It�s gay rights laws that are intolerant,

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

crasss

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 01 April 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 516

Posted: 27 April 2007 at 6:45pm

Sign*Reader wrote:

Report: Priests hit hard by hidden AIDS epidemic

The Catholic church never meant priests and nuns to be really "celibate". The idea was that they couldn't marry, and especially, that they could not recognize any children, who would subsequently inherit any privileges from them. A priest was supposed to keep his relationship with an unmarried wife discrete.

Pope Gregory VII reigned from 1073 to 1085. At the time, most Catholic priests were married. Married men want to financially support their wives and children. Kings and nobles donated property to the Roman Catholic Church in exchange for the faithful service of priests. Some priests tried to leave this property to their heirs. In addition, they had loyalty to the nobles who provided them with homes. Pope Gregory wanted to protect Church property, and to ensure that the loyalty of the priests went to the Pope and not to secular rulers. And he wanted to prevent laymen from �interfering� with the Catholic Church. He made this clear when he said, �The church cannot escape from the clutches of the laity unless priests first escape from the clutches of their wives.� Pope Gregory abolished clerical marriage. He passed laws requiring that priests be celibate, and he got rid of married priests.

Nuns weren't actually really required to be celibate either. The convents took in orphans, to justify the presence of children in the convent, and to cover up the fact that a lot of these "orphans" were simply the illegitimate children of sexually active nuns.

Same thing for monogamy. The nobles were not supposed to be truly monogamous. The social rule was that they could only recognize one wife, who was the daughter of another noble, and that only these children could inherit from him. Of course, the nobleman had other unmarried wives, but the nobleman was simply forbidden from marrying (commoner) concubines or recognize their children.

Celibacy is not about not being sexually active, but about being discreet about it.

The nuns were noble daughters for whom an acceptable marriage (with a nobleman) could not be arranged. These noble daughters could not marry below their class and rank. At the same time, excess noble sons who would not inherit their fathers title (only one son could), would become high-ranking clergy. So, what to do with the inevitable surplus of noble daughters? They were forced to live in a convent. Of course, it would have been cruel to truly prevent these poor girls from being sexually active.

crasss

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 01 April 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 516

Posted: 28 April 2007 at 1:55am

Sign*Reader wrote:

When the AIDS was discovered in the US it was mostly amongst gays males, lo life druggies who could buy drugs to shoot but not the needles, and African Americans (still is over represented in the current cases) and the show biz people. Were they consuming the Bushmeat? come on Angela let us get real !

Oldest AIDS case found; Scientists say 1959 blood sample contains virus

Unfortunately, there are not many older blood samples available. Chances are, that these older blood samples show that AIDS is even older than that.

The first published article related to AIDS was in 1981. The principal author�s name was Michael Gottlieb and it appeared in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report for June 5th. This article reported that there was a random increase in pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP), a rare lung infection.

A short while later, on July 3rd, another article reported eight outbreaks of Kaposi�s Sarcoma (KS) in young homosexual males in New York. This was surprising because Kaposi�s Sarcoma was a rare form of cancer that normally showed up in older people.

AIDS has no particular or specific symptoms. Patients always die from another disease. Fifty years ago, these patients would have been classified as pneumonia and cancer patients.

If AIDS were around before 1959, how could anybody know? There is actually no conclusive reason to believe that AIDS is a new disease. AIDS could have been around a thousand years ago. What wasn't around a 1000 years ago, is a society in which homosexuals openly celebrate their estranged sexual orientation in promiscuous sex parties.

And even then, it isn't necessarily AIDS that will kill them:

Surprisingly, AIDS has only a modest effect on the average life expectancy of a homosexual male. The average age of men dying from AIDS is 39. The average age of homosexuals dying from all other causes is even more revealing: 41. Only one percent die of old age. In study after study, less than three percent of all homosexuals surveyed are over the age of 55. Why is homosexuality such a dangerous lifestyle? Part of the reason is the promiscuous lifestyle of homosexuals.

If sexual promiscuity leads to lower life expectancy, and given the current casual sex habits of teenagers in the West, the general life expectancy in the West will soon start dropping, just like it is already rapidly dropping in Africa and in Russia.

Infertility is increasing by more than 3% a year, and 75% of all pregnant women in Russia have a serious pathology during their pregnancies...In a 1998 poll, Russian high school seniors ranked prostitute and hired assassin above scientist, engineer and researcher as attractive career choices.

AIDS is just one consequence of disobedience to the One God, and the only way to save (some of) these people is to convince them to submit to the One God and His laws.

Israfil

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 08 September 2003
Status: Offline
Points: 3984

Posted: 28 April 2007 at 10:01am

Crass, it's obvious you and I don't believe in the same thing

crasss

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 01 April 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 516

Posted: 28 April 2007 at 6:17pm

Israfil wrote:

Crass, it's obvious you and I don't believe in the same thing

I believe that breaking the laws of the One God, is futile. Which law of the One God do you believe can be broken without the resulting situation eventually backfiring?

Angela

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 11 July 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 2555

Posted: 30 April 2007 at 10:00am

Sign*Reader,

The oldest known case of AIDS is in Africa. The cases in the US from the Gay men can be traced to a flight attendant (gay man) in the 80s, however, since then, the epidemics in Africa and the US had grown far more complicated.

Bush meat is a problem in Africa, not the US, however, the AIDS virus is already out there. Sexual promiscuity and the refusal to wear condoms. But AIDS is being spread by HETEROSEXUAL SEX.

AIDS can be contracted from drug needles and blood transfusions. Also, in placed like Africa where the health system is underfunded, legitimate medical procedures and bad dysinfecting techniques can lead to many victims that were not engaging in sinful behavior.

As for the women in Africa, who is protecting them? In Darfur, there is documented practices of genocide by rape. They rape the women using soldiers infected with HIV. Who is protecting them?

You cannot blame all cases of AIDS on gay men. Within the US and such, education is key. To teach its a gay problem is to trick ourselves into thinking that its never going to happen to us.

All it takes is for a poor nurse to accidently jab herself with a needle that has been infected and an entire family could be affected.

To just say sue them or shoot them? What about all the innocents? More victims of AIDS are innocents than are guilty. Wives of promiscuous truck drivers in India or of louts in Africa. Children infected because of poor conditions or their mother's being raped by guerrilla fighters in the various conflicts.

There is alot of evil out there. And there is more maliciousness done by heterosexual men than by gay men.

If REAL MEN did their jobs and took care and protected the women of society. This wouldn't happen. But, the answer is always more brutality, more war and more death. If men learned that guns and violence never solve anything then, you would not see the degrading of society. I blame the wars of Men for societal ills. Everything can be brought back to WAR. Instead of suing the gay man for AIDS, I'd rather sue men for mismanaging the world in general.

If men did their God sworn duties, women would not be abused in any way. If men did their duties, there wouldn't be starving orphans and widows all over the world. Women wouldn't be forced to degrade themselves for survival, men would have no need to force women into sexual slavery and then blame the women.

I love how it all comes back to the fault of the women for being promiscous. But, men are the dogs. They are the "stronger" sex. The leaders and the ones in control. Its their faults. I thought Islam absolved Eve. But I can see that men will always blame the woman and never look at their own failings.

Its not the Gay man that makes me afraid, its the Manly Straight Man who feels he needs to prove his machismo.

Rape and Sexual Violence Fuels AIDS Spread among Women

LONDON - December 1 - Needless deaths by HIV/AIDS continue to occur amidst statistics of increased danger to women and young people. In the capital city of Kenya, Nairobi, women from conflict-ridden countries in Africa and disaster-hit countries in Asia are discussing how, many of their own, are fast becoming part of the statistics, courtesy of men�s brutality and beastly sexual acts. �As the world pays attention to stopping deaths by guns, lives of hundreds of thousands of women are shattered by rape and sexual violence beyond generations,� says Aline Aliyene Cinanula, a 16-year-old victim of sexual violence from DR Congo. �Action should be taken to ensure no one ever goes through what women in conflicts have gone through,� adds Aline. The world must tame the pandemic from the bud. Otherwise it will just be business-as-usual as women continue to die. �The conventional approaches of abstain, be-faithful and use-condom do not work for women. We need to be deliberate about the focus on women to deal with this fast-growing pandemic,� says ActionAid Women�s Rights Coordinator in Africa, Mary Wandia. �What choice does a woman in conflict situation have?� asked Jessica Nkuhe of ISIS WICCE � a global resource centre for women issues based in Kampala, Uganda. �The world is not paying attention to how violence against women and conflict is increasing women�s vulnerability to HIV yet every year we churn out statistics showing how women are the most affected,� added Mary. Participants drawn from across Africa and Asia dropped their heads in grief as women speakers from conflict countries narrated the silent toll on women, of the genocide of rape and sexual violence in conflicts. �The very forces that are supposed to protect people are killing women. They keep ladies in their camps and wander around the displaced people�s camps saying it is a market place for sex. When they get infected they come back to their �supposed� wives and tell them, we bought it for money but we are now giving it to you for free �(referring to HIV/AIDS),� Therese Nahompagaze of National Council Against AIDS in Burundi told the participants. �It is the un-equalness between men and women that is fuelling this. If camps for displaced people were managed by women and more women were recruited to lead peace keeping forces, this would not be the case. Similarly if women had access to productive resources they would not go around selling their bodies,� adds Jessica. �It is on this basis that ActionAid has joined other like minded organizations to ensure HIV/AIDS responses recognize unique women�s situations in conflicts and emergencies,� concludes Mary.

crasss

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 01 April 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 516

Posted: 30 April 2007 at 1:35pm

Angela wrote:

If men did their God sworn duties, women would not be abused in any way.

An unequal society will disarm the serfs. In order to maintain and enforce social inequality, the serfs may not possess weapons.

Only a small separate group of men will be armed, and in theory the purpose of arming these men, is to maintain law and order, but in reality, the upper class will pay them to enforce social inequality.

If one group of men is armed and another is not, the group who is armed will inevitably be corrupted to oppress the group who is not.

An ugly side effect of disarming the serfs, is the inability for the serfs to protect their women and children. It is of course their false religion that makes serfs accept the situation. It is just another price people pay for believing in a false religion.

Possession of weapons, acquiring the ability to use them, and joining spontaneous militia, are religious obligations. Men cannot allow the rulers to disarm them. It is simply a religious obligation to depose the ruler who insists on disarming the men.

The men in Darfur are Christians, and therefore serfs, and therefore inherently unable to protect their women and children.

crasss

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 01 April 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 516

Posted: 30 April 2007 at 1:50pm

Angela wrote:

If men learned that guns and violence never solve anything then, you would not see the degrading of society. I blame the wars of Men for societal ills. Everything can be brought back to WAR.

Being unarmed, is an open invitation to war, to the ones who are armed.

At the same time, there is this dangerous phenomenon, in which the beneficiaries of the war, the upper financial class, does not participate in the fighting and does not run any of the risks of the war.

The American soldiers in Iraq are fighting on behalf of a group of American financiers, who have never been in Iraq, but instigate the war for their profits, without bearing any of the risks.

If the American serfs do not restrain their own financial upper class, sooner or later, it is inevitable that someone else will.

Angela

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 11 July 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 2555

Posted: 30 April 2007 at 2:17pm

Crasss, that was to all men. Not just the hawks of the US. The Soviets destroyed one of the most progressive Islamic countries out there when they invaded Afghanistan and destroyed their economy, way of life and freedoms.

Wars have been used by the powerful since history has been recorded. God's had to destroy the earth once because of man's failings.

Do I say my country is innocent? No... however, the world's gone to hades many, many, many, many times over the 1000s of years since civilization grew out of the Tigris and Euphrates area.... And guess what, we've only been on the stage 230 years. That's nothing compared to the civilizations that have pummeled the world's peace.

I'm just tired of the US being blamed on societal ills that have been around long before the US. Has the land of my birth fallen into the trap of these ills? Yes, but they are just the latest.

There are also other horrible actions being done all over the world for which none of you complain about nearly as much. What about the oppression of the Chinese people by their government, or the thousands (maybe millions) starving in North Korea? What about the corrupt governments of the middle east and their inability to work together to help the poor while building grand palaces with oil money they are so eager to get from the pockets of the American Serf?

Crasss, the difference between the US and other nations that have corruption and greed problems..... I can openly denounce my governments actions and join in groups that try to bring about change through peaceful means. I don't have to worry about being silenced by censorship ministries. I don't have to worry about being drug off the street and fined because someone things I've got too much bangs sticking out of my babushka (headscarf). I can write political blogs and vote against the leadership. Tell me one middle eastern nation that has those freedoms. One...where you don't have to worry about your freedom to change what you see wrong in the government.

It is a double edged sword. Since I have the right to lobby against our unconditional support of Israel and their oppression of the Palestinians. It does give the right of others to do the opposite. Freedoms of speech and religion come with the hardship of having to deal with things you don't agree with. So, you take on the responsibility to raise your children with the proper ideals.

Its a fight even amoung my faith. We are in a constant war with pop culture and our children. Teaching them modesty, chastity and honesty. Teaching them faith in God ABOVE what society accepts. This is where I get in trouble with others on my view of the minority versus the majority. I have to teach my children that they have moral responsibilities as set forth by God Almighty. They are men and women, they are to be chaste and faithful even if that means they are unpopular to "cool" society. They are to be modest. They must get married if possible, have children if possible and follow the laws that God has commanded.

Israfil calls it bigotry and discrimination to be against open acceptance of homosexuality. I call it obedience.