Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice assists newly sworn-in Ambassador Mark Dybul as he signs appointment documents Oct. 10 at the State Department (White House photo
Posted on 10/17/2006 2:12:04 PM PDT by Coleus
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice assists newly sworn-in Ambassador Mark Dybul as he signs appointment documents Oct. 10 at the State Department (White House photo |
According to the State Department transcript, Rice said:
Thank you. Thank you very much. I am truly honored and delighted to have the opportunity to swear in Mark Dybul as our next Global AIDS Coordinator. I am pleased to do that in the presence of Mark's parents, Claire and Richard; his partner, Jason; and his mother-in-law, Marilyn. You have wonderful family to support you, Mark, and I know that's always important to us. Welcome.
The use of a term normally reserved for legally married heterosexual families rankled Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council, who called Rice's comments "profoundly offensive," according to Agape Press.
 Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice swears in Ambassador Mark Dybul (White House photo) |
The secretary's remarks, he said, fly in the face of the Bush administration's endorsement of a federal marriage protection amendment. "We have to face the fact that putting a homosexual in charge of AIDS policy is a bit like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse," said Sprigg. "But even beyond that, the deferential treatment that was given not only to him but his partner and his partner's family by the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is very distressing." Sprigg said, according to Agape Press, in light of the Mark Foley scandal, "it's inexplicable that a conservative administration would do such things."
Rice's comments, he added, conflict with a law protecting traditional marriage. "So, for her to treat his partner like a spouse and treat the partner's mother as a mother-in-law, which implies a marriage between the two partners, is a violation of the spirit if not the letter of the Defense of Marriage Act," Spriggs said. The Foley scandal has highlighted the number of homosexual staffers working for Republican lawmakers, USA Today noted, causing some family advocates to wonder if this influence has anything to do with the party's lack of action on conservative social issues.
The Family Research Council's Tony Perkins framed the question this way: "Has the social agenda of the GOP been stalled by homosexual members or staffers?" Dybul is the nation's third openly homosexual ambassador, Agape Press noted, pointing out that in all three cases the homosexual partners held the Bible on which the oath of office was taken. As WND reported, a new book also has raised the eyebrows of some evangelicals. White House political advisers embraced evangelical supporters publicly to get their votes while mocking them privately as "nuts" and "goofy," according to David Kuo, the former No. 2 man in President Bush's so-called "faith-based" initiatives program.
You're still comparing apples and cotter pins. If a Native American wanted to help stop alcoholism and TB on reservations but was an alcoholic himself, and had untreated TB, would this be sensible? No.
If a homosexual wants to stop AIDS, and he doesn't promote the fact that homosexuals can be treated and leave the "gay" life, then he's someone who should not be in that position.
I've read numerous articles on FR over the years about the whole AIDS scene in Africa. I don't have time to research it for you, sorry. I'm not saying there is no heterosexual spread of AIDS, just that all that is purported to be AIDS isn't necessarily AIDS. They do a lot of weird stuff over there such as promiscuity, lots of prostitution, "dry" sex, and anal sex. All of which spread all manner of illnesses.
AIDS is a fully, totally, preventable disease. There is not a whit of need to spend money on it other than to promote chastity before marriage, and faithful monogamy in marriage. Voila! The AIDS epidemic stopped in its tracks. But since there is a lot of money being thrown around, people don't like the simple answer - they can get grants, tax money, foundation money, and so on. Plus, they can busy themselves and people who want to be promiscuous, practice same sex acts and anal sex can party hardy and think that a cure is just around the corner.
It's a house of cards.
You're still comparing apples and cotter pins. If a Native American wanted to help stop alcoholism and TB on reservations but was an alcoholic himself, and had untreated TB, would this be sensible? No.
The analogy you're making falls apart fairly easily. It works only if you're assuming the appointee has untreated AIDS. Do you have any proof of that?
Since you're not showing me statistics, I'll stick to the medical sources that indicate AIDS is mostly spread in Africa by heterosexual transmission.
I really don't have time to do your research.
Even if every case in Africa said to be AIDS is AIDS (which is patently untrue), and the majority of cases have no homosexuals involved, it is still a 100% preventable disease.
Chastity until marriage, fidelity within marriage. What could be simpler?
Cut out the promiscuity, illicit sex, "dry" sex, anal sex, and voila! No problem. Of course it'll take a while since people have AIDS right now. But instead of pouring money into research, just pour a little money into telling people the truth, as the Ugandans have done.
And this statement of yours:
"The analogy you're making falls apart fairly easily. It works only if you're assuming the appointee has untreated AIDS. Do you have any proof of that?"
That's not my point. My point is: Is this appointee promoting chastity? Is he promoting the truth that people can leave the "gay" life? Or is he promoting "condoms condoms condoms and let's have some more money"?
You're not doing "my" research, I'm asking you to back up your statements. If you don't want to or can't, and you prefer to change the subject from where we started (which was me pointing out errors in your statements), I think this is fruitless.
I really don't have the time to spend hours looking up articles. I could, but I have other things to do with my life. I am not changing the subject, I am replying to your points.
Bottom line:
AIDS is a fully, 100% preventable disease. For some reason, people who are supposedly trying to stop AIDS don't focus on prevention. If a person is a homosexual (the group at least in the US most likely to have and spread AIDS) who doesn't focus on changing behavior, then it's stupid to appoint such a person to a position.
If you agree with my points, we have no argument. If you disagree, you really have no way to support your side except with emotion driven beliefs.
Is it "shameful" to call perversity, perversity or sin a sin?
You really should keep your mouth shut when you don't even know what you are talking about, or to whom. I'm sure, really.
Thanks for the advice. I'll take it under advisement.
I took a few minutes earlier to check out your other comments on FR.
All socially liberal, all the time.
Anyone who doesn't have an agenda can see very clearly, without glasses even, that at least in the US and Europe, homosexual behavior causes most of the new AIDS cases (and old ones, I might add), either directly or indirectly. Bisexualism is the same thing is homosexualism. If you remove all same sex behavior, that removes most of the AIDS cases.
You're here on FR to promote socially liberal viewpoints - that stem cell research is benign and useful, that killing embryos is not killing, that killing helpless people like Terri Schiavo is benign, that homosexual acts don't cause AIDS any more than man/woman sex, and so on.
The fact is, that AIDS is fueled by typical homosexual behavior - anonymous sex, anal sex, crazy wild sex - that's it in a nutshell. Years ago they droned on and on that "AIDS isn't a gay disease" and that we were all going to catch it. What happened? It's still a "gay" disease, because (a) homosexuals are much, MUCH more promiscuous than the rest of us (using averages, I don't mean every single one), and (b) homosexual sex acts are unhealthy in themselves and cause the spread of not only all kinds of diseases but parasites and often cause bowel damage. Just the act of anal sex damages the lining of the colon and foreign matter including semen enterting the bloodstream messes up the immune system.
And on and on. You may be a retired MD (or maybe not, anyone can say anything on the internet) but you sure haven't done your reading up on the causes of or the results of homosexuality. I have, and that's why I am right and you are wrong.
Liberals hate to call perversity perversity. They call it "diversity"!
By calling what is sick or evil "nice" and "personal choice", one loses the ability to determine right from wrong.
Au contraire.
It seems that perversity is what makes "them" happy.
Believe what you like. But do look at the scientific facts occasionally.
That is an incredibly weak - shall I say neutered? - response.
I'm the one presenting facts; your arguments are leftist pabulum.
Good night!
I'm not going to say none should ever be given jobs in the government.
...but not their partners...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.