have a problem with sleeping with other men, you could give them better advice than to just choose one man and get married.

    There’s a better answer Bones. Deep down, you probably do know that.

    See that’s where you need to get to. Imagine, you have a real man in front of you. He’s sleeping around with other men. He hears that HIV is increasing. He asks you for advice. You would tell him to marry one man? Call for Rev Wazza to marry them so they can live happily ever after and maybe become elders in your church?
    And then they can teach young boys how to live the Christian life?

    Bones, the Holy Spirit would never prompt you to tell a men to marry a man in order to solve his HIV fears.

    Never.

  101. Yes, you’ve been proclaimed as a middle of the road Christian when your bigotry has been revealed all along as well as your disgust of homosexuals which is more than anyone else on this site.

    And for starters there is a strong likelihood that the gene for homosexuality will be discovered in the not too distant future.

    The Holy Spirit tells people to do all sorts of things: from ripping off Christians to committing genocide. So telling a couple of blokes to marry sure wouldn’t surprise me.

    Gay Christians would tell you by the way that they are following the Holy Spirit.

    Call for Rev Wazza to marry them so they can live happily ever after and maybe become elders in your church?
    And then they can teach young boys how to live the Christian life?

    Yes you’d hate that and the obvious undertones of your post that homosexuality can be passed on like a disease really are infantile.

    As is your understanding of the obesity problem.

    And no I don’t need to repent.

    And enforced celibacy works really well too.

    Ask the Catholics.

  102. Sounds like a Claytons Christian to me.

    And your misrepresentation really does reveal you to be a complete dickhead.

    For starters when dealing with society we have to recognise that the majority aren’t Christians. So while we would love to force our ideas of abstinence and faithfulness on society the simple fact is that many will not choose that. And many will have sex and if they do the safest thing for them to do is wear a condom. That goes for straight or gay.

    I know why you pissed Greg off.

    Cause you really do talk crap.

    And yes Jim Wallace is a bigoted fool.

    Like you.

  103. Lets put this in context again – about 900 HIV infections per year in Australia, with about 90 AIDs-related deaths per year. The majority of these are gay males.

    For comparison there are about 15,000 smoking-related deaths per year. There are over 2,000 suicides per year. The road toll is over 1,200. The number of workplace related deaths is three times the number of AIDs-related deaths.

    Smoking needs to be reduced as much as possible, but not banned. We need to do more to prevent suicide, especially in young people as there is some evidence that it is a growing problem. The other issues also need attention.

    These other issues have not really been discussed on this forum. Why the focus on AIDs? Are we really that concerned for the people at most danger, or are we using it as a scare in order to set one community apart from ourselves?

    The fact is that around 2% of people are homosexual, they are a minority but significant group within society and always have been. Most of them will not be able to establish a lasting relationship with a member of the opposite sex, even if they wanted to. All of the conversion therapies, especially the well-meaning Christian ones, have failed. They are acknowledged to have failed by their own leaders. Is it fair to a young man to expect him to try to establish a relationship with a young woman when there is no attraction? Is it fair to the young woman in this case? Is it fair to the kids? Is it fair to ask the young man to remain celibate and alone for the rest of his life?

    Steve says that we should give the AIDs and life-expectancy statistics to young men considering their sexuality. Did you consider your sexuality? Did Steve? I was attracted to girls at school from the age of five, I even had a crush on my (female) prep-teacher. Never once did I consider whether I should be homosexual or heterosexual. Did you? Were you even a little tempted? If not, what makes you think the homosexual will always have had a choice?

  104. Bones, you insulted and attacked viscously once again.And still never answered the question. Disagree with a liberal and they spit the dummy and insult.
    You need to harden up. Just tell biblical truth and the Christian will be hated and attacked. And all you have done is to repeat the same old stuff again. Standard homosexual rhetoric. I’ve heard it all before – for years now.

    I’ll say it once again. God’s will is for men to marry women. The Holy Spirit has not and will not encourage a man to marry a man.

    If people think the Holy Spirit is leading them like that, then it isn’t the Holy Spirit. Just like cult leaders can say the Holy Spirit is leading them but they’re wrong.

    And Bones, if you have an obesity problem, I’ll send you a simple diet plan and you’ll lose weight.

    The fact that you call me a bigot because I simply believe the same way as the Bible, the Apostle Paul, the Pope, Billy Graham and most of our parents and grandparents – and actually most of the people in the world today shows me that you are not only wrong, you are blind and out of touch.

    I suggest you read more of the bible, pray more, and spend less time listening to people who have no fear of God or love of the word.

    Do you think Jesus was really unfair to the “supposed” 2% of gays who wanted to marry their own gender?

    Do you think your loving Jesus was cruel to not address this issue?
    Do you think there were gays among the 12, or the 70, or the wider group of society?

    Jesus did not, and still does not endorse men having sex with each other.

    Go call the Pope and Billy Graham a bigot.

  105. btw, what do Bones and Wazza think about the The Klein Sexual Orientation Grid. You can read about it at the American Institute of Bisexuality.

    Secondly, is it cruel to insist that a bisexual have to restrict their sexual expression to just one gender?

    Are you aware of the deep needs and struggles of bisexuals?
    Have you spoken to bisexuals about monogamy?

    “As is your understanding of the obesity problem.”
    Actually, I understand it pretty well. Anytime you want to discuss diet and exercise and the latest scientific research, let me know.

  106. Bones, bringing hard-line language into the discussion is unnecessary and shows you up to be hard-hearted rather than hardened up.

    Q is not talking ‘crap’ as you put it. He has articulated an argument he believes in. If you disagree say so, but moderate your own language to save me the trouble.

    And there is no need to aim aggressive remarks at Jim Wallace, who is personal friend, and a person of greta integrity. I can tell you he will have done his homework, as wazza demands, and doesn’t make flippant remarks.

    In this instance he has been grossly and unwisely misrepresented so that the PM and gay lobby can gain illicit mileage out of being overly sentimental about an issue which needs to be faced, but is being swept under the carpet.

    OK to disagree, or to be passionately opposed, but you don’t have to make overly condemning remarks.

    Some self-control would be in order.

  107. Actually I’d much rather talk about the Christian obesity problem rather that this. This issue is very clear cut from a biblical perspective, and everyone person I know without exception who is regularly praying, reading the Word and following Jesus has the same opinion. Most Christians are bigots according to Bones.

  108. I’d like to ask both Steve and Q whether they actively and thoughtfully considered which sexuality to choose at any time of their lives.

    Was there any point where you could have gone one way, but decided on hetrosexuality? What was the central factor in your decision?

  109. @Steve. It’s extremely disappointing that when a man like Jim Wallace makes a statement, not only do the people who hate his position (and his faith) attack, but liberal christians also attack.

    It’s getting to be a very lonely, vulnerable position for any Christian who makes statements (and statements that many non-christians agree with but are too afraid to say publicly).

    Billy Graham tried to avoid this whole issue as much as possible in order to be able to preach to gays. But in the end, when it came to
    the crunch, he came out and PLEADED with people to protect traditional marriage.

    For me, Billy Graham is not the pope, but perhaps the most respected Christian leader in the world.

    And Billy Graham doesn’t hate gays anymore than I do.

    btw Steve, don’t worry about Bones attack. Vile speech doesn’t bother me. It actually just confirms things.

  110. Wazza tell me what you think about bisexuality, and do you think that people are either completely heterosexual or completely homosexual with nothing in between.

    If I said I was homosexual or bisexual would it change the validity of anything I’ve said here?

    This is all endless. Bones and Wazza don’t accept the Biblical teaching or the conservative position. And I don’t accept their position.

    wow, I just noticed something. Steve used the term “self-control”.

    Self-control…….. seems out of place on this blog.

  111. I suppose people are on some sort of continuum between the poles of homosexuality and heterosexuality Most people I think are pretty close to one end or the other, so much so that they dont really have to think about which way they would go. Thats been my experience.

    What about you? And Steve?

  112. So what about bisexuals and their sexual needs and marriage?

    And you are wrong about people and their struggle regarding their sexuality, Especially young people.

  113. What about you, Q? Whats your experience? Did you struggle with this issue? If not, how can you really understand the struggles you are asking other people to undertake?

  114. Life carries a warning or two on the package, wazza. Whatever a person is emotionally, sexually, spiritually or physically isn’t the determining factor.

    I’ve learned recently, the hard way, not to get into personal details on this blog, but suffice to say that being homosexual has never been an option in my life, before or after I was saved.

    But how we conduct ourselves is always a choice. Mine is to be faithful to my wife, and, subsequently, our offspring. This means affairs, flirting, being available to other women emotionally or sexually is out of bounds.

    That is a choice for all men. We make that decision one way or the other every day of our lives. If I had bisexual or homosexual tendencies it would be no different.

    I see no place for either in the Christian walk, Biblically, or according to nature.

    I prize marriage as an institution from God. He has made it clear that it is between a man and woman, as far as New Testament teaching goes, under which I live.

    Should I expect this of non-christians? No. What the do with their choices, their sexuality, their lifestyle is entirely up to them. Do I force this on them? No.

    Will I support what they call ‘marriage equality’? No. Am I being heartless? No. My conscience, my heart and my understanding of God’s will tell me that marriage is between a man and a woman.

    Do I think marriage will be redefined to include gay marriage? Yes. Will I then change my thinking? No.

    Would I be prepared to go to prison for holding this view? Yes.

  115. Incidentally, wazza, this is not the subject of the post, but you hint at the erroneous suggestion that gays have no way to enjoy a monogamous relationship unless they are granted marriage.

    This, of course, is incorrect, since gays have access to their own personal choice to be faithful to one partner for the rest of their lives should they so choose.

    They also have access to civil rights in most Territories and States.

    In Northern Territory, where I was involved in some of the discussions with the then Government, I know for certain that homosexuals have the same rights as de facto couples, who, actually, have exactly the same rights as married couples, and the same responsibilities.

    The very legislation which the then labour Government adopted was drafted by the gay and lesbian lobby and taken on board in its entirety by the Government. That is law.

    Marriage is just the icing on a wedding cake gays are already able to eat.

  116. Wazza, I can’t remember thinking that I was homosexual.
    I’ve been mistaken for gay by the way I write, I’ve been approached sexually by men, but no, I am not homosexual.

    I’m not attracted to children either. But I don’t hate those who do, and have compassion for them. But if they touched my kids, that would experience the wrath of God.

    Any other questions?

  117. You really cant compare remaining faithful to your wife, to the struggle that homosexuals have when trying to act in ways opposite to their attraction.

    Yes, you may be tempted to flirt with other women, but you have a relationship and a marriage which fulfills your needs. The homosexual is not in that situation. You are asking him to remain single and not to pursue any relationship with anyone he is attracted to. You are asking him to try to be attracted to people he is not currently attracted to.

    If you didnt have the choice for your attractions, what makes you think others do?

  118. What are you trying to say, wazza? That HIV should be allowed to run rampant because gay men have no choice but to embrace buggery?

    This isn’t a discussion about ‘equal’ marriage. We’ve had that on other threads, and I’ve copped a fair amount of flack for my views. I still do.

    This is about the spread of HIV. My understanding is that few gay men enter monogamous relationships.

    I’m asking what can be done about the spread of HIV, and the threat to young men.

  119. But yeah, like Steve, I’m not interested in putting out any more personal information. It’s not relevant to the discussion about whether something is right or wrong.

    Which is what many people don’t understand. You can have a negative opinion about something without having experienced it.

    There are gay men who actively try to seduce young men when their sexual curiosity and feelings are highest, but their knowledge of life is at it’s lowest with the line “how do you know if you haven’t experienced it”.

    Just believe and live out God’s word. It’s the best way – for the Christian and the non-Christian.

    For the non-christian too, I have no problem at all telling them that pornography or adultery won’t do them any good.

    God’s ways are perfect – for the Christian, Buddhist, Australian or Chinese.

    Asian people I know are resistant to Christianity because they can’t understand why Christians are so immoral, and even now are advocating for gay marriage. Yes, I know – Bones will argue that Asians are bigots and d-heads too.

  120. wazaa,
    You really cant compare remaining faithful to your wife, to the struggle that homosexuals have when trying to act in ways opposite to their attraction.

    Of course I can. Marriage is a discipline, or there wouldn’t be so many divorces, affairs, adulterous relationships, books, movies, scandals and the rest all point to the fact that faithfulness in marriage is work. And a choice.

    I made a choice to marry. I could have remained single and available. I chose not to. I chose to have a family. I chose to have a wife.

    I choose to remain faithful.

    Sex, although it is important in its context, has very little to do with it actually. It is the icing on the cake, but it is not the totality of what it takes to sustain a relationship long term.

  121. That was in response to Steve’s question : “I’m asking what can be done about the spread of HIV, and the threat to young men.”

    Bones and I have made some suggestions, whats your thoughts?

  122. “but you have a relationship and a marriage which fulfills your needs. ”

    This is what you don’t understand. Bisexuals don’t feel that marriage to one person of the opposite sex fulfills their needs.
    Many men feel that being faithful to one woman doesn’t fulfill their needs.

    There have been plenty of times when I’ve thought that being faithful to one woman didn’t “fulfill my needs”. Believe me, my “needs” take a lot of fulfilling.

    And it is fair to expect a young man to refrain from having sex with another man. Do you think Jesus was unfair? Jesus had compassion on so many people in the Bible. Where was his compassion for the supposedly gay men who were trapped in heterosexual marriage? Didn’t He realize how unfulfilled and lonely they were.

    The fact is that men who think they are not sexually attracted to women can have sex and physical pleasure with women.
    So, you are concerned for their “emotional needs”.

    If a person feels that their emotion need can only be fulfilled by something sinful, illogical, or harmful , then that emotional need should be and can be denied.

    How’s that for a radical thought. But you never hear that anymore.
    What do you hear?
    Kids can’t stop having sex – give them condoms.
    People can’t stop eating – staple their stomachs.

    Maybe we need Bones to go around more telling people that they are Dheads and to harden up?

  123. Wazza, go do some counseling – even in churches there are so many people who are heterosexual and married who feel unfulfilled and their deep-seated emotional needs are not being met. Many of them feel they can’t cope and will only truly be satisfied with a romantic/sexual relationship with someone other than their spouse.

    There are many people today who feel that monogamy is just unnatural, has totally failed, and can not possible meet the emotional needs of people. So what.

    I don’t care how many people feel that way. Right is right and wrong is wrong.

  124. Sorry Wazza, didn’t see your question. I really like the way you answer questions so directly and the way you state your own opinions. Just sayin.

  125. I’m not sure what is going on here on this site. But to suggest that the Holy Spirit would not call two men or two women together in marriage is not my experience. I am not gay myself, I have several lesbian friends who are and one couple who went to New York to get married. hey have been together for about 12 years and they are vey much in love. They raise a family join in all community events and are for all intents and purposes a normal married couple (even have bickering fights like normal couples do).

    It may come as a shock and a surprise to you that Jonathan and David were a homosexual couple, Saul tried to spear David because of this and cursed Jonathan for choosing David as his partner (called his mother and very nasty name to boot).

    Things are not as black and white and as straight (pardon the pun) forward as you would like them to be Mr Steve and Mr Q.

    There endeth the lesson

  126. @ EmC2 – drive-by trolling?

    “In order to believe that David and Jonathan were homosexual lovers, you are going to have to ignore the plain reading of the scripture and the historic and traditional understanding of the text. In addition, you are going to have to believe that Samuel, one of God’s prophets in the tradition of the Mosiac cultural law that condemns homosexuality in Leviticus, would then approve of this homosexual relationship enough to carefully cloak it in the text. Would not this prophet of God, in the strong tradition of Judaism and the law of Moses have an opinion on this?”

    http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/Were_David_and_Jonathan_Homosexual_Lovers

  127. On the question of “fulfilling our needs”, why do so many believers think that they can only gain “fulfilment” from their spouse or partners? The fact is we can only gain true fulfilment through a relationship with Jesus.

    @EmC2

    The lie about Jonathan and David being in a homosexual relationship has been perpetrated by the homosexual lobby to give their lifestyle supposed biblical legitimacy. An understanding of the culture of the time and of the language that the bible was written in blows the theory out of the water, but why ruin a good story with the facts?

  128. @emC2. Thanks for the comment. And sorry if my comments have been harsh – but they weren’t meant for the general public – but just in response to a few people here.

    I’m another one who doesn’t think that David and Jonathon had a sexual relationship.

    I believe that perfectly heterosexual men can have extremely intimate friendships. Like that of father and son, or brothers. The bible also says that there is a friend who is close than a brother.

    I’m sure there are women too, both in history, and in every generation who have extremely close relationships but they would never consider themselves lesbian. In Asia, it’s not uncommon to see sisters or friends holding hands when they go shopping, but there is nothing sexual or romantic about it.

    And with all due respect, there are many people who think they are being led by the Holy Spirit when they aren’t.

    I’m sure your friends are good people. But I don’t believe that the Holy Spirit inspires two people of the same gender to marry.
    But I realize that is not something I can prove to anyone’s satisfaction, anymore than I can prove that the Holy Spirit even exists.

  129. @emc2.
    “I’m not sure what is going on here on this site.”

    Neither am I. Regardless of how this site started there are now a handful of regulars split between conservatives and those who are supporters of gay marriage.

    One of those isn’t here because I was overly aggressive. I’m working on becoming a softer more reasonable person so any advice you have is welcome. And you can just call me Q. That would be more than enough improvement on what some others call me.

  130. @ Q – you see your (since deleted) comments as “over-aggressive”? Yet in all that you said, you held true to God’s Word on the topics discussed.

    Never apologise for that…….

  131. @ Q – your deleted comments stream reminds me of Rush Limbaugh’s statement..

    “If you want to make a conservative angry, tell him a lie. If you want to make a liberal angry, tell him the truth.”

    You being the conservative, Greg/Bones the liberals.

  132. You are hilariously deluded.

    Conservatives: the ones who love, and will kill for, a good lie. Well not even a good lie. The ones who hate humanity, justice and progress

    eg the war on Iraq and the lie of WMDs
    the lie of the prosperity doctrine – Africa should be fully prosperous by now
    the lie that homosexuality is a choice
    the lie that AIDS is God’s punishment on gays
    the lie that Barak Obama was a Muslim/AntiChrist
    the hysteria over Obamacare and the denial of free treatment to the poor
    the denial of basic evidence – don’t ever go for jury duty.
    the denial of scientific discoveries and theories because it doesn’t fit in with MY worldview – check out the latest video Expelled and the porkies it tells about the scientific community and that’s spread aroung churches uncritically
    the lie that gun control is actually a plot to disarm the country
    the lie of any number of conspiracy theories involving the AntiChrist, One World Government
    the lie of Young Earth Creationism which is clearly insane
    the lie that evolution has been disproved
    the lie that humans and dinosaurs coexisted
    the lie that no transitional fossils exist
    the lie that anyone that questions my beliefs is against God

    the biggest lying organisation on Earth (and who try to destroy their own) – Answers in Genesis

    The level of Fundamentalist Christian deceit knows no end.

    Of course you must continue to believe your lies to beef up your own prejudices.

    Proverbs 6:16-19

    There are six things the Lord hates,
    seven that are detestable to him:
    17 haughty eyes,
    a lying tongue,
    hands that shed innocent blood,
    18 a heart that devises wicked schemes,
    feet that are quick to rush into evil,
    19 a false witness who pours out lies
    and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.

    Good luck with that.

    Or maybe you can side with Martin Luther

    “What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them.”

  133. And you red all those ‘lies’ on this blog, did you, Bones, from the ‘conservatives’ here?

    Is that the truth now, or should I actually have to bother to go through the list and pick the ones you are telling furphies with to get off on your self-bloating emotional hype?

    Proverbs 6:6-19 back at you, fella!

  134. bahaha

    .And I didn’t even include your friend, the rabid Catholic hater, Hislop.

    Chalk up another one.

    It’s ok for Christians to lie and believe in lies

    Just don’t be gay.

    Cos God hates that.

  135. If you want to make a liberal angry, tell him the truth.

    Actually I’ve learned to double check anything a conservative says is true.

    Because in most instances it isn’t.

  136. “Actually I’ve learned to double check anything a conservative says is true.

    Because in most instances it isn’t.”

    Yeah, just like the Bible is a patchwork of fables and fibs.

    I note that you quote Proverbs 6:16-19 – could you please tell us what evidence you have that proves the truth of what is written there?

  137. @Bones. That was some list there! lol Regardless of how much you hate me, I like your passion. Just wish it wasn’t displaced. When you get deprogrammed and come back to your senses you’d make a great preacher!

    @Margot, Thanks for the kind words.

    @Everyone, what do you think of that David being gay thing. I guess they must admit that he was at least bisexual, unless Bathsheba was a transvestite? And all those concubines were just there to paint his toenails and play the Abba music on the record player?

    Also, people are saying that Jesus purposely healed the Centurions young gay lover and said nothing in condemnation thus endorsing homosexuality.

    I wonder if my old Sunday School teacher knew that? If she did, she kept it a good secret.

    Certainly food for thought.

  138. Oh well, at least Bones has an outlet for his frustration and anger at the world.

    Or is he really raging at God for confusing the issue by calling Israel His people and helping them author the Torah, and then including the Gentiles and helping them author the New Testament, both of which damn so much of what Bones champions?

    You know Bones, when you make extraordinary claims such as accusing God of being a genocidal maniac based on your rabid interpretation of Genesis and then call ‘conservatives’ liars for believing God, you really are going beyond mere passion, as Q calls it.

    But, if you are going to take out your frustration on bloggers here for trusting God, even though they’ve made a reasonable attempt at being friendly in their approach after the very sad Greg thing, which you considered potentially detrimental to his wellbeing, but now consider acceptable when non-liberals are involved, maybe we should up the ante and really give you something to rant about and get of your chest.

    Maybe you just need some anger therapy in the form or letting off steam at other people. perhaps we should really step into discussing the degree to which liberals obscure truth.

    But, look, in my experience it doesn’t actually work. Normally the only thing which changes us is repentance and forgiveness.

    But if you have to shout at other believers to make yourself feel better about your day, here’s the other cheek. Slap away!

  139. Btw seeing you’re all into labels and are quite happy to brand yourselves conservative, don’t cry foul when you have to share that moniker with nutbags like Westfield Baptist and Pat Robertson and their ilk. Oh yeah Kong Hee too.

    I don’t consider myself a liberal or anything though you want to put me in that hole. A bit like you’ve put God in.

    Of course biblical scholars like NT Wright accept that the Creation myth was just that and that Revelation is not a futuristic apocalyptic foreshadowing armageddon or the nonsensical rapture theory.

    Of course to the cultist like Zorro, he wouldn’t be considered a Christian at all.

    His club is for the truly elite and deluded.

  140. The David being gay thing is another disgraceful attempt at using scripture to justify what God calls an abomination.

    Since David was called out on his sin with Bathsheba, one would have to think that it would have been recorded that he was called out on any gay sex sin with Jonathan.

    The whole thing is a ridiculous slur against both David and Jonathan, who were highlighted for their friendship not for being homosexuals.

    It’s on a par with saying the sin of Sodom was not being hospitable, when Jude makes it plain that there were other issues involved, including sexual perversion.

    It’s also on a par with saying marriage between men would be acceptable to God as a covenant, especially in view of the fact that God is involved in the marriage covenant.

    It shows an extreme ignorance of scripture.

  141. @Bones. That was some list there!

    Yeah. You guys have done well. I could have included more. But what can I say, you’re lovers of ‘truth’.

    Apparently.

  142. Bones, you’re the one throwing around the fundy, ‘conservative’ labels.

    I’ll accept you’re an evangelical or Pentecostal, or just a plain old Christian, but you really have to stop tagging people yourself, especially, as you have, frequently, associating people here with Westboro Baptist and the like, even KKK, which you know to be untrue, but use for provocation.

    Your language can be pretty hefty, and you do seem to share very liberal views on scripture, but, if you don’t want to be associated with the left wing liberal ideology when it comes to life and the Bible, I’m OK with that, but you’ll have to show somehow that you are more trusting of scripture than you have so far, plus,if you are going to call God genocidal and homophobic because of what conservatives understand of the Bible, you are, it seems to me asking to be labelled yourself.

  143. I note that you quote Proverbs 6:16-19 – could you please tell us what evidence you have that proves the truth of what is written there?

    It’s funny you say that because I was thinking the author of Proverbs had no idea what he was talking about really. 7 things God hates and homosexuality didn’t get a mention.

    Maybe in the sequel God’ll remember to add a couple more to make you feel even more superior like homosexuals and liberal (ie Christians who believe differently to me) Christians.

    You must praise God everyday that you weren’t born gay and without a brain to think with.

  144. You know, I think Q largely and undeservedly took the wrap for Greg’s departure, but, Bones, you have to take a huge portion of the cake for the way you have conducted yourself and pushed the debates along with such artful force, dragging Greg along, and stirring the pot whenever and however you had the mind to, and I don’t mean that in a complementary way.

  145. You see, Bones, your kind of discussion technique ensures that any practical or pragmatic solution is made void because all efforts at dialogue are removed by your own extremist blabbering and opinion, as you shout everyone down with vile accusations and language, swinging like a windmill in a hurricane, and attempt to make everyone punch drunk so that you can remain the last man standing, which is the main game for you.

    In short your character excludes important debate so nothing is ever resolved.

    You’ll kick all the fundies down and maim them to pieces and meanwhile HIV will continue to increase amongst young gays because you actually missed the whole point of the conversation because you were more intent on your sectarian poleaxing of everyone you see as the opposition.

    No ears to hear. No eyes to see.

  146. Here’s some advice.

    If you want to keep things civil stop misrepresenting and falsely accusing others as in this post.

    https://signposts02.wordpress.com/2012/09/07/report-hiv-continues-to-increase-amongst-gay-men/#comment-36885

    We’d already talked about abstinence, faithfulness and condom use in the control of HIV when Q decides to fly off accusing Wazza a Claytons Christian. Interesting of course listening to Q long for the days of criminalisation and how things were much better then. But hey he’s the middle of the road Christian, apparently.

    Wazza can look after himself but I’m pretty sick of the high and mighty I’m good, you’re bad routine.

  147. Btw Q said that liberal churches were dying out compared to the ‘real’ ones (like Kong Hee’s I suppose).

    That’s simply not the case but part of his own prejudice.

    At conservative church, once-shunned gays fuel growth

    It’s standing room only at Holy Trinity Community Church as the Rev. Cynthia Andrews-Looper wraps up her sermon for the 10:15 a.m. service, one of three she’ll do this morning.
    She strays from the pulpit, pacing in front of an architectural rendering of a planned multimillion-dollar expansion to the church.
    “Let’s make God-sized goals,” says Andrews-Looper, a former standup comedian.
    Like many of her parishioners, Andrews-Looper grew up in an evangelical church — in her case, Independent Fundamental Baptist — and found she was no longer welcome when she revealed she was a lesbian. She started a Bible study with a handful of other gay Christians in July 1996, which eventually led to starting Holy Trinity, affiliated with the United Church of Christ denomination.
    Andrews-Looper used conservative theology combined with a progressive view of sexual orientation to grow the congregation to 600, making it one of the largest gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender congregations in the Southeast.
    The planned building expansion, which includes classrooms and a 600-seat sanctuary, will give the congregation room to grow, she said.
    Many of Holy Trinity’s members had been away from religion for years. Yvette Ridley said she’d grown up United Methodist but dropped out after being told she would go to hell for being lesbian. She listened to Andrews-Looper’s sermons on her MP3 player before becoming a regular at services.
    “A lot of churches will tell you that God loves you,” she said. “And then they will tell you that God does not love you because of who you are.”
    Candy Akins is a member of the vestry, a group of lay leaders, at Holy Trinity. She and her partner, Anna Landry, have been at the church for about seven years. Both grew up Southern Baptist and say that the church feels like home — the preaching comes straight from the Bible, the message is that only Jesus saves, and the music is contemporary Christian.
    Akins said she’d known she was gay for a long time but tried to hide it, knowing that it didn’t fit with her old church’s teachings. She became deeply depressed.
    “It was a sad place to be,” she said. “You would think that the church would want to carry me out of that. But instead, they threw me deeper into that depression.”

    Drawn to church

    Scott Thumma, a sociologist of religion at Hartford Seminary in Connecticut, has studied gay churches for decades. He said that many churches that welcome and affirm gay Christians belong to mainline denominations such as the Episcopal Church or the Presbyterian Church (USA), and those churches tend to be more liberal.
    But he said it makes sense that folks who grew up among conservative evangelicals would be drawn to a church like Holy Trinity.
    “Just because somebody comes out of the closet and tells their family or their pastor doesn’t mean they are no longer a spiritual person and they don’t love their church,” he said.
    Holy Trinity teaches members to believe in the Trinity, the virgin birth and the Resurrection. Church members say they have a high view of the authority of the Bible but don’t believe that it teaches that homosexuality is a sin.
    The Rev. Cameron Trimble, executive director of the Center for Progressive Renewal, an ecumenical group that starts new churches and helps revitalize older ones, says that Holy Trinity’s theology fits well in the South.
    Trimble said Holy Trinity’s services work well, too. They offer excellent music programs, most of the church members join small groups that meet in homes, and Andrews-Looper is an engaging preacher.
    “You can go to many mainline churches and experience a really interesting essay about God,” Trimble said. “At Holy Trinity, you experience God.”
    Andrews-Looper also is a talented leader, said Trimble, and she took a personal risk in starting the church.

    Starting small

    The congregation began as an independent church, with Andrews-Looper as a part-time minister. The first years drew small crowds to a space the church rented from another congregation.
    “It was 50 people on a good Sunday,” said longtime member Michael Tuzzio.
    Things began to take off when Andrews-Looper quit her job and became full-time pastor.
    In 2005, the church decided to join the United Church of Christ, a denomination with about 5,300 congregations nationwide and about 15 in Tennessee.
    They bought a former Free Will Baptist Church on Charlotte Avenue around that time, and owning a building helped grow the congregation. The church now runs three services on Sundays to fit everyone in. The new expansion will include new space for the children’s ministry — about 70 children attend Sunday services.
    Though about 80 percent of the congregation is gay or lesbian, Holy Trinity members say their congregation isn’t a gay church. Instead, it’s a church where most of the congregation is gay. And that’s a big difference, they say.
    Some congregation members say that being at Holy Trinity has made them aware of their own prejudices.
    Greg Hubble grew up a fundamentalist Baptist in Virginia, where everyone wore their Sunday best to church. He looked down at a church member at Holy Trinity who had tattoos and got mad when people showed up wearing shorts or jeans.
    “I have had to relax my judgments,” he said. “I learned to judge very well growing up.”
    Tad Ritchison said that before he came to Holy Trinity, he’d always been uncomfortable around homeless people. Then he got involved in the Room in the Inn program at the church. His small group volunteers once a month to host homeless folks overnight at the church.
    “I always had this narrow-minded thought that the homeless and people who are down and out — they could have gotten themselves out of it if they wanted to,” he said.
    Getting to know some homeless folks in the program made him more compassionate.
    He and his partner, Micheal MacQuarrie, drive from Murfreesboro to attend services and events at Holy Trinity. They don’t mind the drive at all.
    “I would drive six hours to get here,” MacQuarrie said.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-10-19/gay-church-tennessee/50831694/1

    Better keep the kids away from that Church. They might catch homosexuality.

  148. Wazza conducts himself in firm but respectful manner. He has actually helped change my thinking on a couple of issues. I don’t agree on everything he says, but I respect his manner.

    The quote you gave was not mine. I think it was Q, and he had taken a fair bit of flack from both you and Greg.

    OK the kitchen gets hot when something’s brewing, but you are one of the main stirrers, calling people bigots, dickheads, and the like, so maybe you could self-moderate a little more and save others the trouble.

    I’m pretty sick of the high and mighty I’m good, you’re bad routine.

    So stop it, already!

  149. I didn’t say it was your quote.

    So stop it, already!

    Fine. Then don’t play the man.

    And it won’t get ugly.

    And get lost with accusing me of Greg’s demise. You two hounded him over comments he made to Zorro.

    I even advised him to ignore you ad hominem attacks but no, the dogs were unleashed and blood was smelled.

    I hope you don’t pastor people like that.

  150. It’s interesting the attitude that some have towards gay people here.

    When I was a young 18 year old a guy came onto me in the toilets at Uni which ended up with me kicking the guy in the head. I chased him down the corridor but lost him. After searching for him for an hour I found him in his office where he was a senior member in one of the faculties. I just left him and went and found one of my Christian friends.

    It was a bloody distressing incident.

    But I never blamed the homosexual community for the actions of a sicko.

  151. Sexuality and Church Growth

    Does welcoming lgbt people spell disaster or promise for a church hoping to expand its mission?

    Helen Havens walked a very fine line when she interviewed for the position of rector at St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church in Houston, Tex. Located in what’s considered a conservative diocese, St. Stephen’s is also in the heart of a neighborhood called Montrose, home to a vibrant lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender (lgbt) community. “I wanted to answer their questions truthfully, but I didn’t want to scare them,” she says. “I’m sympathetic to gay persons, and I felt the Holy Spirit within me answered the questions.”

    After landing the job, Havens moved slowly with her new ideas. “I was welcoming to gay people, and I also tried to be sensitive to families,” she says. “From time to time, some of the regular guys would say, ‘If the church goes gay, I’m outta here.’”

    She gently but firmly reiterated her commitment to welcoming all people. Today, membership at St. Stephen’s is almost half gay and half straight. The church advertises in gay newspapers, and each year participates in the Gay Pride parade. Recently, their first openly transgender person joined the congregation (see Moroney commentary, p. 13).

    “The wonderful thing is that over the years we really have become a marvelous community,” Havens says. “Sure, some people have left, but not in droves and not even in handfuls. What’s incredible is to see the close relationships that some of the elderly people have with some gays and lesbians.”

    One church member, who died recently at age 96, developed many friendships with gay and lesbian parishioners. In her late 80s she spent much time at the local hospital’s intensive-care unit where a gay church member was dying of AIDS. She wiped his brow with a damp cloth, and sat by his side in true companionship. Later, as she grew older, her gay and lesbian friends took care of her.

    “What a beautiful thing, the blessings she got from them,” says Havens. “They took her out to dinner, or came to her house and cooked for her.”

    St. Stephen’s, guided by its progressive values, is thriving. They’re buying new property, growing their day school, and opening a new community center. “Inclusion has lead to growth,” says Havens “A lot of people who come here say, I want to raise my children in a church that accepts women in positions of key leadership and really includes gay and lesbian people.”

    http://www.thewitness.org/archive/nov2002/oconnor.html

  152. I hope you don’t pastor people like that.

    You have to pastor all types, Bones. ‘People like that’ just arrive.

    There’s no way to verify your claims, but I think Greg actually threw the odd ad hominem remark around himself, and, as is the want of many commenters here, he copped some return flack. I’ve always considered blog-chat fairly tongue in cheek, but some people take things more personally than others.

    Not knowing when to back off, like you, he eventually went in deeper than was comfortable. I don’t recall saying anything nearly as foul as some of the language used towards Q. It would be unusual for me to stoop to extremely bad language, but there you go. My recall isn’t perfect, either.

    I hope you don’t teach people ‘like that’!

  153. But you’ve shifted the emphasis from the HIV problem to the acceptability of gay and lesbian people into churches.

    How do you see the the problem with HIV amongst gay men developing if it is left unchecked? What needs to be done to kerb the spread?

  154. Bones, I talked about liberal churches in general – meaning worldwide and over decades. You gave a long rambling cutand paste job as an example to try and prove me wrong. And what was it?
    A church of 80% gays and lesbians with 70 children….. was that Exhibit A?

    Secondly, I don’t know whether there’s much point in saying that I don’t endorse nor am I affiliated with Westboro Baptist, but throwing that out all the time is just silly. Really Bones, whatever the subject, I’ve seen you attack and insult continually. But if it’s given back in even half the measure even lightheartedly you scream foul.

    I get attacked for using the expression Claytons Christian to make a point (after reading months of posts vilifying and criticizing Steve and “fundies”. Steve has been insulted for months (years) but then gets put to trial for using the word halfwit?

    One day, someone needs to take the courage, but with sensitivity address the elephant in the room.

    And I’ll do it now – because it probably doesn’t matter anymore. And if its not sensitive I apologize ahead of time.

    There have been several people here who are obviously depressed. And there’s nothing wrong with that, but there is if they are free to make post after post critical of churches, individuals, and sections of Christianity, and then make continual insulting remarks, using any kind of language – but then when they are stood up to, turn out to be hypersensitive and hold others to different standards.

    WMDs in Iraq? Westboro? Come on Bones, are you going to bring up slaves and the crusades next?

    Why I made the comment a while back that I owed Steve an apology was because I thought he was a preacher, and then held him to super high standards compared to people who claimed to be hurting and venting, and some who exhibited glaring signs of depression without having said anything about it.. But after seeing him respond so civilly only to be continually berated, I realized that it was unfair of me.

    It’s just bewildering to simply state that sex outside of marriage is a sin, and then to be compared to Westboro and every worst example of Christianity Bones can find from youtube or wikipedia, but then get pulled up for the term Claytons christian joke?

    But in the end, I guess there are different standards for different people here. I’ll try to work within that framework from now on.
    It’s just not easy.

  155. And for the record, bad language doesn’t offend me. I will say that nobody says stuff like that to my face, but it doesn’t offend me. I’ve probably heard more bad language than all of you put together.
    I just don’t think it’s tough or cool or has any place in a civil discussion. There are 5 yr olds who use bad language but it doesn’t intimidate me. But – the Godly men around me never use bad language. And the tough men never used to use it around women or in good social settings. So, I’m surprised when Christians do, and don’t understand why they do.

    But, I’ll try to overlook it if people can’t help themselves, or it helps them work through stuff.

  156. On topic, this all has been exposed as being based on flawed research conducted by conservative Christians as an aim to expose the health effects of various “lifestyles”

    http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/unhealthy-gay-lifestyle-claims-tied-to-bad-study-20120911-25qnd.html#ixzz26DOnt5bC

    Partly based on research done by looking at obituaries in the newspapers in the US. Of course people who publicly identify as homosexual (enough to publish in the paper) are likely to be younger, as in previous decades there was a stronger stigma attached. So what they found was that the obituaries they could positively identify as homosexual were younger than average. Derrrr…

    Wallace should be ashamed of himself, and the only good thing about it is that Jensen took the bait and will now have to explain himself.

    Steve, if Wallace is a personal friend, you really ought to tell him to tone down the anti-homosexual rhetoric. Or take the “Christian” out of his companies name, because he is giving Christ a bad name.

  157. Wazza, Venn Brown gave links for that over at groupsects, and he is of course right. But also, people throw around the 20 year figure but that’s based on hard research but from 20 years ago.

    It was found that men at the age of 20 had a life expectancy between 8 and 20 years less than heteros, but that was from the late 80’s, and those figures wouldn’t be valid. It’s likely try that there is still a difference, but there aren’t any hard figures.

    (And yes, I concede that the reason for the increase in life expectancy is due to medical treatments, and safe sex education and practice).

  158. Well the article in the post says nothing about gays dying young. Does Wallace? I think that was Jensen’s observation.

    I notice the article ends, While practising gay men were at risk of HIV infection, the disease was also a problem for heterosexual couples, which is a complete obscuration of the figures which tell us that HIV is on the increase amongst gay men. No mention was made of this. Why?

    Because the Wallace and Jensen thing is something of a beat-up just before a vote in the Parliament, I am surprised, mostly, at their naivety at walking into a well set snare – both of them. If I were to talk to Jim I’d be asking why he stepped into such an obvious trap at this time.

    The well orchestrated ploy has worked, mostly because the main players have their heads either so far in the clouds of she’ll-be-right-mate, or so deep into the sands of never-saw-a-thing that no-on in the public eye seriously wants to say one single negative thing about the responsibilities of the gay community to deal with its own tendency to spread or contract HIV, and subsequently put both homosexuals and heterosexuals at risk.

    Anti-homosexual rhetoric? That was entirely worked by the media and the PMs refusal to speak at the ACL rally. Wallace was responding to a question asked by a journalist with the ABC, who are always on the look out for some news bite to back up their political stance. Well he was well bitten.

    Opinion is going into oblivion! Yes it is, even on these threads, as the very gospel itself is threatened with extinction. It will never end, of course, and will remain, fixed and established, but there is enough evidence to suggest that the words, if not the Word, are under attack from within as well as without.

    Opinion – a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge; the beliefs or views of a group or majority of people; an estimate of the quality or worth of something or someone; a statement of advice by an expert on a professional matter.

    Opinion is being gradually eroded by a largely leftist media which has no time for contrary views to their own.

    They are terminally weak and insipid pawns of the intellectual elites who wouldn’t know reality if it slapped them up the side of the head with a four by two.

    Jensen said one thing which was right. Wallace has at least brought the issue into the public gaze, but the debate has been suffocated with a media pillow on a socialist bed long before it could become a reasonable talking point between grown ups.

    Australia is well on its way to becoming a headless nanny state flapping in the chicken coup of a neo-collectivist stifled mire.

    When marriage has gone, what do we have?

  159. Exactly right Steve. It happens all the time. Journalist call someone and ask a question, an answer is given stating in some way that they are against gay marriage then the media attack begins.

    Nobody can publicly state that they are against gay marriage without being attacked as homophobic, hating gays etc etc

    It’s basically a weekly occurrence.

    And the trendy thing now is to attack Cameron’s work, while ignoring other statistics.

    And the irony that was point out has been lost.

    For decades gays have been asking, pleading, demanding more money for their medical problems. But if anyone says anything about the money spent, or the dangers involved with the lifestyle, they start attacking that person, and feeling clever for debunking the research of one man in the US.

    iow, that want to have it both ways (and that’s no pun).

  160. “If I were to talk to Jim I’d be asking why he stepped into such an obvious trap at this time.”

    Conservatives could probably do with some PR training – to be as wise as serpents.

  161. The National Center for Biotechnology Information

    From: HIV in gay and bisexual men in the United Kingdom: 25 years of public health surveillance

    Mortality over 25 years – the impact of HAART

    Information on deaths in patients with AIDS has been collected since the start of the epidemic. However, once the HIV antibody test became widely available in 1984, it became clear that deaths were occurring in HIV-infected individuals without AIDS [61, 62]. The AIDS report form was modified to include deaths in HIV-infected individuals who had not progressed to AIDS [61], and when electronic mortality records were made available from 1993 onwards, all deaths in those aged <60 years were routinely ‘matched’ to HIV/AIDS reports to capture ‘non-AIDS’ deaths and those where ‘HIV/AIDS’ was not stated on the death certificate perhaps because of the stigma attached to the infection and/or sexual risk behaviours [63]. With an ageing cohort of HIV-infected gay men – in 2004, 28% (5087) of gay men accessing HIV-related services were aged 45 years [2] – the age cut-off of 60 years requires upward revision to ensure completeness of mortality data.

    The impact of HIV on premature mortality among younger men and the impact of HAART has been clearly demonstrated using surveillance data, with the crude age-specific mortality rate for HIV rising from 0·9/100 000 men in 1985 to a peak of 10·3/100 000 in 1994 (accounting for 9·3% of deaths in men aged 15–44 years) [64]. In 1997, the ‘all cause’ mortality rate for MSM was 4·1/100 MSM, falling sharply to 1·0/100 MSM in 2003 [65]. While non-specific ‘pneumonia’ has been the most common cause of death in HIV-infected gay men in the pre- (35%) and post- (19%) HAART eras, of those who died during 2002–2004, the principal cause of death was cardiovascular disease in 12%, NHL in 10% and PCP in 9% [66]. There is little evidence as yet, of a significant increase in deaths from untreatable, multidrug-resistant HIV infections in the cohort of gay men who have been on HAART since the mid-1990s [67]. However, existing data collection may not be sensitive enough to identify these deaths at a national level as information on antiretroviral therapies or drug resistance at death is not routinely collected. Improvements in the collection of this information may therefore be beneficial in monitoring future mortality trends and clinicians should remain vigilant.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870809/?tool=pubmed

  162. So everythings cool then? With the drugs there is little evidence of significant increase in deaths.

    Wallace definately mentioned reduction in lifespan. He didnt mention AIDs – that is your addition. I quoted him at the start of the comments:

    “I think we’re going to owe smokers a big apology when the homosexual community’s own statistics for its health – which it presents when it wants more money for health – are that is has higher rates of drug-taking, of suicide, it has the life of a male reduced by up to 20 years,
    “The life of smokers is reduced by something like seven to 10 years and yet we tell all our kids at school they shouldn’t smoke.”

    What trap did the evil left socialist media set for him? It seems to me it was a disaster all of his own making. He blurted it out without doing any proper research and then tried to back-track and say it was all about the “packaging”.

    If this is the best PR that Australian Christians can buy, then we are in BIG trouble.

  163. In fact Wallace made the comment as part of a debate on gay-marriage. It was his own choice to make such a stupid comparison.

    He also cited the dodgy research on gay lifespans in an article he wrote in the Australian on December 11th 2011.

  164. Yeah, glad to hear from you Greg. See you at the next meeting of the global illuminati to undermine biblical standards.

  165. Like I said the 20 year figure came from the well-received study in Vancouver of 20 years ago. I don’t have specific quotes, but I’m sure that most of you can remember when illness and reduced life expectancy of gay men was used to draw attention and funding. I don’t think that can be denied. Can it?

    But now that opposing groups have used the figure, it is being attacked as not being factual. Especially now that the 20 year figure is being used with the Cameron study.

    I don’t know anyone now who is saying that the 20yr figure is true based on good research. But, if a peer reviewed study came out tomorrow saying that the life expectancy of gay males in Australia was 4.5 years less that heterosexuals, how would those statistics be used be either side?

    Confession – on this issue, everyday I ask myself if I’m wrong.

  166. I actually put up a article which tells us that HIV amongst gay men is on the increase. If you read through the UK paper you will see that it makes the point that not all HIV deaths are as the result of full blown AIDS.

    HIV by its very nature reduces the victim’s ability to fight off serious illness, so there were HIV sufferers who died from other problems such as pneumonia and heart conditions but were not recorded ‘because of the stigma’, which is extraordinary.

    How can medical science find a way to prevent deaths if the reason for a death is not recorded ‘because of the stigma’?

    What the paper makes clear is that better recording of data is required if there is to be any way of noting progress or regress in the battle against HIV related deaths.

    It is not enough to merely say ‘everything’s cool then’ when there is definite evidence on the record that HIV in gay men is on the increase.

    It is not enough to produce figures which indicate a lower instance of HIV related AIDS deaths compared to cigarette related deaths.

    This is just fudging. It is sweeping the problem under the carpet. It is called denial of reality.

    In the 80s, when left unchecked, we have very clear evidence that HIV spreads rapidly, both amongst the gay and bisexual communities until it infects the heterosexual community. In other words it can reach pandemic proportions if it is not halted.

    Lower figures are not indicative of a problem solved if they also reveal that there is an increase on the move.

    Prevention is better than cure. See the signs and deal with them early.

  167. If anyone wants to start a completely different thread .. there were two interesting articles on news.com.au today. One on male depression, and one on pornography. Both were pretty sobering.

  168. Hi Q, hi Steve. Thank you for your apology Q, although it seems only fair that I apologise for what I said as well. I said and posted things not for there edifying value, but to shock and upset and that is not how a follower of Jesus should behave. I am extremely sorry.

    I won’t be posting any more topics for discussion and think it highly unlikely I will post comments either. From time to time I may. In any case I will lurk and read and shake my head.

    Wazza and Bones, keep up the good fight. You guys were the beacons of sanity in an otherwise ludicrous quagmire of fundamentalist literalism.

    Have fun folks.

  169. Zorro, thank you for taking time to ring me and to want to ensure I was ok. I wasn’t, as was patently obvious. I think I shocked myself at how I was feeling and responding, not just here but in the real world as well.

    Roundhouse I really appreciated your interjecting into the attacks that continued even after I left. I was truly moved by your compassion and concern.

  170. “[Wazza and Bones] were the beacons of sanity in an otherwise ludicrous quagmire of fundamentalist literalism.”

    Snork!

  171. “Zorro, thank you for taking time to ring me and to want to ensure I was ok.”

    No worries Greg (just because I don’t agree doesn’t mean that I don’t care).

  172. “[Wazza and Bones] were the beacons of sanity in an otherwise ludicrous quagmire of fundamentalist literalism.”

    Good to see that Greg is better now – so much better that he could come up with an insult. lol

  173. Here’s a question to the beacons….

    A man becomes a Christian and wants to stop homosexual sex but he’s married to a homosexual who doesn’t want a divorce and feels defrauded and rejected by his “spouse”. What’s your pastoral advice Deacon Beacon?

  174. By the way beacons, if you haven’t imagined that scenario and prepared for how you would handle it, then as christians you really haven’t thought the issue through.

  175. As long as hes married to a homosexual of the opposite sex, its all fine and dandy.

    It will be a sexless marriage and it wont be a genuine relationship but it will tick all the boxes that make Christians happy – man (tick) woman (tick).

    At least they will be upholding the sanctity of marriage.

  176. No, no. You are supporting gay marriage. You and Beacon Bones will give your blessing to men marrying men. Not sure what kind of vows or understanding is involved here, but Bones pride and joy growing liberal church has 80% homosexual membership.

    I suppose gay ministers use biblical teaching in the encouragement of gay couples….? Who knows, but you and Bones to some extent use the Bible as a guide for life. Perhaps if you preach on marriage you talk about meeting each other’s sexual needs.

    So without attacking any other churches or fundies I’d like to hear from your world.

    So, praise God, Tom gets married to John and you Wazza are happy about that because their chance of HIV is reduced and you encourage monogamy. They have a great time watching TV, going to starbucks together, and lots of oral and anal sex.

    But, Tom becomes a Christian. He doesn’t want to do homosexual sex anymore. He comes to the two beacons and says what do I do? John comes too, and says look I’m not interested in Christianity, but if Tom wants he can go to your church, but he’s refusing to meet my theckthual needth. (sexual needs) and you know how incredibly powerful emotion needs are….

    So, Bones and Wazza. How do you counsel Tom now? Your ludicrous quagmire (I mean theological viewpoint) has created the environment where gay marriage is beautiful and legal and all that).

    Like I said, given your strong opposition to anyone who dares to not agree to gay marriage, you as elite loving Christians have obviously thought of all these scenarios. So, how do you counsel?

    (the above scenario is set in the future sometime after Bones and Wazza’s gay marriage society has been realized)

  177. note – ‘I’m not asking about what fundies would do, or what would appease evangelicals – so no attacks – I’m asking how you will counsel and on what biblical basis.

  178. “but it will tick all the boxes that make Christians happy – man (tick) woman (tick).”

    Well, most Christians…..

    But my questions is about two men.

  179. @ Q – quick response to your question….

    “A man becomes a Christian and wants to stop homosexual sex but he’s married to a homosexual who doesn’t want a divorce and feels defrauded and rejected by his “spouse”. What’s your pastoral advice Deacon Beacon?”

    He could tell him he’s fallen in love with another Man…a man who is a jealous Man, a Man who is jealous when someone gives to another, something that rightly belongs to Him.

    What an opportunity to share the gospel.

    By the way, what are the statistics on gay “divorce”?

    Check reports in Sweden, they’re pretty high. And considering it is a very secular country with even hetrosexuals not placing marriage high on their agenda, preferring to live together.

  180. By the way, just having a conversation with a FB pastor – this is the new couple. “The Bishop and his First Gentleman”…do you think the glory has departed from this church?

  181. Margot, no sensible Godly Christian I know would support two men marrying. To me it’s spiritual lunacy. And I’m trying to be kind.

    Ironically, the longer I’ve engaged with liberal Christians on this blog the more conservative I’ve become.

    “do you think the glory has departed from this church?”
    Yes. It’s just foolishness. To think that some people would be happy to attend that church and listen to their sermons and think they are spiritual is bizarre.

    I’d like to think the photo isn’t real…..but, it wouldn’t surprise me it it was. First gentleman…?

  182. The website reads like a modern charismatic church with homosexual sex allowed.

    Looking it up I came across another emergent church where homosexual sex and open marriages are allowed to. So, these days there really is a church for everyone.

  183. “I have a suspicion it’s oneness (modalism) pentecostal.”

    Yep. From their web site: “[…] in the oneness of the Godhead there are three manifestations […]”.

    They are doomed to destruction; they are going to burn in a place where the fire is not quenched and where their worm will not die.

    But hey, they’re no doubt enjoying the ride in the meantime.

  184. Q, I would first counsel Tom and John to look for another church. But if that wasnt an option, I wouldnt have a problem if they decided to divorce. I’m not a literalist on that issue.

    Now heres a hypothetical for you. Brain and Boobie are typical Pentecostal Pastors running a small mega-church. They are married of course, Brain inherited the church from his father and he saw Boobie on the beach one day in her swimming costume and said “I’ll have one of those”. Boobie is your classic Pentecostal pastor-wife she has exquisite hair and teeth and runs women’s conferences.

    Everythings going great, they are having lots of strictly vaginal sex when they start to get concerned that the Lord isnt multiplying their number. They go to the doctor and are confronted by a shocking discovery (that others have been confronted with before). It turns out that the shapely Boobie whilst looking outwardly exactly like a beautiful woman, is actually genetically a man. Something occurred in the womb to stop the androgenous horomones being manufactured and therefore the male features never developed. Brain comes to the alarming realisation that he’s actually been having sex with a man all these years.

    Questions:
    1. Should they confess their sin to the church?
    2. Should they divorce?
    3. If Boobie marries again, should she marry a man or a woman? State your answer and then explain why.

  185. “Q, I would first counsel Tom and John to look for another church. But if that wasnt an option, I wouldnt have a problem if they decided to divorce. ”

    You missed the whole point. The scenario is that the non-Chistian doesn’t want to divorce. He wants to remain married, and he wants to have sex. Maybe you don’t understand the point.

  186. Well he can either remain married and have no sex, or divorce. You just go through the options. Many men are in the same situation.

    Now how about my hypothetical?

  187. You totally missed the point Wazza. The question I asked is completely valid and is going to be a real problem once gay marriage comes in. To just flippantly talk about divorce like that shows where you heart is.

    Your example, which is obviously pieced together with snippets from a real couple is totally offensive. But extremely easy to answer anyway.

    By allowing gay marriage you are opening peoples lives to destruction.

    Go back and think about my original question. Maybe the thing is that you realize you will never be called on to deal with peoples lives and give real biblical solutions. But others will. It’s not funny. It’s a tragedy in the making.

    Fools who are supporting gay marriage will be judged for the devastation they are opening young people up to.

  188. There are an extremely small number of people who have complex medical conditions.

    But okay, I’ll play along with you.

    1. There was obviously no sin. Nothing to confess. For you to ask that shows a complete lack of understanding.
    2. No, they shouldn’t divorce.
    3. See 2.

    Simple.

  189. So it is not sinful for two men to marry under certain conditions (albeit extremely small number of people fit those conditions)

  190. Big statement I’ll make. But I’ve come to the decision that if a person who claims to be walking with the Lord for a long time can’t see that homosexual sex and marriage is not the will of God, then it’s pointless having any kind of biblical/spiritual discussion with them.

  191. I obviously have missed the point. I think it is extremely unlikely that one person of a gay married couple will turn fundamentalist christian and decide that gay sex is sinful. But if it does happen then the other partner will have to deal with it.

    I dont like divorce, but I think it is the best option in some circumstances. 1/3 of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, and at least in the US Pentecostals have a higher rate of divorce than other denominations.

    I wouldnt suggest divorce, there would be a number of things I would suggest before that is considered. But I recognise it may be an option.

  192. Last answer. If the Pastors wife in your example had breasts, a vagina, a clitoris, a beautiful feminine face, looked like a beautiful woman with or without clothes, was pronounced a girl at birth, was raised as a girl, thought she was a girl, fell in love with a man, enjoyed sex with her husband etc etc then that woman is a woman. To say that you would call her a man now because of tests only available in the 20th century is ludicrous.

    So, if that whole scenario that you made up existed, then the couple would obviously be free to carry on as before. No sin, no confession. If you are so completely confused that you think that scenario negates the normal biblical teaching on men and women, then you need help.

    Thank God there are still good evangelical churches around.

  193. ” I think it is extremely unlikely that one person of a gay married couple will turn fundamentalist christian and decide that gay sex is sinful.”

    Why? It’s not at all. Not at all. Your use of the term fundamentalist christian is disturbing. When an unsaved person, experiences God, they don’t need to be labelled fundamentalist or liberal.

    A person who fellowships with Christ will know that homosexual sin is wrong. You still don’t believe that? You honestly think that a person who believe in Jesus, trusts Him, prays, is opening to his leading will not know in time that it’s wrong for him as a man to have sex with another man? Really?

  194. The Cameron guy whose studies are used by Jensen, Wallace and other conservative anti-gay groups is a complete nutbag who has been kicked out of multiple psychological and sociological societies

    eg

    ‘Too Powerful to Resist’
    While Cameron describes homosexuality as a “crime against humanity,” he seems fascinated with the mechanics and pleasures of gay sex. In a widely publicized 1999 interview, he said, “Marital sex tends toward the boring end. Generally, it doesn’t deliver the kind of sheer sexual pleasure that homosexual sex does. If you isolate sexuality as something solely for one’s own personal amusement, if all you want is the most satisfying orgasm you can get, then homosexuality seems too powerful to resist. The evidence is that men do a better job on men.”

    In a separate interview, in 1996, Cameron traced his distaste for homosexuality back to his childhood, claiming that when he was 4 years old a pedophile approached him in an apple orchard and forced him to perform oral sex. “I must have been a beautiful and charming little boy. But I didn’t like it very much,” Cameron said. “I remember that he was kind of dirty, and this bothered me.” A year later, according to Cameron, a female stranger lured him into a bathtub. “I had a much more pleasant experience with the woman.”

    Now 66 years old, Cameron received his doctorate in psychology from the University of Colorado, Boulder, in 1966, and became one of the first researchers to look into the adverse health effects of secondhand smoke. He also studied what he called “the happiness of handicapped versus normal persons,” publishing his findings in 1971 under the title, “Satisfaction of the Malformed.”

    In 1978, Cameron authored a sex guide for Christian teenagers called Sexual Gradualism in which he assigned numeric values to sexual acts: Kissing level three, heavy petting level five, intercourse level eight. In it, he suggested that teens experiment with heterosexual sex, short of intercourse, as a means of preventing homosexuality. “While no parent wants his child starting the sexual process ‘too young,'” he wrote, “better too young than homosexual.”

    Cameron first waded into the fray over gay rights in 1982, when he became chairman of the Committee to Oppose Special Rights for Homosexuals, which formed to fight a proposed ordinance in Lincoln, Neb., to extend civil rights protections to gays and lesbians. Cameron was then a professor at the University of Nebraska. Campaigning against the ordinance, Cameron told the congregation of the University of Nebraska Lutheran Church that a local 4-year old boy had recently been dragged into a shopping mall bathroom and castrated by a homosexual. The story was totally false. The Omaha Police Department and local hospitals had no record of such an assault. But the tale of the homosexual castration attack upon a child quickly became a popular myth, and Cameron kept defending it in the media as “an example of what could happen,” even after admitting that his source for the information was a friend of a friend who’d supposedly heard it from a police officer. The Omaha gay rights ordinance was voted down by a four-to-one margin.

    Cameron had learned an important lesson: The more sensational a falsehood about homosexuals is, the more it will be repeated, and the more it’s repeated, the less it matters whether or not it’s true.

    ‘Hobos and Jailbirds’
    Cameron moved his base of operations to Colorado five years later, in 1992, after supporters of a state constitutional amendment to ban civil rights protections for gays and lesbians distributed 100,000 copies of his study ‘What Homosexuals Do” (sample statistic: 17% eat human feces) to Colorado voters one week before they went to the polls. The amendment passed. Later that year, during the raging debate over President Clinton’s proposal to allow gays in the military, Army officials circulated Cameron’s studies inside the Pentagon.

    In 1994, Cameron attended a secret anti-gay summit in Colorado Springs that was attended by the leaders of virtually every major religious right political action group in the country. They gathered to discuss how best to combat “the homosexual agenda.” Infiltrators recorded Cameron saying that when considering “what should be done with queers,” it was important to keep in mind that “most people who engage in homosexuality are of the lower strata; these are people who are waiters and busboys and bums and hobos and jailbirds and so forth.”

    That same year, the Family Research Institute released Cameron’s infamous “Gay Obituary Study,” in which he calculated the “average gay life span in America.” He did this by culling 6,000 obituaries from gay publications at the height of the AIDS crisis, tallying the ages of death in each, dividing them by 6,000, and thus arriving at the conclusion that the average life span for a gay man is 43 years old.

    In 1997, former Secretary of Education, Book of Virtues author and gambling enthusiast William Bennett cited Cameron’s obituary study in a Weekly Standard column titled, “Clinton, Gays, and the Truth.” Later that year on the ABC news program “This Week,” Bennett said, “The best available research suggests that the average life span of male homosexuals is around 43 years of age. Forty three.”

    After Bennett took Cameron’s life expectancy figure for gays to a mainstream audience, the online magazine Slate published a devastating critique of Cameron’s work by Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute. The average age at death for AIDS victims, the magazine noted, was about 40. For Cameron’s figure of 43 years old to be true, Slate pointed out, gay people who never contract AIDS could have a life expectancy of no more than 46 years — a truly absurd proposition — even assuming that half the gay population will eventually contract AIDS.

    “Looked at another way,” Slate reported, “if even half the gay male population stays HIV-negative and lives to an average age of 75, an average overall life span of 43 implies that gay males with AIDS die at an implausibly early age (11, actually).”

    In the end, Bennett retracted his claim. “Given what I now know, I believe there are flaws with Paul Cameron’s study,” he said.

    But the 43-years figure will not die. It gains new life with every repetition, whether by a neo-Nazi posting on-line or a televangelist standing with the governor of Texas.

    The Big Lie
    Cameron’s newest batch of research concludes that gay sex is more dangerous than smoking. These studies basically recycle the obituary study with a new twist. First, Cameron presents it as a given that the average gay life span is 43 years, citing his own 1995 study as evidence. Then he compares 43 years to the average life span of smokers to conclude that having gay sex is far more dangerous that cigarettes.

    “No one argues that people smoke because they are smokers. They are called smokers because they smoke. Yet gay rights activists maintain that homosexuals engage in homosexual acts because they are homosexuals,” Cameron said in a recent interview with a born-again Christian on-line magazine. “Thus sex with nearly anonymous partners of the same gender becomes a constitutionally protected means of self-expression, something a homosexual is compelled to do the way pear trees are compelled to produce fruit.”

    It appears the smoking-versus-gay sex propaganda seeds Cameron planted last year are beginning to bear their own fruits. In June, the Rev. Bill Banuchi, executive director of the New York chapter of the Christian Coalition, said in a speech protesting Gay Pride Day that gays should be legally required to wear warning labels, not unlike Jewish stars under the Nazis.

    “We put warning labels on cigarette packs because we know that smoking takes one or two years off the average life span, yet we celebrate a lifestyle that we know spreads every kind of sexually transmitted disease and takes at least 20 years off the average life span, according to the 2005 issue of the revered [sic] scientific journal Psychological Reports.”

    One month later, Dr. John Whiffen, chairman of the board of the National Physicians Center for Family Resources, a faith-basped advocacy group that was contracted by Bush Administration federal health officials to develop an abstinence education curriculum, said that, “There are obvious effects for male homosexuals from a health standpoint. Parents should discuss those with their child.” Then he added: “It’s fairly well-accepted that smoking is not a good idea. It takes seven years off your life. It appears that male homosexuality takes more than that off your life. Naturally you should warn them about that.”

    Somewhere, Paul Cameron is smiling.

    http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2005/winter/the-fabulist?page=0,1

    And here’s the man in action

    Proverbs 12:22

    The LORD detests lying lips, but he delights in men who are truthful.

  195. He was also ruled an unreliable witness in a criminal law case

    Some more of Cameron’s ‘findings’

    Lesbians are more likely to die in car wrecks;
    Gay men molest children at a high rate and are more likely to be serial killers;
    Gay men stuff gerbils up their rectums;
    Gays and lesbians in the military are more likely to rape their heterosexual counterparts.
    Having sex with animals causes homosexual behaviour
    Believes AIDS is a Godsend
    Made up the statistic 33% [of gays surveyed] ingested feces via anal/oral contact
    Believes homosexuality can be ‘handed down’ from older homosexuals
    Advocates that a quarter of homosexuals have admitted to sex with children and underage teens (Actually the truth is that homosexuals are half as likely to engage in this behaviour with the underaged than heteros)
    Homosexual teachers account for half of the student molestations.
    Presented data that homosexuals are disproportionately child molesters. This research was also based on newspaper stories, which he said prove homosexuals are perpetrators in 40 percent of all molestation cases (false)
    Believes gays who practice oral sex verge on consuming raw human blood

    Those with at least one homosexual parent were more likely to: report having had sex with a parent (and) ….be sexually molested

    Stated ‘Unless we get medically lucky, in three or four years, one of the options discussed will be the extermination of homosexuals.’

    That this guy’s work is uncritically picked up by Christian organisations is a disgrace.

    I’ll say it again, Wallace is a bigoted fool.

  196. If Wallace is to be called bigoted, then so must you for the strength of your opposition to his views.

    But, now, to put this into perspective with the original post, it’s your opinion that homosexual sex in males is perfectly safe and yo would recommend it as a lifestyle for you teenage men to look up to, Bones?

    You do not consider the rise in HIV amongst gay men to be a potentially problematic issue, and do not think it is necessary to warn anyone, least of all young males entering puberty, of the possible dangers of a gay male lifestyle?

  197. If Wallace is to be called bigoted, then so must you for the strength of your opposition to his views.

    Is bigoted another term for exposing lies?

    Are you not concerned about truth or is it truly about the ends justifying the means?

    Perhaps you’d like to comment on the validity of Cameron’s ‘research’?

    Wallace is supposedly representing Christians by advocating and relying on charlatan research to justify their own prejudices.

    Btw Wallace has also said that clergy sexual abuse is the fault of homosexuals as well.

    Nothing bigoted about old Jimbo.

Comments are closed.