Another pill to make taxes go higher in the obama sponsored health bill.

Even a very small risk of getting a deadly disease is a risk not worth taking, but there is still a tremendous risk even with the pill.

We now have, thanks to science's diligent perserverance, VIAGRA and now a pill to sanction gay activity. How about something to prevent or cure Cancer, guys??

If you don't want the government to pay for this pill, I guess the government shouldn't pay for treatment of people who have heart attacks because of a lifetime of eating meat or for anyone who got cancer because of smoking. Should the government pay for crash victims who didn't use a seatbelt or motorcyclers who didn't use a helmet...the list goes on and on.

In actuality, it's FAR cheaper for the government to pay for something that prevents a disease than paying for the disease itself.

The pills cost from $5,000 to $14,000 a year in the United States, but only 39 cents a day in some poor countries where they are sold in generic form

so does this mean the pills sold here are 20,000 times more effective? or are we paying for the pills sold in poor countries? when will the 39 cent generic form be made available here?

Yes, the US cost/day is 35 times the cost of the foreign generic brand. That is why medical costs in the US are skyrocketing. WE have to pay the pharmaceuticals for their developmental cost so that they can then sell the generics worldwide while we have to pay for the brand name. If and when they finally come up with cures or preventive measures for cancer (other than cervical cancer for women which every female should be getting vaccinated for), we will probably have to once again pay the high price of providing the same prevention to the rest of the world.

Bart Conner, yes the Government should not pay for any personal choices that we make in our lives. We should be responsible for our actions and the outcome of the choices we make. Yes, we make bad decisions in life and we will need help to solve the problem if possible. This duty is not the responsibility of our Government. The Organizations that have a tax free status promote such aid, and should be stepping up. I think the more we enable those that choose to not work, use poor judgement, and continue to blame others for the situation they are in, the more will choose to follow this course of behavior. Please, understand that we are a compassionate country, but how far in debt do we go to condone bad or misguided behavior?

When will people learn that if don't provide medical care to someone, we end up paying for it anyway.

This is a good innovation, and with condoms if we can prevent 73% of new infections that is quite a savings.

http://www.caps.ucsf.edu/pubs/FS/costeffectiverev.php

"The estimated lifetime cost of care and treatment for just one HIV+ person is about $195,000.

Not paying for this pill, is the wrong move. Let's get the generic going.

We now have, thanks to science's diligent perserverance, VIAGRA and now a pill to sanction gay activity. How about something to prevent or cure Cancer, guys??

Because all doctors should be working on the same problem... we certainly don't want PARALLEL research to be going on... we want to only solve the next problem once we solve the one current problem all doctors should be working on...

...NOT!

Amen, Eric!

Soooooo this doesn't work for straight men? I think we are just as likely to get HIV in this day and age as any gay man? They don't care about preventing us from catching HIV?

They are studying the effects it may have on male/female exposure and other forms (still trying to figure that one out). I can't understand the reason why they have to make more studies since we are all Humand regardless of our proclivities. I'm just a man out here wondering why people do certain things so excuse me if I act a bit confused. You don't suppose that's the reason it costs $5K to $14K here in the United States do you?

I agree, but its too late for that loudmouth.

First - oral sex IS safer (in terms of HIV infection) than any other penetrative sex. Infected fluids entering the body through the mouth generally have no direct access to cells they can infect (bloodstream or membranes in/on the rectum/vagina/penis).

Second - "other forms" of sex could include female/female contact.

Third - straight men are far less likely to get HIV simply because it is far more difficult for the virus to get access to the cells it infects. Absorption through the penis is far less common than through the rectum or vagina. Unless these straight men are getting infected fluids in their rectums, they are generally safe.

Unless there is any kind of break in the skin of the penis. That is why a condom should always be worn, no matter what type of sex.

Eric

Excellent point. Too many people are far too worried about the nickels and don't pay attention to the dollars. Those who oppose a national health care system, saying that "everyone has access to medical care at the hospital emergency facility," fails to recognize that prevention is far less costly than cure. Preventing aids with this pill is much less expensive than treating the disease, just as the prevention of heart disease and diabetes is cheaper than the cures of those diseases.

So, we have a choice. We can facilitate the prevention of disease, save a few bucks, and show a little compassion for our fellow Americans in the process .... or we can continue to fool ourselves into believing that we have the world's finest health care system in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Ah yes, yet another pill from big pharma. The only people in the world WHO BENEFIT from you being sick wants to make you all better.....

If you believe that, I have a bridge for sale.

There are many ways to prevent aids, not to mention that aids was a man made disease.

Keep drinking the big pharma, clinical trial approved kool-aid.

Patrick

What are you talking about? Man-made disease? When you say things like that why would you expect to have any credibility for anything that you say?

As I understand it, Aids is not a man-made disease unless you take into account the first two chapters of the book of Romans in the Bible. If that is the case, then it would be called man-caused, not man made. Even so, this is very promising, as we know that people will be people, no matter what the risks. So, maybe someone can pop across the border into Mexico and get the generic version for pennies. Of course then you're not sure if you are getting the real stuff and not some knock off.

and now a pill to sanction gay activity.

News flash: HIV can infect anyone.

unless you take into account the first two chapters of the book of Romans in the Bible

Because of course, the authors of the Bible were experts in epidemology and knew all about germ theory back in the days before BIOLOGY was a science.

Don, if you actually care to do some research, you will find there have been some lawsuits against certain companies stating they created the aids virus and the companies LOST the lawsuit.

Ignorance is bliss, but keep drinking the big pharma kool-aid. One day it will cure you!!

BTW, and to save you some time in your response. It has also been proven in a court of law that the H1N1 virus and the new H1N5 virus have also been developed in a lab.

But hey, at least you can take some peace knowing Bill Gates wants to reduce the population by 10-15 percent with vaccines and medical procedures.

Not all conspiracies are theories.

hope everyone knows that abstinance prevents transmission of STD's also.

and at a considerable cost savings to the public (it's free)

you get what you pay for, hopefully.

just throwing this out for some consideration...

Patrick

I cringe when I think about people like you having the right to vote.

I do not think the Government should pay for a pill that is just ONE option to prevent illness. If they did, then the Government should pay my grocery bill, too, because regular intake of food ALSO prevents illness and death. However, the Government SHOULD get involved in regulating the price. Same old argument from pharmaceutical companies... the high price is to pay us back for R&D... How much was R&D? When that is recouped, will they lower the price? NO... then they'll say, "We need the money for R&D of FUTURE products." They try to make themselves sound like they are so altruistic... when, in fact, they are no different than any other business out there. The difference between COST and the PRICE is called PROFIT... and these companies are making an OBSCENE amount of PROFIT. (How much of their profit they choose to re-invest on future products is a business decision they can make. But, US citizens that are ill and need these cures to live should not be treated as a "bottomless well" of potential R&D money.)

Why do some people have no problem spending billions, trillions, when we're lied into a wars, but when it comes to saving lives they balk?

Why do we subsidize the profits of billionaires with our national infrastructure, our low wages, and our working lives, but when some one suggests the average person could have a better standard of living it becomes taboo communism?

Why don't we solve our energy and pollution problems with our jobs problem, put solar panels on every house?

Why don't we solve our budget problem with our health care problem, take the profits away from insurance corporations with single payer?

Why don't we do what is right and would make life better!?

Amen to socialjustice!

okay...finally. Now that they have a drug to save the gay community can we please get back to spending money on research for childhood leukemia, diabetes, lupus, polio, cystic fibrosis, and any and all other fatal diseases that the children did nothing to contribute to their contracting of the illness.

Jim .... your homophobia is showing

don...how is Jim's statement homophobic? Honestly, he is making a plea for children.

@Marcher: Do not say that straight sex is safe for men when HIV is concerned. I lost a professional colleague and dear friend to Aids in the early part of the 80's. He was definitely heterosexual and he got it from having hetero sex with an infected woman. He never did any drugs, not even cocaine or pot which was everywhere in the 70's.

He was infected before anyone even knew there was an epidemic.

The HIV virus is spread to men during straight sex by being getting into fluid in the penis and being pushed down the urethra during the act of sexual intercourse. While more difficult to spread to men, it is far from safe when penetration is involved during a sex act. In this day and age, the only safe sex to when condoms are involved with a partner who you know or at best do not think is infected.

When my friend was going through treatment and was dying, I used to go with him to meetings for people living with this terrible disease. I met all kinds, nurses, doctors, lawyers, children, victims of rape, lesbians, gay men, every race and color many people from every walk of life who got it from all kinds of ways.

HIV doesn't care if you are gay, just so long as you are human it can infect you if it comes into contact with your blood or a mucous membrane.

This illness is a terrible blight on society whose is rapidly becoming more and more common. Every instance of prevention spares lives on an exponential scale.

Maybe you're a sicko who wants gays to die, but what you fail to understand is that these infections don't stay within only one community. An additional infected man of any kind can spread the illness to people through IV drugs or sex with a woman. Once it gets into a community, it gets more and more likely to spread to others; eventually, without preventative measures, it will spread everywhere.

A young person should not be doomed to life with HIV or death because they made only one mistake but unfortunately, that's all it takes.

txmom,

apparently, if you are not thrilled by this news, then you are a 'homophobe' -- at least in don's eyes...

whatever --- to each his/her own

socialjustice,

Why don't we solve our budget problem with our health care problem, take the profits away from insurance corporations with single payer?

what about big pharma???? they are actually IN this article: The pills cost from $5,000 to $14,000 a year in the United States, but only 39 cents a day in some poor countries where they are sold in generic form.

do you believe that insurance companies are the only scammers out there? looks to me like big pharma is a primary cause.

beerman...can you behave in such a way that you can completely eliminate your risk of contracting aids. If so, what would that be? I thank you in advance for your response.

Jim,

Why did you ask Beer Man such a question? I read his post and found it quite sensible and correct. AIDS is not a gay disease. It is simply a virus, and a virus does not care about anyone's sexual preference. It would be just as happy to kill you as it would be to kill anyone else. That's all Beer Man was saying. So I don't understand why you would ask him such a question. He was not even talking about his own behavior!

Jim,

i would politely refer you to post 1.21

and i agree with Beer Man, if you are not married and monogamus, the possibility is there to contract HIV or other diseases.

abstinance is the best and only way to completely prevent transmission of the disease.

jackel64,

You are right about abstinence being the only completely sure way of preventing the transmission of HIV, but that is an ideal solution; not a practical one. It will just never happen that all people will abstain. Good to see you again, old friend! Long time no see!

jackel64 - How am I going to get laid if I am abstinent?

I hope it works and I agree that people should pay for it themselves, NOT national health care.

I agree Karen. I also think people should pay for their own creations, because they made the choice to pop out a worthless mouth-breather. I'm tired of paying for the mistakes other people decided to give birth to.

Karen in Los Angeles,

National health care?! Wow! I wasn't aware we had a national healthcare system. When did that happen?

thoughts from cali,

lol. well, the choice is yours, just ask yourself if the risk is worth it.

mickey,

good to see you again as well, friend. and i agree that abstinence (spelled it properly this time) is more or less a pipe dream anymore. even with protected sex, the possibility is there, and im surprised that people willingly put themselves on the 'firing line' so to speak when life itself is at risk. i suppose it is what you truly want out of life i guess, though from my experience (hetero only, though not a 'phobe') other than the movement and vocals, it aint that different. only the faces change.

for me in my life, the risk isnt worth it. the possibility of contracting, then passing the disease on to others would be too much for me to live with. even with a reduced lifespan...personally.

antiminion,

"This is becoming a lawless, filthy sex-driven society lacking in the most basic of morals and scruples. It's the narcissistic self-absorbed being that man has become that will be our downfall, sooner than later."

I love it when you talk dirty!

jackal64,

I understand what you are saying, and basically I have to agree that you are right. Sex may be good, but is it worth dying for? I guess every individual has to make that decision for himself.

I agree Karen. I also think people should pay for their own creations, because they made the choice to pop out a worthless mouth-breather. I'm tired of paying for the mistakes other people decided to give birth to.

Good because one idea I have is to put children in orphanages if the mother/parents decide to have babies they can not afford. All these unwed mothers need to be put in check. I AM TIRED OF PAYING FOR THEIR MISTAKES AND I AM TIRED OF GIVING MONEY TO PEOPLE WHO MADE STUPID DECISIONS IN THE FIRST PLACE. Why are we rewarding stupidity?

If I run for office, I hope you vote for me.

To the person saying they missed National Health Care - Have you been in a cave or something? Maybe you missed the several lawsuits that have been filed? I suggest you read the papers for the past year to get up to speed.

Karen in Los Angeles,

Are you referring to Obama's health care reform? That is not exactly what I would call a "national health care system" such as France has. That is a national health care system! The U.S. does not now, nor has it ever had, a national health care system. That's why we have so many sick people who cannot afford health care. If you think we have a national health care system, you are the one who has been living in a cave!

maximillo,

your post 1.19: the authors of the Bible were experts in epidemology and knew all about germ theory back in the days before BIOLOGY was a science.

do you have any idea how the black plague was reduced in the middle ages? by following Old Testament laws on cleanliness. the Bible is correct in this too. ever think about what would have happened to a civilization back then if an epidemic such as this broke out? there were no hospitals then. entire populations would have been wiped out. how did the authors know this, if there was no 'science' to speak of? because the One true God (who authored the Bible) is omnipotent and is aware of His creation and the potential for harm IF His rules are not followed. God's laws are not punishment, they are there to prevent hardships, diseases, etc. whether you choose to believe or not is moot, the fact remains that no man in those days could have known biology. only God.

you can disparage if you choose, but the Bible is truth. it is correct. and in it, you will find peace, not only in this life, but in the next.

mickey,

thanks. i think what gets me the most is the idea that i could cause pain and death to another. this winds up involving others. it does not affect the carrier only. and it is a terrible way to die.

if you infect another person and destroy that life, can one honestly live with himself? i know i could not.

peace to all is a dream if we continue on the path humanity has taken.

i choose life.

best to you, my friend!

i think what gets me the most is the idea that i could cause pain and death to another. this winds up involving others. it does not affect the carrier only. and it is a terrible way to die.

I just read about a case where a person successfully sued another person for giving her herpes. I'll see if I can find the link but probably not. I read a lot all day.

Beer Man, a very good post.

Karen, your idea about the orphanages is not original. Newt Gingrich had the same one years ago. Hopefully, someone will silence you both very soon.

Hi jackel. Good to see you. I have to agree with you whole heartedly. It is not just about yourself which many people fail to take into consideration. Here is some food for thought: I am and have been a hospital worker for many years. Some years ago, I was taking a break with a nurse's aide that I was friendly with. I knew that she had a gay nephew with AIDS from previous conversations. She was very close to this nephew and often spoke fondly of him. She was telling me about some recent escapade of his when I stopped her and asked "Didn't you tell me that he had AIDS? Why is he doing this?" Her response was "Somebody gave it to him so what is the difference if he gives it to someone else". I was shocked into silence that a co-worker who dealt with the sick and dying every day could have such an irresponsible and frightening thought process. The friendship ended. I have never forgotten that conversation. How many more out here have an attitude like this??? I don't know about you but if I have a cold or other flu like symptoms, I will change plans or do whatever I can to avoid the spreading and infecting of others, no matter the inconvenience to myself.

You hit the nail on the head regarding abstinence and your post at 1.46 was spot on. Thanks for bringing some common sense into this mix.

Great points, Levi.

Mickey...are you now offended by a question? Geeezzzz you are sensitive. Have me arrested for a "hate question". If you are afraid of the question it is because you are terrified of the answer! And if you are terrified of the answer, that is because you know what the answer is...so share the answer with us please!

Why isn't"gay" being treated like any other hazardous disease or dangerous activity like smoking and using distilled spirits? All gays should have a big warning label tattooed on their forehead something to the effect that "I'm the kiss of death." But, everybody and their dog seems to approve this lifestyle which is killing more people worldwide than tobacco and alcoholic combined. So, we are warned by the AMA that some things are hazardous to our health and the biggest killer of all gets a free pass. Why do these idiots need any rights? Start with a little common sense.

jusbkoz...common sense is not part of the world view. Certainly aids kills more people in the gay community than in any of the other communities. The common sense notion is this...certain sexual behavior is responsible for nearly 99% of the deaths caused by aids. Now that sexual behavior crosses the line between hetero and gay. The vast majority of the sexual behavior that cuases the infection is related to the gay community. I will be banned for saying that...mark my word...just check back later today. You do not catch aids like you catch a cold, nor do you catch aids like a child develops leukemia or lupus. There is only one way, short of someone intentionally infecting another or donating infected blood, that aids is transmitted. Everyone avoids talking about the method of transmission because that is "none of our business". Okay...then why the hell is the food I eat the governments business. Why the hell is an automobile seat belt the governments business. Why the hell is my smoking cigarettes the governments business as long as no sensitive noses have to smell it. Ya see...aids transmission is the only killer disease that is the governments business only for telling us to pay our taxes for research for cures. Aids is the only disease known to man that is 100% preventable...100% preventable...100% preventable....100% preventable...100% preventable...100% preventable.. No other disease is preventable period. You can minimize your risk of contracting other viruses or diseases but you will never eliminate the risk. AIDS is completely preventable. You can minimize your risk to zero. No other virus is like that...none...zero...nada. Check back in a few hours. This post will be deleted as hate speech but the sad truth is AIDS will still be killing people. I know. I have had 2 friends and a cousin die from AIDS in the 90's. AIDS will continue to kill as long as people insist on not doing what is necessary to prevent the spread of AIDS and all the goodie two shoes that want to be polite and non judgmental will be no less responsible for the deaths of thousands upon thousands of AIDS victims as those that continue to engage in risky behavior. So you really really "good and polite people" you progressives with all your open minds, go home tonight and sleep with the comfort of your open mindedness and just know you have condemned thousands and thousands of people to death. Get up in the morning and smile at yourselves in the morning knowing that overnight many people died from AIDS and you were too polite to say anything that would prevent the spread. Yes...you are a coward and people will die when faced with cowardice, hey but your friends think you are progressive and open minded...unless of course they died from AIDS during the night.

Jim,

I was not offended by your question; I was confused by it. That's why I asked you why you had asked such a question. It just didn't seem to fit in with anything Beer-Man had said in his post. You seemed to be implying something by your question, but I couldn't understand what it was you were implying. I'm sorry if I offended you by asking why you had asked such a question. You're right, I am somewhat sensitive, but I think you are even more sensitive than I am. I did not mean to offend you, I was just trying to get some clarification as to what you were getting at.

jackel64 and Chefaz,

What you say about infecting others with HIV is very true. It is the responsibility of both parties involved to take that into consideration, and, in my opinion, no one who knows he is infected with HIV should engage in sex with anyone. The moment he finds out he has HIV should spell the beginning of celibacy for that person. Unfortunately, there are those who will deliberately engage in sex with another person just to give that person HIV. I know it sounds monstrous, but it's true. I once knew a guy who was not gay, but straight, and he told me outright that if he was ever infected with HIV, he would deliberately infect as many other people as possible, just to get revenge. I was shocked by his callousness and could not help but wonder how many others there are like him.

Mickey...because the question must be asked and answered for any real progress to be made. Nobody wants to answer the question..."Is there a way to prevent the transmission of AIDS and thus remove it from civilization?" Of course there is but as long as we remain a stupid people afraid of offending anything or anyone...people will continue to die by the thousands. Here is another question...is it more moral to be polite than it is to strive to save a life? I guess it depends? Let us stop being foolish...the life you save may be your own!

Jusbkoz and Jim,

I think both of you guys are a bit confused. HIV/AIDS is not a gay disease, and the vast majority of gays do not have it. It is just a disease like any other. It infects heterosexuals and homosexuals alike and is actually more prevalent among heterosexuals than among homosexuals in many parts of the world, such as Africa. Since it first came to light among gay men in this country in the early 1980's, it has become associated in the minds of many people with being a "gay disease", but it is not. There is no such thing as a "gay disease". It is simply a virus, and viruses and bacteria do not care who they infect. People may discriminate against each other, but viruses and bacteria are "equal opportunity infecters". They are just as happy killing one person as another! Don't forget about syphilis. It's easy to forget about syphilis because we now have drugs that can kill it. But that was not always the case. Before the discovery of sulfa drugs in the mid-20th. century, syphilis killed and crippled people on a grand scale. Thousands of people who did not die from other complications caused by syphilis ended up in mental institutions with syphilitic psychosis (insanity). Syphilis was a major scourge in the world, and it, too, did not discriminate between gay and straight. A major source of its transmission was heterosexual prostitution. Check it out on Google if you don't believe me. So we really should not think in terms of gay or straight when we are talking about a disease. A disease is just a disease.

Jim,

In referrence to your post #1.58, thanks for the explanation. Now I understand what you meant. Good questions.

CAS Reaves,

And who would fund the orphanages? Orphanages do not take children in for free! Some people just seem to long for the "good old days" of 19th. century laissez-faire capitalism with its child labor, work houses, debtors' prisons, orphanages, sweatshops, etc. They seem to want to undo all the hard work of the reformers of the old system. Charles Dickens would roll over in his grave if he could hear this kind of talk.

Mickey...I don't believe anybody said the vast majority of gays have aids...I believe the statement is that of those that have aids, in this country, the vast majority are gay. That is the distinction. I presume it is not hateful or homophobic to state a set of facts.

Jim,

" it is not hateful or homophobic to state a set of facts."

No, it is not hateful to state a set of facts, although it can be taken by some as hateful, depending on the way it is stated. I'm sorry, Jim, I was addressing both you and Jusbkoz in my post #1.59, but my remark about the majority of gay people not having HIV was meant not for you, but for Jusbkoz, because in his post he stated that he thought all gay people should have "I'm the kiss of death" tattooed on their foreheads, a rather macabre idea similar to Hitler's idea of having Jews tattooed to identify them as Jews. Apparently, he thinks "gay" and "HIV positive" are the same thing. I know you never said that. As for the majority in this country who have AIDS being gay, that is probably true. But don't forget that the gay community seems to have been the first to have been infected with HIV, so, naturally, it has had a longer period of time in which to spread among them. The straight community should take that as a warning and take greater measures to protect themselves from HIV. Unfortunately, I'm not at all sure they are doing so. Because many of them think of HIV as a "gay disease", they think they are immune and don't have to worry about it. They need to wake up about that.

Mickey...jusbkoz is angry. I don't blame him for being angry. HIV is not a "gay disease". I agree with that statement, but HIV was given "birth" in the gay community. It began to spread to the heterosexual community because of the reckless behavior of heterosexuals. A married man wants to have a fling in a gay bath house, yes it happens all the time, and he contracts the virus and brings it home to his wife or perhaps he spreads it to the happy hooker or whatever it is. Then share the needle. AIDS has exploded and has killed many many thousands, some of whom were friends. And what is it that is talked about...oh...how the virus is spreading to the straight community. Talking about who is most affected is not a solution. Telling gay men to stay the hell out of a bath house, straight men to stay the hell out of whore alley, have the person you want to bed down with checked for the AIDS virus first, check yourself as well. My wife and I both got tested for HIV before we got married. We knew we would come back clean because neither one of us engaged in any sort of sexually risky behavior and we did not us drugs. But we got tested anyway. If you test positive for AIDS do not engage in any sexual activity...period...end of story. Until some simple truths become the new world view...risky sexual behavior can kill you...I don't want to spend another cent on research. How much money are you willing to spend on research to fight lung cancer for long term cigarette smokers or on fighting cirrhosis of the liver for alcoholics. What is the difference between the person that engages in risky sexual behavior or drinks a fifth of Jack Daniels every night. The person drinking the Jack Daniels is not out there infecting other people with cirrhosis of the liver and the smoker is not transmitting lung cancer to anybody else. That is why jusbkos is angry.

Hey, Mickey - don't jump on me! I think the orphanages are a rotten idea. Talk to "Karen in Los Angeles" about that one, since she suggested it in a post above. She's another foamer - particularly where gays are concerned.

Talk about foamers...just disagree with CAS...let the frothing begin...froth it up CAS

Jim,

I understand what you are saying, and most of it I agree with. There can be no doubt that a lack of personal responsibility and excessive sexual promiscuity are major contributors to the spread of HIV. There is only one thing I would disagree with you on. When you say "HIV was given "birth" in the gay community", that's not quite true. According to what I have read, HIV is a tropical disease that originated in Africa among a certain species of monkey called the "green monkey". Somehow it made the leap from the monkey population to the human population there in Africa, just as many other diseases have done, such as the Avian Flu or the Swine Flu. Then, from Africa, it somehow spread to America where it appears to have affected the gay community first. So if that is what you mean by its having its "birth" in the gay community, you are right. But it did not originate there. That's a problem, too, in the shrinking world we live in, where millions of people are moving from one place to another by jet aircraft every day. Unfortunately, diseases travel along with them.

CAS Reaves,

I know you think orphanages are a rotten idea. So do I. I was agreeing with you; not jumping on you!

Sorry, Mickey. Simple misunderstanding - too bad these boards can't convey tone.
Jim, there's no doubt that promiscuity and unsafe sex spreads diseases of all kinds.
What you can't agree to disagree on is to live and let live.

CAS Reaves,

That's OK. When I said "some people seem to long for the good old days of 19th. century capitalism", I was referring to people like Karen in Los Angeles; not to you!

CAS why does live and let live theology extend to my taxes supporting research to save people from their own risky behavior...why...why...why. The problem with that theology is that live and let live, when it comes to AIDS, has killed far too many innocent people via child birth, blood transfusions, intentional infection. Your idea of live and let live means "let me live they way I want without any judgement from others. If my lifestyle kills someone else intentionally or accidentally...oh well. Live as long as you can and let me live however I want." That is the highest order of selfishness and evil. Enjoy your life.

Jim, THINK BIGGER! This preliminary study showed it to work for gay men. Take it a step further- it could very well work for healthcare workers. Are you not taking into consideration the number of nurses and doctors who have contracted HIV from accidental needle sticks in the workplace? In the past 20 years, yes, that group has become MUCH more careful, but those do still happen.
And not JUST healthcare workers get needle sticks. A friend of mine was stuck with a needle in her capacity as housekeeping at an outlet mall - someone had thrown a needle into the bin for feminine products in one of the bathroom stalls and it poked through the bag as she lifted the bag out of the bin and scratched her. Luckily, it was only an insulin syringe, and she did not get infected, but think - had this drug been available then, she could have taken it an reduced her risk.
Think about the potential benefits for EVERYONE - not just for gay men or promiscuous indviduals.
That's my main point. I tend to look at the bigger picture - this could be SO much more than what the article presents it to be.

CAS...the bigger picture is about prevention of a disease that is caused by a behavior. The nurses and doctors that are pricked and become infected are collateral damage as you would say. The gay community should feel very proud of itself.

That isn't what the study says. The study simply studied a group of individuals who's risk of being infected was heavily studied so they could then compare that baseline risk to people on the pill and people on a placebo. The placebo people probably also had a reduced rate of infection thanks to the test because they were also providing counseling on how to protect yourself. So what I'm guessing is they had 3 groups to analyze. The first would be the historical baseline as seen in other published studies. Secondly they had placebo takers who were also counseled on condom use and other methods of protection. The third group was the people given the real pill who were also counseled on preventative measures.

With the date from the study, you can find out how much counseling works, and how much adding a drug improves or impairs the counseling. In this case they found it improved prevention.

The logical conclusion would be that the same methods would would also work in other groups that are not as well studied like straight men, straight women, and lesbians.

Wondered about that myself. It would be nice if the article went into that portion of the article in a bit more depth.

It could be that the test group consisted only of gay men so they have no basis to make a claim about other demographics. That actually would have been nice to know.

It could be that the participants who were given the active tablets indicated somehow in their documentation that they would be more conscientious about health concerns so the use of condoms increased with the same regularity of taking the drug.

It could be many things which is why it takes more than one drug study to actually confirm the accuracy and usefulness of a drug.

I do think it was admirable to stick with the "wear a condom" and take regular HIV tests. Kuddo's for common sense.

Read the story again. It does say that other demographics are just now being studied.

As far as test procedures, you are right richard. I was involved in an HIV research project back in '94-'95, which was an extension of prior studies on the effects of exercise on T-Cell counts. It was conducted at the Medical College of Ohio and I was the massage therapist in the second study. We had four groups: control who received nothing, second group massage only, third group massage and exercise therapy, and the fourth group massage and bio-feedback. The preliminary results that I was provided with at the end of the study by the research doctor was that massage provided the greatest benefit to maintaining T-Cell count (little or no difference in the counts on all three massage groups.) The advantage of the exercise was that it helped keep the body stronger. The advantage of the bio-feedback was that it helped the participants learn how to control the stress in their lives. It was a very interesting project and I was glad to have been part of it. I had been working with AIDS patients for nearly four years before becoming involved in the research. All of the patients told me repeatedly that they felt the massages were what was helping them stay alive. Massage helps improve the white blood cell count in all individuals by as much as 45% according to Dr. John Harvey Kellogg (yes of the Kellogg Sanitarium and Kellogg cereal company). He wrote a textbook on massage theory back at the beginning of the 20th century that is still the premier text on massage theory (and the only one that I know of that was written by an MD.) I'm licensed by the only state where the field is a division of the Medical Board (OH, where it has been licensed since 1917.)

Good point, the study was done on gay men, but in theory it should work on everyone.

Read the story again. It does say that other demographics are just now being studied.

I read the story and the point being "one" study does not confirm a conclusion.

Eric...Thank You...that was the point.

Yes, and I'm sure they will replicate the study. The results are pretty impressive, best to start treatment now as there is efficacy.

And the story did NOT say that this "one" study confirms a conclusion. It is only covering the results of that study and states that other studies are underway.

Eric...I think the results of one test are impressive. I also think that more study is required because if it turns out that there are actually long term side effects of the drug..Liver damage, heart damage etc. it could be a very ugly PR and social nightmare.

The reason I bring this up is they have just, this week, the FDA banned the use of "Darvon" and "Darvocet". After 25 years of use as a pain reliever for the general population due to damage it can cause to the heart.

Can you imagine if this drug were rushed to market and long term physical damage emerged as a side effect what the social repercussions would be? Bluntly, how many people would accuse the manufacturer of trying to eradicate the gay population, more bluntly...accusations of genocide.

Antitrustproponent...

Study: AIDS pill helps gay men avoid HIV infection

Did you read the bleeding headline?

So???? That is the nature of headlines....shorthand to catch the reader's attention. It sure got a lot of people to read the story and comment on it, didn't it? Have you ever worked in the journalism field as I have?

Darlin...Grew up in the News Paper Industry. Attended a University for Journalism who actually taught the value of ethical reporting. But, back then there was a concept called integrity...It was not the practice to misrepresent the content of the article to get the attention of readers. Seems to be a reoccurring theme with MSNBC.

The new front page headline is even more so:

'Major advance':
Pill slashes risk
of AIDS infection
for gay men

And MSNBC isn't the only media guilty of this. They all are, and have been for at least the last two decades, with it getting worse each year as we all become even more "internet shorthand" oriented (LOL, LMAO, etc.). We have become a lazy society when it comes to condensation of thoughts, or grammar, or spelling. Rush to post before you proof, etc., and watch all of the errors. It is even worse than the normal print publishing because no one takes the time to re-read and proof what they have written.

But I'm not sure how you think the new headline is any more misrepresentative than the original. The article does state that the research shows that the pill is a major advance and that the pill does slash the risk of AIDS infection for gay men. The headline just doesn't get longer by putting the secondary factors (condoms and education) into the headline.

So back to some substance:

How much of a secondary factor are Condoms and education?

They are absolutely important factors and depending on the selection process for active drug v. placebo it could have been even greater.

I am not attempting to minimize the actual information in the article. I think it is a valid move forward. It just seems premature to promote this possibility on the basis of one complete study. Move ahead cautiously as with any drug or treatment that is designed for large scale use.

Condoms and education along with regular std screening are valuable health tools for all who engage in sexual behavior. That is just common sense sadly, many need to be reminded to use it.

I don't think we can wait 25 years to determine all of the factors of its use at $195,000 per occurrence. That's a lot of wasted money.

It's like having a drug that could prevent 73% of breast cancers. Would you want to wait on that as well?

txmom, to be honest, education and condoms (in that order) should actually be primary factors, not secondary - at least for daily life, if not this study.
What makes my blood boil is that, in other countries, this drug is so cheap, yet in the US it costs thousands of dollars because there is no generic available.

It's like having a drug that could prevent 73% of breast cancers. Would you want to wait on that as well?

Well of course unless a byproduct of the drug were other organ failure that still resulted in death.

Now, having said that...if there were a rush to market because some felt the immediate benefit outweighed any future risk I would hope those willing to take it would sign a waiver of understanding that long term effects were unknown and no legal action could be taken.

CAS Reaves....OF course it is upsetting that it is more expensive in the United States. Our laws enable the drug companies to make massive profits so they can embark on massive research and development. Third world countries have laws that enable drug companies to sell their brands under generics, by changing formulas minutely, allowing affordable drugs to get to sick people.

Are you really surprised that The First Nations of this globe are expected to support the masses?

Is it a problem, yes. As a, well insured (by this years standards), family of 5 we meet our deductible of $6000 by May because of our maintenance drug costs. Do I think that is reasonable. Not really.

I said "secondary" only in terms of this study. I wasn't meaning that they aren't important or less important than the use of the pill. As I noted about the study I was involved in, they most likely had several test groups to validate their results....a control group that used no measures, one that used only condoms and/or education, one that used both and a placebo, and the actual pill test group.

CAS is correct, the priorities are education, condom use by everyone (not just the gay community) for any sex (unless you really are trying to get pregnant, and then both partners better have been tested at least twice before hand), testing, and now you can add in the pill for further prevention.

$6000 deductible by May due to maintenance drug use? Get a healthier lifestyle, and maybe you can help reduce some of that drug cost.

Anti-trust, there are conditions such as asthma, genetic problems, and many other factors that cause high medical care costs. Some of those maintenance drugs are not available in generic, which would make them much more affordable.

anti-trust proponent...

$6000 deductible by May due to maintenance drug use? Get a healthier lifestyle, and maybe you can help reduce some of that drug cost.

Oh my goodness really, is that all it will take, a healthier lifestyle. Let's see I am a middle class, well educated, stay at home mom, and my life revolves around the health, happiness and education of my children and family.Is that all it will take for the DRs. to give my darling dear one his thyroid back? I sure hope they were able to purge the tumors from it.

As for myself... I suspect my fibromyalgia was a byproduct of living with a very real pinched nerve for over two years while under the care of a Foreign Socialized medical system. They were convinced, because I was merely a woman who had gone through a stressful time relocating to a new country, that I didn't have pain I was just depressed. Go figure when we came home, from the don't run expensive testes give a pill instead society, a Dr actually bothered to run a test where the MRI showed a lower disk pushing firmly and constantly on a nerve while a disk in my neck was conversely out of line. You are probably very familiar with this particular condition. They repaired the disks, in both my neck and back using a comparatively inexpensive, non-invasive gentle traction procedure along with physical therapy. I was pain free for about two months. It was absolutely liberating. I was able to sleep through the night and I had concentration for joyful things again. Then I started noticing twinges and aches. My long bones would hurt, I would have joint pain. I had sporadic pain in the same location on my trunk so the visits to specialist began. I could list a myriad of conditions that I do not have but unfortunately, no conclusive diagnosis of what I do. Before long it was flat out pain storms that would prevent me from doing my mom thing. After over a year of one specialist after another with litany of diagnostic tests from Gastrologists, Hemotologists, Cardiologists, Rhumatologists...I am most certainly missing some because it was a very long time moving from one another while still trying to raise, children, run a house, manage my Grandmothers affairs, fulfill my community obligations and still be a solid partner to my husband while he was undergoing treatment for cancer. The special diet alone to pep for the follow up testing to see if his body was clear of thyroid cells was an undertaking. Then It was on me, during this time of his thorough and complete exhaustion, because the meds were just never right, to be mom and make sure that my kids were not missing a childhood because their dad was ill. When I was loosing ground quick my darling dear one powered through days that were unimaginably difficult for him for the same reason. The thing is I have extraordinary children, each in their own right. They are the most miraculous little people who deserve the best life we have to give because when they stepped up to give in that horrible two plus years they did it joyfully. So here you get a lesson on the resilience of an American Family.

There are three drugs approved for treatment of fibromyalgia. Two contain anti-depressants which I cannot take. One affords me clairity and activity with minimal pain. None of them are cheap and none of them are generic.

As for my son...well that is none of your damn business...suffice it to say that I do hope science can continue to advance reasonably to long term solutions instead of just drug therapy because there is some very young, brilliant potential being lost in this country. Our Nations children deserve ever so much more. For my son and many like him the drug will get him through but an actual cure, I believe it will evolve through stem cell types of research, will afford he and scores of other children the opportunity to live productive, glorious lives.

CSA Reaves...you are absolutely correct. Not all meds come in generic thus the expense. Not all drugs are the answer. My darling was on Synthyrid until recently. He is now on a different drug and is feeling some improvement. Is it a replacement for the hormones healthy tissue produces naturally. No and our greatest fear is that it never will be. He can't really regulate the effects of heat on his body and he has never regained his energy level to it's fullest. But, he won't die of cancer, this year anyway.

Thanks for being the judge of other people!

Did your 2,000 year old fairy tale book tell you what is moral and immoral for consenting adults to do in their private sex lives?

I agree with poot, it's immoral plain and simple. And you don't need a 2000 year old book to see that.

pooteeweet and SalMonella,

It is amusing how everyone becomes so big on "morality" when it comes to gay sex. The same people who post such comments are probably the very ones who are most likely to cheat on their income taxes, lie to their employers, beat their children, cheat on their wives, take drugs, abuse alcohol, shoplift,fornicate like minks and generally do their best to violate every one of the Ten Commandments. But when it comes to gays, suddenly these same people are oh so righteous (i.e. self-righteous). You might consider what Jesus Christ said about first removing the beam from your own eye so you will be able to see better to remove the splinter from your brother's eye. They are just further examples of that Pharisee in the New Testament who prayed every day to thank God that at least he was not like the rest of "those sinners."

And you don't need a 2000 year old book to see that.

You just need an all male (or female) pieces puzzle to see that anatomically incorrect unions just don't quite fit together correctly.

It shouldn't be other's responsibility to pay for pills for others to engage in dangerous behaviors. There is nothing wrong with personal responsibility. Personally, I don't think this study is reason enough to dole out this pill. Who says those who were on the pill, tried to be more responsible than before? The success could have been from the subject stopping (curbing) their dangerous behaviors.

Random thought - given the serious (deadly) nature of AIDS, what drives thes gays and bisexuals to throw common sense to the wind and engage in dangerous sex anyway? The only words I can come up with to explain it is incredibly selfish and incredibly stupid.

All the things you mentioned, Mickey, are also immoral, with terrible consequences to our human race and our world. No beam in the eye about that. And the taxpayer should not have to pay for the consequences of those things, either - again, stop the behaior. BUT, you are digressing. Neither the article or the conversation is about those things, but about the consequences of g@y sex. Stop clouding the issue and stick with the topic. G@y sex is immoral, unclean, and dangerous...and I don't want to see g@ys or anyone else dying of it - or spreading it around. Stop the behavior, stop the disease. Period.

Ah, spoken like a true believer of the Catholic beliefs.

pooteeweet,

And you, of course, being without sin, are free to casts stones! And here I thought the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception applied only to Mary, the mother of Jesus! Furthermore, the article was not about the consequences of gay sex. It was about the discovery of a possible means of preventing the spread of HIV infection, which, by the way is not spread only by gay sex. You are the one who is clouding the issue by moralizing about gay sex.

So now why do you believe that gay sex is immoral, was it possibly beat into your mind by your religion. Isn't it funny how your 'god' hates everyone that you do?

I am so confused--If being gay were immoral, why would God create gay people? God doesn't make mistakes.

Jesus never said anything about gay people being immoral--he said love thy neighbor and don't judge others--seems like great advice to me.

the bible has some passages that forbid men sleeping together in passion.

No religious affiliation

Bart, God did not create g@y people - He created people. He also created a natural order for things to be in, including marriage and sex. When He created people He also created free will for them to operate within - or not. The humans He created can choose to obey the natural order He created for them - or not. The way He created things to be was not to keep us from having fun, but to protect us from the often terrible consequences of going against His natural order. The article above brings to mind one of these consequences - HIV and AIDS - a terrible, horrible consequence of going against the natural order of sexual relations, i.e., choosing to engage in the g@y lifestyle...and it is a consequence that eventually made it's way into the 'straight' population as well.

The Bible DOES speak of the immorality of g@y sex - read the book and find out. Don't just listen to others, including me - actually read it for yourself!

And it isn't judging others to speak of what God says about this - it is warning others, which IS loving your neighbor.

pooteeweet,

Your ignorance would echo in a thimble! You need to read up on HIV. It originated in Africa among monkeys, and was originally spread not by gays, but by heterosexuals. The majority of HIV cases in Africa are still among heterosexuals. And no, the article was not about the consquences of gay sex. You need to learn how to pick out the theme of what you read. Please educate yourself and stop moralizing!

pooteeweet,

And, by the way, I did not think you were Catholic. Catholics are much less inclined to be judgemental and moralize about other people's behavior. If I were to take a guess, I would say you are most likely an "evangelical Christian".

Haha I guess it doesn't matter what article I read about homosexuality...there are always people who are going to try to use the "God" card.

Pooteeweet: and it is a consequence that eventually made it's way into the 'straight' population as well.

Are you familiar with the HIV virus? It didn't start with gay men and all of a sudden make its way into the straight population...and that offensive statement just proves your obvious ignorance to both the disease and homosexuality.

It began in Africa as a mutation of an African monkey disease, and then it began to spread (no one knows how to got to man) but it did. And then through blood transfusions due to malaria and other sicknesses in Africa it continued to spread among the population. Prostitution was also a huge factor that added to the epidemic. Then travel began more obtainable, Africans traveled to the US and Europe and vise versa, the "sexual-liberation" happened, significantly more drug use started up, and the rest is history.

It became know as the "gay cancer" in the early 1980s because yes it was more evident among gay men...because obviously gay men can't get pregnant so there was MUCH less concern for condom use. But in no way did it ever START as a gay sickness, it just became public that way.

Now please...instead of looking to the Bible for all your answers, do some real research and sit back and think about who actually WROTE your favorite history book. Oh that's right, a man did. Probably a bunch of men. God's natural order? What are you TALKING about. God never would have made homosexuals if he didn't love them, and he ironically made them stronger than most straight people I know. He is helping them take baby steps toward equality, and he sure as hell wouldn't want people to abuse, judge and deny them rights. I don't know about your God, but mine wants everyone to accept and love each other for who they are. And not use him as a scape goat to promote hate and insecurities.

Mickey - I am aware that you are not he one who called me Catholic - someone else did and I was responding to them. As to the comments made about HIV starting with monkeys - this is theory, not fact. In addition, the greatest population behind the spread of HIV is the g@y population. Please read the recent reports, I think from the CDC, which cites this.

Rebecca - God didn't make g@y people - He made people who chose, of their own volition, to act "g@y"...and yes, He does love them, despite what they are doing. He just isn't going to approve of their destructive behaviors.

And Rebecca, it seems like your posting is chock full of hate and insecurity.....

If I hear one more bull@!$%# excuse for God not being responsible for people being gay because of FREE WILL I am going to puke. Free will is such a stupid cop out concept. There is no such thing as the opposite of free will in anything in nature, so why would anyone believe that free will was a gift to humans from God? You worthless homophobes use free will to make yourselves feel better about your douchebag hatred for what complete strangers do in the privacy of their own bedroom. You should truly be ashamed of yourselves.

Thank you Rebecca!!!!!!!

Oh really? Wow I didn't mean to come off hateful and insecure! I meant to come off slightly annoyed and a little angry that the Bible and religion is still being used as a reference in 2010.

Do you have any idea what these people have had to go through? Why would young people choose this lifestyle? Why would they try every day to be like everyone else only to fail? Why would they put themselves through the abuse, torture and teasing at school? Why would they choose to have to listen to people like you tell them it's wrong, it's immoral it's disgusting to be the way they are?! Why would a 13 year old kill himself for being gay, when all he had to do was choose to be straight? WHY!? Doesn't make much sense does it.

How dare you say that God puts people on this earth with the "freedom to chose to act gay". You have NO idea what you're talking about. Oops, maybe I do sound a little "hateful". But at least I have some education, personal relationships with gay people, and ample research on both sides of the argument to back it up. You on the other hand...have the Bible.

It's pretty easy to tell someone not to have sex, when you can have sex. It's a natural drive that we are all created with. Most people don't get educated about HIV, much less testing and treatment.

As I said above, we are already paying for HIV infections. Cost of lifetime care for an HIV infection is $195,000 lifetime.

Thus, if we can reduce infections we can bring down the cost of health care. It's simple math.

Stop the behavior, stop the disease. Period.

You ARE talking about stupidity and religious dogma, right? ;)

Should we also ban Catholic churches because priests are known to molest children? What does THAT say about the effects of 'too much religion'...?

Rebecca - yes the Bible is still being used, gee, way out here in the oh-so-advanced year of 2010! And it always will be, whether some people like it or not, thankfully. It is a moral compass that is needed, not less over time, but even more so as time goes by. If it were followed, this world would not have all the problems that it has today...

As for the questions you posed about 'why' young people would choose to live as g@y when they face all the stuff that they do - there are many variables but one of the most commmon is that it is a well-known fact that most people, male and female, who choose the g@y life, have been abused in some form when young - emotionally, sexually, physically, etc etc , and/or are products of broken homes, abandonment physically or emotionally - which makes them more vulnerable to confusion about life in general and more vulnerable to the propoganda about drug use, criminal activity, and various other unhealthy choices, including h@mosexuality. And one of the reasons that they may attempt or sadly complete suicide is because they have been brainwashed to A) believe their confusion indicates that they are indeed born g@y and B) believe that because they are born g@y there is no way out of it except death. Sad to say, but true - HIV is not the only cause of death for those who have been fooled into the g@y choice.

And I have know many g@y people too - and the term g@y is certainly a misnomer, since they are anything but gay (in the original meaning of the word) In addition, I have done research also and am also educated - with 4 degrees and a background in clinical and counseling psychology...in addition to my Bible. But, really the Bible is all I need to tell me the truth - the rest of my education and experience is just a testiment to it.

Why don't you choose to add to what you know - pick up His word and read it.

Uhhh excuse me?? I'm having trouble picking my jaw up off the floor after reading such out-landish, offensive and borderline ridiculous statements. And I have studied the Bible, before, during, and after college. Why do you think I think it's so silly to use as a reference. I can't take a book that promotes so much judgement and hate seriously. That's not the God I know. My God is waaayyyyyyy nicer.

there are many variables but one of the most commmon is that it is a well-known fact that most people, male and female, who choose the g@y life, have been abused in some form when young - emotionally, sexually, physically, etc etc , and/or are products of broken homes, abandonment physically or emotionally -

Where and when did you get your degrees? From Looney Toon University?!

And one of the reasons that they may attempt or sadly complete suicide is because they have been brainwashed to A) believe their confusion indicates that they are indeed born g@y and B) believe that because they are born g@y there is no way out of it except death. Sad to say, but true - HIV is not the only cause of death for those who have been fooled into the g@y choice.

Sorry but with statements like those I'm having a VERY hard time accepting your degree claims. Unless you practiced and graduated over 30 years ago and since then have lived in a very small, conservative town with barely any contact with the outside world. And you clearly have never met a truly proud, intelligent and well-balanced gay person.

You can not be an educated person and say such ridiculous things. Three friends of mine, all gay, have come from well-balanced, heterosexual parented homes with no abuse, neglect or confusion. The only abuse and hateful behavior came as a result of their homosexuality from fellow students, teachers, and people like you. So that right there disproves your laughable theory. You know it's funny, every Christian I talk to uses the abuse card...what you all read the same article or something? Or is that what they tell you in church these days?

But, really the Bible is all I need to tell me the truth - the rest of my education and experience is just a testiment to it.

And that right there says it alllll folks. Such a credible source right? It's been disproved in so many instances and science will keep on disproving it. One day there may not be anything in there that ever really happened. Have fun with your fairy tales in your history book, but know that it's not doing you any favors.

And God will not be a happy camper when you get to those pearly gates and stick your nose up at all the homosexyness you see in heaven, so you might as well get over it now before you have to answer to the big guy.

Rebecca,

On the contrary, the Bible keeps disproving science "theories". Dead Sea Scrolls for example. Archaic findings, etc. Oh yeah and how about the hundreds of prophecies that have come to fruition from the Bible. Only a nonbeliever like yourself would ever put "science, monkeys, big bang theory, and aliens over the Bible!

Pooteeweet, what's with the fear of even typing the word GAY (g@y)??? Are you afraid if you type the word "gay"... that's G-A-Y, you're going to "catch it" or something, honey? Poor uneducated thing... at least the brainwashing you received as a kid (oops, I mean the bible study) gives your shallow self something to which you can latch on... poor misguided thing, I'd hate my CURRENT life to be so empty that all I can do is judge others and look forward to death.. oops again, salvation! LOL

Rebecca - Since obviously you do not know the 'big guy', or know or accept what He says, you won't have to worry about seeing what happens to me when I get there - because you won't be.

If you actually were educated and had actually done research, you would know that what I have written is supported by decades of longitudinal research...since well before you were born, I'm sure.

And if you were indeed interested in obtaining the truth and having an informed discussion, you would read the Bible and then get back to me. But you won't. Neither will you do the scientific research that backs up what I say. But that's ok - your choice. And since that is the case, we really cannot have an equal discussion and your words have no valid basis whatsoever....I mean, since you do not choose the Bible or actual research to base your statements upon...

So you have three friends who are g@y..and supposedly happy? Three? And that is your basis of opinion? Hardly a vast number from which to draw a valid conclusion, I'd say, for someone who claims to put such value on science.......

Have a good time fuming - I have a life to go back to - ya know, where I use the truth to actually help people - instead of condoning, encouraging, and supporting unhealthy behaviors that will cause them and their loved ones heartbreak and loss, like you do.

And by the way, whenever it is that I do see the 'big guy', I'll really try and mention your name...but it won't do you any good, unless you know His. See ya (or not?)

every single mammalian species has homosexuals and zero animals pray. You christians should be mocked for your CHOICES to believe in a magical sky daddy, not the perfectly natural, displayed in actual nature, actions of gays.

Chasinmiami - I don't type the full word g@y because sometimes filters selectively censor the actual word, for some reason. And by the way, do you feel better now? I mean, since what you said contributed to the discussion so wonderfully?

Four degrees and you didn't learn anything useful? Pooteeweet - in case you havn't noticed, you are in the EXTREME minority here. Worthless h@m@ph@be.

pooteeweet - I want to see scanned, notarized copies of your four degrees. I will provide an email address you can send them to. Until then, I call total B$^L$H^T!

Loudmouth - using the Bible to disprove science is a total contradiction and is a pointless comment to any rational person. How does the Bible "disprove' science? Scientific theories are changed by....dundundun....SCIENCE!!! It's called the scientific method. Claiming to disprove science using methods such as revelation, theosophy, and really crappy idosyncratic logic doesn't count. Neither does trying to twist historical events to fit some "prophecy". Neither does putting the cart before the horse by shoehorning "God" into the mix after the fact . Sorry. I love it when religious people claim that they have "scientific evidence" that their totally non-scientific beliefs are true. It comese down to The Law of Rapidly Diminishing Returns - religious people can't REALLY rely on faith to prove their claims. The rapidly diminishing returns on things like prayer and faith healing are such that their claims have to be quickly propped up by really bad bad "science" or "logic". Haha. When God can help an amputee regrow an arm, then I'll believe in something like prayer healing.

pooteeweet

Rebecca - yes the Bible is still being used, gee, way out here in the oh-so-advanced year of 2010! And it always will be, whether some people like it or not, thankfully. It is a moral compass that is needed, not less over time, but even more so as time goes by. If it were followed, this world would not have all the problems that it has today..."

Right. If only the world today were as calm and peaceful as the world in the Bible, it would be like living in Utopia. Get real! More people have died in the name of religion than for any other reason! That is the antithesis of peace that a moral compass should provide.

If you need a 2000 year old book to be moral you have a fundamental flaw that requires a mental health professional!

Amen to that, JerseyJP... I got in trouble in Sunday school when I was 5 for saying the same thing! Funny how often the innocense of childhood can often let you see the light in a neutral hue. Who (besides the Great Fairy Tale and its unlimited interpretations... which, of course, are ALL steadfastly correct!) is to say what is immoral and what is not so long as others are not adversely affected.

Ohhh pooteeweet. Do I REALLY have to quote the Bible and refer to specific verses to get you to believe I have studied it? Because I really hate doing that, and it's so boring for everyone else to have to skim through. And if you felt that way then you yourself would post the specific details to back up your argument, but lord knows you don't want to take the time to do some last minute research to post some bogus website or quote up on a discussion board to prove a point that's completely illogical. Haha you can say I don't have knowledge of either side to form such a strong argument but that's fine, you can think I just woke up one day and decided to support gay rights.

The truth is if I didn't know both sides I would probably not have an opinion at all. But AFTER all the studying, research and interviews I needed to write all my papers in college on homosexuality and their portrayal in the American public and in the media, I formed a strong and very supported argument that people like you need religion as a rock in their life, and without it...you would be lost. It's very sad.

Yes I have three friends gay friends who are well-balanced and respectable members of the gay community. You don't think that's a lot? Well it's more than you know isn't it. But then again you may choose to only expose yourself to certain kinds of people don't you? That's also very sad. I thought Christians were supposed to be compassionate, loving people....how they have proved us all wrong.

I know God's got my back sweetheart because I'm a good person. No I don't follow the Bible. I've had pre-marital sex, I curse, I support homosexuality and I love to drink wine and get a little tipsy, I love me some shellfish, I don't believe in slavery, I don't think Mary had a baby without getting it on, blah blah blah. And I believe in evolution, not adam and eve frolicking in a beautiful garden. But I am a better person than most, I go out of my way to help those in need, and I fight for what I believe in. So yeah...I will be seeing God, I don't need a book to tell me that.

Rebecca - taking a quick break for a final post - you want scripture: here is some you don't want to believe in:

In response to your statement that you are a good person: Matt 19:1: "...no one is good but one, that is, God." God can't have your back because you are good, because you aren't. Neither am I, or anyone, good in our own right...Rom 3:23 : "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." One of the meanings of glory in the Bible is the presence of God. So all of us fall short of being able to be in the presence of God, due to an inherently sinful nature.

And yes, you will be seeing God, we all will - but unless you belong to Him, how you will see Him is as He is turning away from you and saying: Matt 7:23 "...I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness." Another word for lawlessness is rebellion, in this case rebellion against God, His ways, His word, His salvation through His Son. And it seems clear from all your posts and your last paragraph in this post that you indeed are in rebellion. We ALL are until we accept what God says as true, and accept His son Christ as payment for our sin and rebelliousness. THEN and only THEN we are good THROUGH His Son. THEN and only THEN can we be in His presence. You can't buy into a relationship with Him, or buy into Heaven on your own merit - John 14:6: "Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me,""

But since you are such a Bible scholar, you must already know these things. The problem is that you don't believe it. Well, thats a problem you have that I just can't fix...I'm just here to present the truth...and now I don't have to worry about Ezekial 33:6 - I'll let you look that one up for yourself.

Have a good day - and walk in the truth. God can use a person of your passion for His cause.

pooteeweet -- Did you READ the article, or are you just commenting based on other people's comments? AIDS is NOT a "gay" disease!! Yes, out of 1 million cases IN THE US, about 50% of those involve gay/bisexual men. BUT... and this is a HUGE but... of the 40 MILLION cases worldwide, gay/bisexual men account for ONLY 5-10 PERCENT. So, my math indicates that about 90-95% of HIV infections involve Women and NON-Gay/NON-Bisexual Men.

A slapfight? That was probably unintentional, but it made me giggle.

Gay or any kind sex does not spread HIV. it is having unprotected SEX PERIOD. it does not matter who and what your sexual preference is. People like you, who seems to be holier than thou are probrably the ones doing you S--t in the dark, then out here pretending to be "NORMAL" whatever that is. GOD said vengence is mine. He did not leave another human being here to judge others. Each one of us has to stand before GOD come judgement day. For all of you out here playing CHRISTIAN, Read: Romans 12:9-21. From what I've been seeing it will be hard for some of you.

pooteetweet, (nice little alternate name for a fart, there), according to the Bible, ANY sex outside marriage is immoral. For that matter, anal and oral sex within marriage are, according to the Bible, immoral, because it deviates from the "natural use of the woman." Go look that up if you don't believe me.
Frankly, I don't see what two people do behind their bedroom door is any business of yours, mine, or anyone else's.
What makes my blood boil in this article is that this drug is an AIDS treatment and will cost anyone (male or female, gay, bi, or straight- ifyou think AIDS only strikes gays or those who indulge in anal sex, you had better think again) who needs it thousands of dollars here in the US, while it is available overseas as a generic for so very much less. There, it's around 39 cents per day, where here it is going to run $10 a pill, unless I miss my guess.

While abstinence is the only way to prevent this disease from being sexually transmitted 100%, it isn't feasible to assume that it is going to happen. Why not do everything we can to help prevent the disease from spreading? Ignoring the disease and standing on a soap box preaching your convictions on homosexuality accomplishes nothing. You don't have to condone one's lifestyle to care about them as a human being.

CAS Reaves - The pharmaceutical companies make their money on the brand name medicines in America. This pays for the research needed to develop these drugs. Yes, they make a good profit off of these, which is part of the motivation for them to dive into possible cures. Could they survive some cost cuts? Probably. Can they afford to give everyone the pill at $.39? No. What we are paying for is the technology and development of the pill. Without this, the generic would never exist.

I am really, really enjoying the spectacle of a self-described good Christian lamenting this study and this drug because it might alleviate certain people's suffering.

It's somewhere between infuriatingly evil and hilariously hypocritical. Jesus must be so proud.

Well, direction, I'd rather be able to pay for a generic, as we are currently a one-income family and we need the price break.

No matter where it started, no matter whether it was or is predominately within the gay men community, it is a world epidemic and not isolated to gay men or women, it effects all genders no matter sexual preferences. I am heterosexual, single and over 50, I enjoy sex and enjoy the companionship of many women. I am cautious and careful about my personal behavior, because you just never know who has come before you (no pun intended). If they can develop a pill, a vaccination, anything that limits the risks, better for everyone. You can not tell by outwards appearances, life style or any other indicator, who might be a carrier. It has nothing to do with morality, stop projecting personal morals on everyone else just because you are totally monogamous and prefer one partner for life, most of the world doesnt. Take it for what it worth and stop passing judgement, the years of research are paying off and perhaps one day they will find a cure and/or a way to stop it all together. The medical researchers are making incredible progress in finding ways to stop certain cancers and other diseases. Thanks to stem cell research there will be many more breakthroughs which many of the religious zealots will complain about also.

I am willing to bet that HIV started in the HETERO community then jumped to the gay community. It simply increased quicker in the gay community.

Remember the ignorance surrounding AIDS in the early '80. People thought it was a "fact" that only gay men could get it. AIDS has probably been around a lot longer then people think, it was only recently that medical science discover it and gave it a name. People have been dying from strange wasting illnesses for eons.

The AIDS virus preys on humans, NOT one demographic of humans.

If you're a heterosexual male with no drug activity, your risk of getting HIV is less than getting run over while crossing the street. If you're concerned about HIV, then do some volunteer work on behalf of people who are really at risk.

In Africa, HIV is far more prevalent in heterosexual communities. We are under the delusion that America is the center of the universe and whatever occurs here must occur everywhere else.

Really, j-681078? I work at a blood plasma donation center, and it's sad to see so many young, STRAIGHT, drug-free kids come back positive for HIV/AIDS and Hep-C. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Just carelessness with their sexual activity.

Amen! At least one person in here has some common sense.

The ignorant homophobes here should try to learn a bit about HIV. Worldwide 2/3rds of all AIDS cases come from straight sex. Only 5% or 10% come from gay male sex, and lesbians have the lowest rate of all.

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

Most likely the eating of "bush meat" is what caused the virus to originally pass into the human population.

That doesn't make sense - I thought lesbians eat bush meat. Sorry ...

If christians weren't busy forcing their beliefs on the public school systems so they can teach responsible sexual practices instead of your ignorant opinions on sexual education, all sexually transmitted diseases would be transmitted at a lower rate. there are tons of studies showing the higher the role religion plays on a particular society, the higher rates of teenage pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases. Your willful ignorance hurts others and the worse part is you dont care, just as long as everyone believes in your sky daddy.

Hehe, Future, but I do believe skrekk was referring to African "bushmeat" (wild animals in West and Central Africa that are now becoming endangered because of the overhunting.....there was a story on MSNBC recently about it.)

Phew! Thanks anti-trust ... I was not looking forward to telling my girlfriend that bushmeat is off my menu.

Sorry...have to say it...that is actually the most productive conversation on this whole vine. Dodged that abstinence bullet.

I have to agree with JerseyJ9 that education - uncomplicated, straightforward EDUCATION is what is needed in schools to reduce STD infections and teenage pregnancies. It is too bad that every single school is either shackled by religious fundamentalists or unable to afford some of the things necessary. Take, for example, the robot "babies." Think there wouldn't be less teen pregnancy if every single high school freshman had to spend a semester taking one of THOSE home every night, set to "cranky" no less, for a couple of months? Talk about your birth control device! As part of that same course, they should be REQUIRED to visit a hospice and talk to or at least observe the plight of AIDS patients in their last stages of life. Also effective. My Human Sexuality college textbook has photos of the physical effects of non-lethal STDs. UGLY, those...
Yes, education is the key to prevention for all of those problems, but too many parents refuse to see to it that their kids get that education.

They all have the choice to not engage in dangerous sex, straight or gay. It is not the govt.'s responsibility to be responsible for those having dangerous sex.

Defining what is "dangerous sex" is debatable, in both the gay and straight worlds. We must also recognize reality that people will have sex, some more risky than others. The primary point to my comment is that (right or wrong) you and me as a taxpayer can either may a reasonable amount to help prevent HIV, or we can pay about $100,000 per infected person to treat the disease. If I have to make a choice on which to pay (and I do), then I would rather pay the least expensive (prevention).

We don't have to do either. It is not the govt's choice to force us to pay for this. It is totally preventable, yet, "it is no big deal, the govt. is going to pay for our care if we get it." That doesn't promote any personally responsbility, just a safety net for when you screw up.

Ken & willowbrook, this reads like you two are having a debate arguing the same point. Both of you argue in favor of abstinence yet are afraid to admit it.

willowbrook - car "accidents" are totally preventable too. So is the flu. So are the many other diseases for which there is a vaccine. Does this mean that we shouldn't pay taxes if they go to vaccination programs? Does this mean we shouldn't pay for auto insurance?

bbloomer - I supposed you could say that, but, Ken and I do not see eye to eye as to who should pay for this. He is saying the govt., I am not. I prefer to see some personal responsibility, Ken says it's going to happen, no matter what. As long as those involved in having dangerous sex do not take responsibility for their actions, we will have no real progress in the fight against AIDS. Giving them a pill and saying, "it's OK honey" is not the solution.

To Marcher - driving a car is not a dangerous behavior. But, driving a car irresponsibly, like having dangerous sex, is a bad choice. A choice that can kill you. What is wrong with making a good choice rather than a bad one? (We do have more intelligence than an amoeba.....Well, most of us.....)

I can agree with that willowbrook, I misread your arguments.

Driving a car is dangerous behavior. Even if you're a responsible driver you can't count on every other driver being equally responsible. So driving is a bad choice.

So, willowbrook, if someone contracted AIDS from a blood transfusion (Ryan White and a lot of others), you would be okay with the government health care system paying for this drug? If someone contracted AIDS from her dentist nicking himself and infecting her while removing a wisdom tooth (blood exchange, no doing of the VIRGIN victim), you'd be okay with it? ONLY in those cases, I take it?
Wow - you need to read Matthew, chapter 7. Try and get the first five verses at least.

Dr David Acer, her dentist, deliberately injected Kimberly Bergalis with his own AIDS-infected blood so that she would develop the disease. He likely had his brain affected by his own illness, but according to his journals, he was distressed that the scientific community wasn't moving forward with treatments. Because of this he decided that other people than homosexuals should be infected with the illness. Ms Bergalis was Dr Acer's unfortunate victim.

DANG, Peridot - now THAT I had not read. Thank you for the additional information. When I first heard of it (a decade or two ago, ahem, ahem) what I posted was what was known at that time.
Thanks again.

@ CAS Reeves - The article is about gay men having dangerous sex, not Ryan White or health care professionals. I never addressed those situations as they were not the topic of the article. Totally different situation.

That's Reaves (spelled plainly at the top of my post) and you can NOT separate one group from another when dispensing medical treatment. If you withhold from one, you must withhold from all. Discrimination smacks of the Tuskegee experiment, but I guess that, since those were just Black people, it was OK (with YOU) to TELL them they were being treated for syphilis when in reality they were being given placebos so that the progression of the disease could be studied - at the expense of the subjects' minds and lives. What YOU seem to have missed is that the study cited in the article is only preliminary, using the highest-risk group possible. Other groups, including heterosexual women, will no doubt be studied in future.
Of course, if a woman's husband is having sex on the down-low and infects her with HIV, I'm sure it's OK with YOU to withhold this treatment from her because her (nominally straight) husband was having gay sex, and, of course, she should somehow know about it...

Get a grip REAVES, no they do not need to be lumped together and still you are off topic. The article is talking about giving gays and bi-sexuals a pill that will reduce their likelihood, (if they still us a condom) of contracting aids. If they want to buy the pill themselves, let them. It is not the American taxpayer's responsibility to pay for this pill for them so they can continue (or increase their ability) to engage in dangerous sexual behavior.

There is no discrimination involved here, they are different groups with different needs. The pill is an optional/preventative treatment. It is not being used in this instance as a medical treatment for a disease the patient already has. Please come back when you are ready to talk about the article.

No, the article cited a study saying that it was shown to WORK for gay men. Further studies will probably show it to be effective for other groups - they just haven't gotten around to them yet.
The possibilities are endless.
HOW many health-care workers have contracted HIV from needle sticks?
If this medication could be made safer and affordable, it could be used in that capacity, as well, thus preventing those tragedies.
That's just ONE example. I doubt even the more rabid homophobes could deny the possibilities for this compound.

amulstay,

Unfortunately, it will not be affordable to all men. Perhaps if you're willing to give up eating, you might be able to afford the $5,000 to $14,000 per year that these pills cost. I doubt that the health insurance companies will not pay for it.

Hopefully, Mickey, the American consumer can start to put more pressure on the pharmaceuticals to sell the same generics to the US at the same price they sell them for in the foreign countries. However, if you take the 39¢/day cost in some of those foreign countries at their currency exchange rate, it may be costing them the same price as here in the US.

anti-trust proponent,

That's a good suggestion. We need more generic drugs. I think part of the reason for the low cost of these drugs in Africa, aside from the fact that they are using generics, is the huge amount of foreign aid to help AIDS victims in Africa. That money is being used to subsidize the cost of these drugs in those countries.

Navid173...Where I think it is a good thing that research is being done and discoveries are being made the most effective way to protect against and STD is to abstain until you have one partner who has also abstained or at least tested clear from STD"s.

As for the Government paying for this treatment...Why is it the "responsibility" of the Government to pay for either preventative or cure for a self-imposed illness? Where I feel that it is reasonable for the Government to cover the treatment and care of a child born with aids in the absence of a responsible adult I don't think it is the Governments business to offer up protections in matters of choice for any consensual sexual behavior. The principle of "your body your choice" hold here.

While abstinence if the only guaranteed was to avoid STIs (unless you get an infected blood transfusion or are otherwise in contact with sources of STIs), it's not realistic. People are sexual. People will have sex while dating and those people may or may not stay together forever. They might even think that they will stay together forever, and then break up for some reason.

Whether it is reasonable for the government to pay for this preventative treatment is entirely dependent on a cost benefit analysis. If this prevents 75% of infections then there is a 75% reduction in post-infection costs. If the increase in cost of preventative treatment is less than or equal to the cost of post-infection treatment, then it's better to prevent than to treat. Note that this completely ignores the quality of life of the infected person (which undoubtedly is better if they aren't infected).

Marcher but here is an interesting point. If those, capable minded and physically able, who are actually accountable for their own actions will accept them then there is no need for the cost basis analysis and each would cover their own responsibility for cost of care. With regard to the aspects of consensual adult sex.

Probably the same thing that is being done for men who are being infected by women daily.

This study was done on just gay men because they are a heavily researched group of individuals. The pill is already used for healthcare workers men and women to attempt to prevent infection when a possible infection could happen. Nothing in the study says it can't be just as useful on other people. This combo of counseling and pill will help both men and women.

Actually, women to man transmission is extremely low, it is the male sperm that carries the highest concentration of the virus. and you are the carriers of HPV which gives us cancer. you men should take responsibility for yourselves.

The article clearly states that research is now being done on other sexual arrangements.

Another reason why women should insist on the use of condoms when having sex, just as male-male sex should always involve condoms.

The simplest solution is to make all sex acts illegal.

Hehe, Severed!

Severed, honey, they tried that with alcohol - remember the Prohibition era?

HCS, no doubt they will conduct a study for use in women as well as men.
Think about the potential to use this drug to prevent HIV infection among healthcare workers.

Simple answer is patents. If the drug company can't protect their research and make money off it, then they have no use in doing research for more novel drugs. It certainly sucks they charge us an arm and a leg, but unless the system is completely changed, they gotta do what they gotta do to protect their property. Could you imagine what Apple would say if a company in the states released a generic iPhone? It would have all the same functions and run all the same programs and frequent all the same Apple stores using all the same computer code. Apple would be upset, and rightfully so. They spent a lot of money coming up with their product, and don't want somebody using their research to produce a cheap copy of it taking away their profit.

Further. If it cost you 100 bucks to bring something to market, and only 2 people are buying it at 30 cents a year, it will take you a while to make your money back. So for those drug companies to make their money back, they need to charge a lot more so that by the time their patent runs out, they will have made back their 100 bucks and then some. Doing anything less would be bad business.

So either the government takes over all research, and then everybody produces generics, or these companies charge big bucks. Either way, it will cost a lot of money for the products to come to market. You either pay for it in taxes or in insurance premiums.

The point is that the pharmaceuticals are selling their own pills as "generics" in other countries, rather than under their brand name. It's not a case of someone copping their formula and producing a "similar" generic product. This is how the pharmaceuticals have been screwing the American public for decades. They make us pay for the research that they then give away to the rest of the world.

Asking grown men to not have sex is like asking a lion to not eat meat. Adults of both sexes and sexual orientation will have sex. Fact is, the vast majority of the population doesn't wait till they are married either. If gay men can't get married, you would in essence be telling them they can't ever have sex with somebody they find compatible. That would be like telling a straight guy you can't have sex with a woman, but we will allow you to have sex with a man. Doesn't seem to tempting to the straight guy.

"That would be like telling a straight guy you can't have sex with a woman, but we will allow you to have sex with a man. Doesn't seem to tempting to the straight guy."

Apparently it is tempting to prison inmates.

Laureen,

i cant stop laughing at your ignorant suggestion. Stop eating because some foods make you sick and PLEASE stop breathing because air has carcinogens in it. Stop going to the lake and swimming because there are bacteria in there too. How about you just stop living, because you MAY get sick and need a pill!!

Alur - Not my morals, but God's. Not my judgment, but God's. ..read His word, and then take it up with Him if you think His morals and His judgements are wrong.

In addition, if we first protest the immoral action, then we will not have to protest the expense of violating it, since we will have avoided the expense. Get thing in correct order, ok?

The words you mention are written and imagined by humans, not a supernatural. In any case, how about a little compassion and let judgement and we can have a little less conflict. I am sure I have been around as many religious zealots are you have, and I find that they are antagonistic, judgemental, and hypocritical. Not my brand of philosophy.

Shame and blame is certainly a way to show that you have the right way to god. If there is a religion that is compassionate to those that are ill, it would be good to follow it.

Alur - It is difficult to have compassion when someone willfully chooses to throw common sense and caution to the wind and to purposely live a life of dangerous behavior that opens themselves up to dangerous things...things that can also threaten the lives of others who did not choose the danger!

However, you might note that warning people is a form of compassion - to save them before the horrible consequences occur. If you were about to step in front of a speeding bus, I would call out a warning to you - and hopefully you would listen, no matter what tone of voice I used - and it would probably be LOUD and INSISTENT since I would not want to see you injured or killed! Compassion comes in many forms, my friend. Don't complain about what form - as long as you are saved from destructions.

How do you "save" someone from something they are born with? Can you save a person from being blue-eyed, left-handed, super tall or super short, one leg shorter than the other, and the list goes on. Get off of your religious high horse, and accept that not everyone believes in your religion or your view of "God's" word.

Poot, mind your business. How about that. you wanna believe in fairy tales written by ignorant humans, knock yourself out, but dont impose your ignorance on others. No one wants saving from your boogy man. if you want to be afraid of nothing that is your choice. your belief in the christian religion is a CHOICE, and you should be mocked for that choice. But get off your high horse and dont act like you know something that your comepletely ignorant about.

Anti-trust - God's word is God's word. It is what it is and I present it as it is, not my "view" of it. If you want to know what it says, try reading it for yourself. And seeing that you, as do many, erroneously believe that being g@y is innate, check out this link to many articles that state otherwise, including certain g@y activists that in a rare moment of honesty have stated that there is NO g@y gene - meaning that no one is born that way. Which means it is a choice, pure and simple...and in God's eyes, something to be saved from, as is all sin.

Jersey - I wouldn't talk about others being ignorant, although judging from the content of your own posts you must certainly know first hand what ignorant is.......

I'm sitting here chuckling at "throwing common sense and caution to the wind." I suppose, when I was young and had a raging case of what I call "Triple-I Syndrome" ( I thought I was Invincible, Invulnerable and Immortal) and "threw common sense and caution to the winds" to gallop my horse hellbent-for-leather bareback and without a helmet, I should have been refused medical treatment if I had been thrown and broken my neck or back.

...and those who encourage or condone it - we call them 'enablers' (or liberals)!!

....or Merck, Eli Lilly, Glaxo Smith Kline, Abbott Laboratories, Pfizer or Bristol-Meyers

Oh, yeah--only alcoholics and gays get HIV.... Wow, stupidity is so rampant here.

Yes, Bart, you own is rampant here, since you entirely missed JobSeeker's point.

or "Christian"... hatred is destructive to others.

What do you call someone who engages in destructive behavior and continues to do it?

An automobile driver? An apartment dweller? Generally speaking, an American? Or am I missing the point? OH! I know, you must be some of those things and not an alcoholic or gay, therefore you can't include those other pesky items on your list. Then your hypocrisy would be obvious instead of hidden.

Too young to have grown any brains yet?

The fact that homosexuals want acceptance by the broader society by way of marriage, gay pride parades and successfully getting the APA to declare homosexuality as absolutely normal, tells me that gay people know they are mentally ill and desperately need support. If someone is comfortable with oneself, they wouldn't care what other people think of them.

Right on, Job Seeker - their desparate attempts to convince others that their choice of lifestyle is ok is really a desperate attempt to convince themselves.

Job seeker your comment couldnt be anymore ignorant if the pope said it himself. It is changed because our knowledge of human biology has changed, technology has advanced and so has our understanding. unlike your 2000 year old book that never changes, just the lies requires to make it appear pertinent to today's society, science changes it's opinion to the latest information from verifiable peer reviewed studies.

JobSeeker and pooteeweet, you are both clearly developmentally disabled. I mean that sincerely. I'm responding only because I believe you need help. You have absolutely no awareness of differential social power or its effects on individuals, families, or communities. Heteronormativity has a stranglehold on the United States more than any other Western industrialized country, which results in homosexuals being continually and insistently denigrated in very overt ways.

OBVIOUSLY they would want to make up some of that power differential, denigration, and abuse by sticking up for themselves - which takes an enormous amount of courage for which they should be applauded. Straight people don't need parades or the APA's approval or the government's sanction, they already have all of that everywhere you look, and not because they're on some moral high ground. It's because the government has a deeply vested interest in maintaining the most profitable social and familial structure for them. Read about it, it's out there, I promise. Look up anti-miscegenation laws, coverture laws, and JS Mill's work on the treatment of women. This homophobia is just a continuation of what has already been happening for centuries to women and non-WASPs in the US.

OBVIOUSLY gay communities have a tangible and urgent need to counteract the massive momentum of the exaltation of the heterosexual "ideal" being rammed down our throats every day simply because it is invariably accompanied by injurious treatment of gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals. It's hurting innocent people. You jerks are hurting innocent people. Anyone who still thinks it's a choice is not even worth my spit. Ridiculous. Why would anyone choose to be demeaned on a daily basis if they could choose otherwise? Do you have any idea how painful that is? When did you choose to be straight, guys? Oh, you didn't??

JerseyJ9, you're absolutely right. Thank you for your rational comment. Don't expect anything other than rabid ignorance from people like this.

Oh, and by the by, pooteeweet, I call foul and smelly BS on your outlandish claim to have any kind of degree at all. Your grammar, syntax, and spelling errors belie your uneducated glorious ignorance. You can't even keep your spelling errors consistent!

In addition, HIV is not a solely or even primarily gay problem. If it were the consequence of immoral behavior, why are gay women not also infected at similar rates? Why do they have the lowest risk of transmission? Does God like lesbians but not gay men? Or is it just that you are turned on by lesbians but not guys? Keep your religious views to yourself the way you'd like gay men to keep their sexual orientation to themselves. By your logic, both are personal choices so they should be subject to the same governing principles. In short, go away.

POOTEEWEET -- When you write, "...desparate attempts to convince others that their choice of lifestyle is ok is really a desperate attempt to convince themselves"... does that apply to you and our trumpeting about the Bible and what you BELIEVE in?

Sarfaz - your pretentious and pathetic attempts at disparagment amuse me. I always love liberals when they rage...fun to wind them up and off they go.....on another tangent to show how truly lost and foolish they are.........

EECT - I don't involve myself in abberant behavior therefore I don't need to pathetically attempt to convince myself. How about you?

Nice try, pooteeweet. "Pretentious" is code for "too smart for me to comprehend" in the religious extremist wing-nut lexicon. Sorry, I thought you had four degrees! Ha! What's the matter, too lazy to address anything I said? Or is your reading comprehension just too deficient? And you don't know anything about me, so the rest of your comment is just...well, pathetic, to be frank. You can always tell how desperate you crazies are when you start throwing around the word "liberal" as a pejorative, and also when your ellipses get super-long. I have a couple of suggestions. First, invest in spellcheck, or even an old-fashioned dictionary, before you start misrepresenting yourself. Second, try extra hard next time not to sound so incredibly dumb.

Oh, and by the way, your religious fundamentalism is aberrant (yeah, you spelled that wrong, too - which is only relevant because you threw that pretentious and preposterous claim about having four degrees at us). EECT is completely correct. You're just mad that everyone called you out.

your mental disorder of religious beliefs are anabomination, as well as a CHOICE!!!

I have a great way to stop heart attacks: stop eating meat! Great way to stop cancer: Stop smoking! Great way to stop drunk driving: Stop drinking alcohol! Great way to stop obesity: Stop eating like a pig!

So many great ideas--all of which we can easily do!

So true if not for human hedonism!

Bart, your last two examples make sense, the first two are debateable.

Humans are omnivores. That means we were designed to eat meat and vegetation. Born that way, so to speak. As far as red meat causing heart-attacks, that is totally bogus. Yeah, red meat can increase HDLs but don't cause heart failure.

Too many people die from too many different forms of cancer to narrow the cause down to just the tobacco industry. I realize that smoking is not the smartest thing to do, introducing nicotine and tar into your lungs thereby weakening them, but it is also not the sole cause of any cancer. Or, at least, not as far as I have ever heard or read. There are many other sources, one being genetic, that can make one susceptible to cancer.

ralph, that wouldn't stop the AIDS problem at all. Maybe 40% of new American cases are homosexuals, and maybe 90% of all new cases are caused sexually, but there are still a number of new cases that are caused through other means of exchanging infected fluids...check that out.

Additionally, humans are not monogamous. We like to try to be, but the reality is that we all cheat, lie, and sleep around. Societal norms make most of us keep our behaviour a secret, which actually only harms others because nobody gets checked for STIs when they are in a so-called monogamous relationship

Bart, neither me or the kidney I lost to cancer ever smoked.

willowbrook, neither Ryan White nor the girl who contracted HIV from her dentisst during a wisdom tooth removal ever had sex, either, but they both got AIDS. Should this drug have been withheld from THEM, had it been available?

I see pooteetweet has no answer for my question about withholding this drug from the innocent. Have you not come up with any doctrine covering the situation?
willowbrook, a lot of people who have died of AIDS have never been homosexual, either.

Well, Ralph, IF You could get people to do that, it would be a start, but there are still myriad other ways to get this disease. How do you propose to deal with those that have nothing to do with sex?

Putting your Penis inside a Mans rectum or allowing a man to put his penis in your rectum caused God to destroy everybody in Sodom not just the gays. Think about that!! even the child molesters, rapists, Thief and Murderer were allowed mercy but the sin of homosexuality was Gods call to action to kill them all.

David -
Not with you on the God issue, but otherwise you seem to have the right idea. Think about it, why don't you put pizza in your nose? Simple, because it just doesn't belong there - its the wrong hole...

"...but the sin of homosexuality was Gods call to action to kill them all..."

Ahh... the spoken words of CHRISTIANS.

David, Chief

I suggest that all of you grow up and focus on the medical aspects of this article instead of acting like a bunch of junior high schoolers whispering about the sex acts and lifestyles with which you don't agree. Some people who call themselves Christians do not present an attractive picture of their religion.

Me thinks thou doeth protest too loudly, David.

Hmmmmmm...

David sure does think about anal sex. More than most people here. Why is that?

Since somebody decided to bring up the old testament, here are some other little gem stones of biblical study:

The Bible on Human Sacrifice:

Josiah Sacrifices the Infidels

At the LORD's command, a man of God from Judah went to Bethel, and he arrived there just as Jeroboam was approaching the altar to offer a sacrifice. Then at the LORD's command, he shouted, "O altar, altar! This is what the LORD says: A child named Josiah will be born into the dynasty of David. On you he will sacrifice the priests from the pagan shrines who come here to burn incense, and human bones will be burned on you." 1 Kings 13:1-2

Jephthah sacrifices his daughter to God

" And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD. He said, "If you give me victory over the Ammonites, I will give to the LORD the first thing coming out of my house to greet me when I return in triumph. I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering."

"So Jephthah led his army against the Ammonites, and the LORD gave him victory. He thoroughly defeated the Ammonites from Aroer to an area near Minnith – twenty towns – and as far away as Abel-keramim. Thus Israel subdued the Ammonites. When Jephthah returned home to Mizpah, his daughter – his only child – ran out to meet him, playing on a tambourine and dancing for joy. When he saw her, he tore his clothes in anguish. "My daughter!" he cried out. "My heart is breaking! What a tragedy that you came out to greet me. For I have made a vow to the LORD and cannot take it back." And she said, "Father, you have made a promise to the LORD. You must do to me what you have promised, for the LORD has given you a great victory over your enemies, the Ammonites. But first let me go up and roam in the hills and weep with my friends for two months, because I will die a virgin." "You may go," Jephthah said. And he let her go away for two months. She and her friends went into the hills and wept because she would never have children. When she returned home, her father kept his vow, and she died a virgin. - - Judges 11:30-39

The Bible on Women

Wives are property

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
-- Exodus 20:17

Women should not speak in Church

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
-- I Corinthians 14:34-35

I now pronounce you Rapist and Wife.

If a man [meets] a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her ... He must marry the girl ... He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
-- Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Kill “Lewd Women”, stone and stab to death their children:

And the righteous men, they shall judge them after the manner of adulteresses, and after the manner of women that shed blood; because they are adulteresses, and blood is in their hands. For thus saith the Lord GOD; I will bring up a company upon them, and will give them to be removed and spoiled. And the company shall stone them with stones, and dispatch them with their swords; they shall slay their sons and their daughters, and burn up their houses with fire. -- Ezekiel 23:45-48

Young virgin girls are war booty but GENOCIDE for everyone else.

“They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man........Now kill all the boys [innocent kids]. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl [Girl, NOT WOMAN as specified earlier, as in female child] who has never slept with a man [as in for sexual purposes]. Numbers 31:7,17-18

The Bible on Children

Children are invulnerable to bludgeoning [except when they aren’t]

Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.
-- Proverbs 23:13

Kill kids that don’t do what they are told:

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son ... Then shall his father and his mother ... bring him out unto the elders of his city ... And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die.
-- Deuteronomy 21:18-21

God kills children for making fun of a bald guy

Some small boys came out of the city and jeered at Elisha, saying, "Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!" And ... he cursed them in the name of the Lord. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys.
-- II Kings 2:23-24

God orders child sacrifice

God did tempt Abraham, ... And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest ... and offer him there for a burnt offering...
-- Genesis 22:1-2 (AV)

The Bible on Slavery

Slavery is Good, Being against Slavery is Bad

... all who are under the yoke of slavery ... who have believing masters ... must serve all the better since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these duties. If any one teaches otherwise ... he is puffed up with conceit, he knows nothing; he has a morbid craving for controversy..., which produce envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among men who are depraved in mind...
-- I Timothy 6:1-5 (RSV)

Slavery or Genocide all in one place commanded by God

When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. . . . This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

Take land by force of Genocide

However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. –Deuteronomy 20:10-17

Rules for Selling your teenage daughter

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. –Exodus 21:7-8

Mark your slaves by mutilating their ears.

Thou shalt take an [awl], and thrust it through his ear..., and he shall be thy servant forever.
-- Deuteronomy 15:17

Foreigners as Slaves

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. Leviticus 25:44-45

The Bible on War:

What to do after conquering a city; Genocide

When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations . . . then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. Deuteronomy 7:1-2

Just in case you missed it the first time: GENOCIDE!!!

However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. -- Deuteronomy 20:16

Killing the children of conquered Babylon should make you Happy

O daughter of Babylon, O destroyed one, O the happiness of him who repayeth to thee thy deed, That thou hast done to us. O the happiness of him who doth seize, And hath dashed thy sucklings [nursing children] on the rock! -- Psalm 137:8-9

Samaria punished with Genocide, infanticide and mutilating pregnant women for not being faithful to God:

The people of Samaria must bear the consequences of their guilt because they rebelled against their God. They will be killed by an invading army, their little ones dashed to death against the ground, their pregnant women ripped open by swords."-- Hosea 13:16

Torture for fun? Okay with God

If your enemy be hungry, give him food to eat, if he be thirsty, give him to drink; For live coals you will heap on his head, and the Lord will vindicate you.-- Proverbs 25:21-22

For those of you who say, but that’s the Old Testament, it’s not in the NEW TESTAMENT: Here’s the NEW TESTAMENT on Tyranny and Murder in the name of God.

“And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war”, “His eyes were as a flame of fire”, clothed in a vesture dipped in blood“, and “out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.”--Revelations 19

Here’s what JESUS had to say on the Law of Israel, Mosaic Law:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law (Mosaic Law), or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. -- Matthew 5:17

Jesus on Punishing Jezebel (for the presumable sin of promoting a different religion):

"So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds. --Revelation 2:22-23

Jesus on Slavery:

“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.” --Ephesians 6:5

Borrowed extensively from many different sources including PositiveAtheism.org and EvilBible.org.

David, no more than your dad did when he did himself into a flowerpot and grew a blooming idiot.

The following list is a list of "crimes" that call for death in the bible.

Religious Grounds:

Some passages in the Hebrew Scriptures condemned people to death if they followed a different religious or spiritual path. Quoting from the King James Version of the Bible, Jehovah required the state to execute a person:

for following another religion: Exodus 22:20 states: He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed. See also and Numbers 25:1-15.

for a stranger entering the temple: Numbers 1:51 states (in part): ...when the tabernacle is to be pitched, the Levites shall set it up: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death. See also Numbers 3:10, 18:7 and 17:13.

for proselytizing: Deuteronomy 13:1-10 states that a person who tries to convince an Israelite to convert to another religion must be killed.

for communicating with the dead: Leviticus 20:27 calls for the execution by stoning of all mediums and spiritists (aka spiritualists), both male and female.

for black magic: Exodus 22:18 states: Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. This is a mistranslation. The passage has nothing to do with Wicca or other forms of Neo-paganism, which are the only types of Witchcraft that are practiced today in North America in significant numbers . The original Hebrew word is translated "sorceress" in most other versions of the Bible. A more accurate phrase would be "women who engage in black magic, harming others by the use of spoken curses." Men are left off the hook.

Sexual grounds:

Other passages required people to be stoned to death or even burned alive for sexual activities:

for adultery: Leviticus 20:10 states: And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. This is repeated in Deuteronomy 22:22

for incest: Leviticus 20:11 states: And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death... See also Leviticus 20, verses 12 and 14. Verse 17 prescribe excommunication for incest with one's sister or step-sister.

for temple prostitution: Leviticus 20:13 states: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death.... This verse is often incorrectly interpreted to refer generally to homosexual behavior. See also Deuteronomy 22:24. Both verses, in the original Hebrew, refer to homosexual prostitution in Pagan temples, which was a common religious practice in the tribes surrounding the Israelites.

for bestiality: Leviticus 20:15 states: And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast.... See also Exodus 22:19.

for sexual activity before marriage: Deuteronomy 22:13-21 concludes: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die...".. Note that this applied only to women who had been presented as virgin brides and could be proven to have engaged in intercourse before being engaged or married. There appears to have been no penalty for men who engaged in pre-marital sexual activity.

for sexual activity with both a woman and her mother: Deuteronomy 20:14 requires that all three be burned alive.

for being seduced if engaged: Deuteronomy 22:23-24 states: If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die. Note that this applied only to engaged women. Her fiancé could (in some cases) have sexual access to her, but no other man was permitted to engage in such activity as soon as she became engaged. There appears to have been no penalty for engaged men who seduced women.

for rape of an engaged woman: Deuteronomy 22:25 states: But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die. A man who raped a single woman who was not engaged would only have to marry her and give 50 shekels of silver to her father.

for prostitution Leviticus 21:9 states: And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire. Executing someone by burning them alive appears to be reserved for a narrow range of criminal acts.

For lying about Church donations: Acts 5:1 to 11 describe how a couple, Ananias and Sapphira sold an piece of real estate. They gave part of the money to the apostles, claiming it was the full proceeds from the sale. Peter interpreted their act as lying to the Holy Ghost. God killed Ananias on the spot. Three hours later, Sapphira repeated the lie to Peter. He cursed her and God killed her immediately. Members of the church were understandably terrified.

(sometimes) for committing murder: Levitucus 24:17 requires that "he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death." Leviticus 24:21 repeats this requirement. See also Numbers 35:16 and Deuteronomy 17:6. The Hebrew word "ratsach" in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and the Greek word "phoneuo" in the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) are generally mistranslated into the English word "kill." They actually mean "to murder with premeditation."

However, Exodus 21:20, states that if a slave-owner kills his male or female slave, he shall be merely "punished." The nature of the punishment is not specified. The murderer would presumably not receive the death penalty; if he were to be killed, then one would expect the text to say this directly. However, if the injured slave lives for a while after the beating before dying of the abuse, the owner is not punished at all.

for kidnapping: Exodus 21:16 states: And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. This involves kidnapping for the purpose of selling him into slavery. See also Deuteronomy 24:7.

for human sacrifice: Leviticus 20:2-5 states: Whosoever.... giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death. To "give ones seed to Molech" means to ritually sacrifice one's child to a Pagan God.

for cursing parents: Exodus 21:17 states: And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. See also Leviticus 20:9. The exact meaning of the key Hebrew word is ambiguous; it might mean, in English, to curse or blaspheme, or to degrade or shame.

for abusing one's parents: Exodus 21:15 states: And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

for careless handling of an animal: Exodus 21:29 states: But if the ox .....hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death. If an animal has the habit of injuring others, and the owner does not kill it, then the both the owner and the ox may be put to death.

for stubbornness and rebellion: Deuteronomy 21:18-21 states: If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother.....all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die..... Because of the ambiguities in some of the words used in the original text, the death penalty might not have been required in this case.

for blasphemy: Leviticus 24:16 states: And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death. Blasphemy was defined as uttering the name of Jehovah while cursing.

for working on Saturday: Exodus 35:2 states: ...but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. Numbers 15:32-36 described a man who was executed because he gathered wood on Saturday.

for ignoring the decision of a priest or judge: Deuteronomy 17:12 states: And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the LORD thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die....

for perjury: Deuteronomy 19:15-21 states in part (with reference to a murder trial) ....if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother.... That is, a perjurer would himself be killed.

for accidentally killing a pregnant woman: Exodus 21:22-23 states: "If men strive [i.e. fight], and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." If two men are fighting and accidentally hurt a pregnant woman so that she has a miscarriage, then:

if the woman fully recovers, then the man responsible will have to pay a fine to the woman's husband.

if the woman dies, then the man would be killed also.

if some other harm comes to the woman, (e.g. loss of an eye or tooth) then that would be inflicted upon the man as well.

Some Bible translations, supported by conservative Christian denominations, translate miscarriage as "premature birth." And they interpret verse 23 to include death of the newborn. However, this translation is rare.

Still more grounds for execution:

A male who was not circumcised: Genesis 17:14

Eating leavened bread during the Feast of Unleavened Bread: Exodus 12:15

Manufacturing anointing oil: Exodus 30:33

Engaging in ritual animal sacrifices other than at the temple: Leviticus 17:1-9

Consuming blood: Leviticus 17:10. This would include eating rare meat.

Eating peace offerings while ritually unclean: Leviticus 7:20

Waiting too long before consuming sacrifices: Leviticus 19:5-8

Sexual activity with a woman who is menstruating: Leviticus 20:18

Going to the temple in an unclean state: Numbers 19:13

Persons teaching another religion: Deuteronomy 13:1-11

A prophet whose prophecy does not come true: Deuteronomy 18:22

Gluttony and excessive drinking: Deuteronomy 21:20

Activities for which God Imposed the Death Penalty Directly

God killed individuals because they engaged in various transgressions:

for wickedness In Genesis 6, God was disappointed at the wickedness and evil acts of humanity. He sent the flood in Genesis 7:6 which killed every man, woman, child, infant, new-born and animal, except for those who were in Noah's ark. This is as close as humanity has come to a complete genocide. The exact nature of the wickedness is not defined. God also killed Er in Genesis 38:8 for some unknown form of wickedness.

for being abusive to strangers In Genesis 18:20, God had heard that the people of Sodom were wicked and evil. He sent some angels there, who confirmed the stories. In Genesis 19:24, God demolished Sodom and all of its men, women, children, infants, new-born, plants and animals, except for Lot's family. The crime of the people of Sodom has been interpreted by some to be homosexual rape, and by others to be any form of homosexual behavior. But it was clearly lack of hospitality to strangers, as seen in Jesus' comments in Matthew 10:14-15 and Luke 10:7. This is confirmed in Ezekeiel 16:48-50.

for being excessively curious: In Genesis 19:17, the angels told Lot to: ....Escape for thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain; escape to the mountain.... Lot's wife looked back. God killed her and turned her into a pillar of salt.

for practicing birth control: Onan was required by Jewish law and tradition to marry his brother's widow and have a male child who would be considered the brother's heir. This is called levirate marriage. He didn't want to do this, and so practiced an elementary form of birth control (coitus interruptus). God killed him. This was first interpreted by the Church as punishment for a sexual sin: avoiding pregnancy through the use of a birth control technique. Later, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, the Church said it was masturbation. "Onanism" became a synonym for auto-eroticism. Recent Biblical scholars interpret his crime as refusal to follow Jewish custom and provide an heir.

I don't read my bible enough. Thanks dude.

antiminion - right on!!

After a couple of pints, it comes around in my mind and I can't help but believe if a god did exist (like if Zeus, Odin, YHWH or Mythra were real) that it would agree with me.

These stories are at their heart are a history lesson of a few parts fact heavily watered down by folklore and superstition. The Jewish people, my own people, intermingled with the Mesopatamians, Pheonicians and every regional ethnicity through varying ways. The Tanakh is a collection of regional stories that were used to create an ideological method of influencing and controlling the development of society through stories around the camp fire.

If you think that anyone but the most educated Christian bible scholar could possibly illuminate any story from the Old Testament to me in any depth, let me tell you, it would be extremely difficult. I've been attending synagogue for just about 70 years now. I've read the Tanakh over and over again throughout my life. I go to the temple so that I can interact with the community; besides, I'm pretty sure my Rabbi is an atheist anyway.

He sure didn't seem that bothered when I told him I was.

I do not hate people who believe these things, quite the contrary; I have accepted them as they are. But I'm just so bored and sick of the scripture being used to justify the horrific treatment of others today. It's mostly irrelevant. Tell me, what impact does the story of the conflict between David and Solomon have in your life? It's a parable. A tale of tragedy, loss and human fallability.

By the way, do you really believe Samson lost his magic super strength by having his hair trimmed while he was sleeping? What kind of silly story is that? Imagine how his enemies must have felt when they found out they were being defeated by his choice in hair styles. Oy vey, I need to go and grow a mullet so I can have special powers. He wasn't a real person, he was hippy superman.

If you tell me that I have to go through life as though I were living in a tiny stretch of desert 4000 years ago surrounded by people who think evil spirits cause food poisoning, then I'd feel pretty justified telling you that you're cuckoo.

Beer-Man, I have no doubt that your sources are exactly the ones that you have cited at the end of 24.8. That was more than obvious.

Not to mention that Beer Man's post would be quite easy to verify - just paste those chapters into your browser and you can pop the passages up from a variety of Bibles.

Well, thanks so much for the suggestion but since I have my own cherished Bible, one that I can read, enjoy and study in context along with accompanying study materials, I'll just stick with that. Although I do have plenty of links right here to as much Biblical material that I want, right at my fingertips. Links that honor GOD and HIS SON, CHRIST JESUS and HIS WORD that will light the way to anyone wishing to know the Truth rather than trying to disparage or discourage. It's all available to you, as well or anyone else wishing to know the Truth. Here is just one of many for anyone desiring to know or get started.

http://www.holybible.com/

Have a Blessed day.

Already have that one bookmarked chefaz. Of course there is anther bookmark I have detailing how fundamentalists selevtively quote the Bible to further the excuses for hate.

What kind of flawed logic leads one to believe that the Bible is the word of God? Many who believe in God, or at least a god, find it difficult to accept that God directed various men, men who we know very little about in most cases, to write what later was decided by committee to comprise the Bible.

My dear Mr Beer-Man. It's good that you have accepted me as a believer. Because it just so happens that the only thing I want to tell you that I'm not ashamed of Christ.

In saying that, my job is done. So you go ahead and say what you please. In the mean while, I have no doubt that God will call you to himself before you die.

Marc Roy

I'm curious. Do you think that believing everything in the Bible is a necessary part of believing in God? Do the inconsistencies of the Bible cause you any concern? Does it bother you when people use the most illogical and hateful passages in the Bible as justification to deny full human rights to some of their fellow human beings? I'm just curious.

don, some fundamentalists will tell you that if you don't follow everything in the Bible as written, you're going to Hell. Of course, then they go on to indulge cheeky children, eat shellfish and pork, wear two different kinds of fabric at once and all that jazz.

God is just like any other celebrity, he has to suffer all the tabloid scandals and sensationalism too. Rumors, misquotes and out right fabrications.

You know vile stuff like murdering all the first born in Egypt, ordering the Crusades. That's just bad publicity!

He has even been accused of fathering a bastard son on a teen age girl!

Poor God is blushing furiously while trying to kick that book under the couch, but nooooo everyone just keeps up the gossip.

Hollywood has the National Inquirer, God has the bible.

Lynn Grant,

Your post reminded me of a skit I saw once on Saturday Night Live. Jewish parents in ancient Egypt are telling their children, "Don't be afraid! It's only the Angel of Death coming to slaughter Egyptian children!"

Yes, using the bible as a tool for bigotry is disturbing. People have also used it to rape little boys, burn women, control and steal money from others along with various forms of abuse, but these things are out of my control.

The only thing I can tell you about that is that it's better for these men to be thrown at the bottom of the sea than what is waiting for them.

But don, listen, faith is between you and Jesus, not between me and you and if you don't understand that you will never understand why I believe the Bible to be true. So this discussion is pointless and I'll leave it to God to draw to Himself who He pleases.

Marc - Can you tell me what Jesus looked like? Correct me on this if I am wrong but when you pray you hold his image in your mind do you not? Describe him for me. I am serious, I am not trying to be sarcastic or demeaning.

Lynn Grant,

Good point! There is absolutely no physical description of Jesus Christ anywhere in the gospels. They don't say whether he was tall or short, dark skinned or fair, long haired or short haired, fat or thin, nothing whatsoever about what he looked like. I always found that odd. While physical descriptions of people are not common in the Bible, they do sometimes occur. For example, David is described as being "ruddy" in complexion, meaning he was probably fair skinned. But of Jesus there is no description at all.

Lynn, there is scripture where Jesus was being followed by a crowd. He began to tell them that he was the bread of life and that no one could enter into the Kingdom of Heaven unless they ate His flesh.

The people that following him said "this is a hard teaching, who can follow it?" and many left essentially getting rid of the people who didn't understand that what was going on was spiritual.

In another scripture in the bible, a man approaches Jesus to heal one of his servants. When Jesus offers to go to his home, the man responded and said "Don't trouble yourself but rather say the word, because I to am a man of authority and when I say to him go, he goes and him come, he comes." And Jesus was astounded by his faith because the man understood that Jesus' authority was a spiritual one.

To summarize, when I pray, I pray to the Holy Spirit.

@mark: Way to show some class. You're a real mensch.

marysunshine, AIDS was NEVER confined to gay men. It has run rampant amongst heterosexuals in THIS country for 30 or more years, and who wants to bet people were dying from it in Africa before then?