Kinsolving: "Will Bishop-elect Robinson and his male lover be tested for HIV-AIDS?"

Along with the enormous Big Media coverage of the Episcopal House of Bishops approving the election of an active homosexual with a male lover to be bishop of New Hampshire, there was nearly eclipsed news in neighboring Massachusetts.

The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston has offered $55 million to settle more than 500 clergy sex-abuse lawsuits, documents indicate.

A recent report from the state attorney general estimated that more than 1,000 children were abused over six decades.

The crisis was touched off by Cardinal Law's admission that he had reassigned former priest John Geoghan despite accusations of sex abuse. But it quickly mushroomed as similar cases were brought to light, and then spread to other dioceses as Catholics demanded greater accountability for their leaders.

In September 2002, the Church reached a $10 million settlement with 86 victims of Geoghan after a previous settlement deal for between $20 million and $30 million collapsed.

Since former Father Geoghan belonged to the North American Man-Boy Love Association, the nation's primary organization of homosexual pederast child molesters, it may be wondered why on earth people in the neighboring state of New Hampshire would be willing to tear their Episcopal-Anglican Church apart by electing a sodomist bishop?

In New York, there was further news, which begs the question of whether Bishop-Elect Robinson and his lover Mark Andrew have ever been tested for HIV-AIDS.

Most New Yorkers with multiple sexual partners do not know whether they are infected with HIV and more than 40 percent did not use condoms the last time they had sex, according to what city officials say is the most comprehensive survey ever conducted of the city's sexual habits.

Among all the New Yorkers surveyed, the poll found that 26 percent used a condom the last time they had sex, and that 26 percent had been tested for HIV in the preceding 18 months.

Of men who had sex with men, 45 percent said they used a condom the last time they had sex.

"That's the really disturbing thing, that the population that is at highest risk, really is not taking the steps to protect themselves and other," said Dr. Farzad Mostashari, an assistant health commissioner.

AIDS deaths in New York City have dropped sharply from a mid-1990's peak of 8,000 people each year, thanks in part to new classes of antiviral drugs. But contrary to perception, the disease has continued to kill people in large numbers, including 1,774 in the city in 2001. Among illnesses, only cardiovascular diseases, cancers and pneumonia and influenza caused more deaths.

80,000 people in New York City have tested positive for HIV, and an unknown number have the virus but do not know it, according to city health officials.

The Times also published Actor Harvey Feinstein of Hairspray's op-ed column headlined "THE CULTURE OF DISEASE," which includes the following:

There are too many positive gay role models. In fighting the AIDS crisis over the last 20 years, we have done everything possible to dispel the negative connotations that come with having HIV. After all, it's been our brothers and sisters, our boyfriends and girlfriends, and ourselves who have been discriminated against because of a virus.

So we produced advertising, created enlightenment programs, spent endless hours making certain that having AIDS or being HIV positive was nothing to be ashamed of. We did a great job. Maybe too great a job. After all the effort exerted to convince the world that AIDS is not a gay disease, we now have a generation embracing AIDS as its gay birthright.

According to figures just released by the Centers for Disease Control, the number of new AIDS cases rose last year for the first time in a decade. Four Americans now become infected with the disease every hour. Many of our young men see infection as a right of passage, an inevitable coming of age. I hear of them seeking the disease as entree into the cool, queer inner circle that being negative denies them.

In our effort to remove the stigma of having AIDS, have we created a culture of disease? We all see the ads for HIV drugs. They illustrate hot muscular men living life to the fullest thanks to modern science. Other ads show couples holding hands, sending the message that the road to true love and happiness is being HIV positive.

Is that message: You're going to be OK? (Which is terrific.) Or is it: You want to be special? Get AIDS. HIV equals popularity and acceptance. (Which would be tragic.)

My heart goes out to all who have the infection. But while I pledge my energies and resources to the fight for a cure, quality care and justice, I still think we need to examine what we're teaching our gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual and straight youth. In my opinion, the messages the drug companies are spreading are lies. The truth is that AIDS is not fun. It's not sexy or manageable. AIDS is a debilitating, deforming, terminal and incurable disease. HIV drugs can bring on heart, kidney and liver disease, as well as a host of daily discomforts.

Unlike the photos in the ads we see, most of my friends who are on drug cocktails are not having the time of their lives. They spend mornings in the bathroom throwing up or suffering from diarrhea. They spend afternoons at doctor's appointments, clinics and pharmacies. And they spend endless evenings planning their estates and trying to make ends meet because they are not well enough to support themselves and their new drug habit. And those are just the friends for whom the drugs work. For many women, the cocktails are nothing but a drain on finance, internal organs and stamina.

Even if the drugs were as effective as advertised, should we be creating a community of drug dependency?

I am calling for us to take back our lives and culture and to stop spreading the virus. I am calling for us to resist the normalization of disease and once again embrace health. I'm calling for an end to the false advertising for drugs and for us to stop minimizing the infection with cute little names like "the gift" or "the bug."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Les Kinsolving hosts a daily talk show for WCBM in Baltimore. His radio commentaries are syndicated nationally. He is White House correspondent for Talk Radio Network and WorldNetDaily. His show can be heard on the Internet at www.wcbm.com 8-10 p.m. Eastern each weekday. Before going into broadcasting, Kinsolving was a newspaper reporter and columnist – twice nominated for the Pulitzer Prize for his commentary.

Saying gays can't get syphilis?

Netti's post seem to come across that way. The facts say the number of HIV+ and syhilis cases is on the rise in the gay community. Here's some links on gays and syphilis:

Syphilis Cases On The Rise In Bay Area

Doctors say the patients are mostly gay men and about 40 percent of them contracted syphilis after having sex with men they met on the Internet in sex chat rooms.

Gay Men Meeting Online Contracting Syphilis Faster

U.S. cities known for their large gay populations such as San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles, and Miami have seen sharp increases in syphilis cases recently but have not reached the height seen in 1982 before AIDS tempered promiscuous behavior.

Syphilis in gay men raises AIDS concern

New York City officials reported cases of syphilis more than doubled last year, primarily due to an outbreak among men who have sex with other men.

Syphilis outbreak among L.A. gay men in 2002 leads to calls for more testing

The number of syphilis cases reported by gay and bisexual men in Los Angeles County has increased 62% in 2002, representing 360 new cases so far this year, officials said.

This is the kind of writing young people used to be taught explicitly to recognize as biased, incendiary propaganda.

I must say that I do not find it incendiary or overtly biased. His points are well taken. I see the posters on the METRO every day with all the beautiful people telling me that AIDS can be handled. It can't. I'm paying $$$ for it. And I would dearly like to see just poster showing the real faces of AIDS -- puking, sick, weak, dying, impoverished, unhappy men.

I don't like the article much, and I like his title even less. Kinsolving using the question of whether the abomination and his boyfriend's AIDS screening would come up clean, or even suggesting they should submit to testing (as if that would have any meaning at all in view of the enormity of what happened last week) as his very first point makes him appear petty and childish. To me. I don't care how others see it.

Not only that, but a good half of this article was written by someone else-- Harvey Fierstein.

That's not treasure in my book. I'd call this one a definite miss.

You're missing the point.

Kinsolving is the only one in major media that has the stones to even ask the question.

He regularly does this at white house press briefings as well.

I'm not missing the point.

His point is a very petty one, in this case, and his choice of title reinforces my opinion that he's decided to dwell on the irrelevant aspects of the Robinson fiasco. They're about to install a practicing gay man and apostate as BISHOP IN MY CHURCH, and Kinsolving thinks it might be even worse if he has an EARTHLY DISEASE? Give me a break...

No, I heard the usual "pity the poor gays" lament, whiile ignoring the obvious fact that-morality aside--gay sex tends to be unhealthy. More than that, gays lie about what they want.
Apart from the tiny percentage who want to enter into settled relationships, the whole gay marriage thing is a joke. If so many straight males can get all the sex that they want without marriage, why should we expect gays to be any different?

I recognize both as biased. Can you?

To whom are you referring when you say "both?"

And your second question would be more appropriately worded "Do you?" Your position is not priviledged. If I do not see a bias, it does not necessarily follow that my reading skills or analysis are faulty.

That said, the author no doubt writes from a particular point of view and he writes to defend that view. That he does so does not make him biased or incendiary. Failure to agree with you is not synonymous with moral or intellectual error. Lighten up.

His point is a very petty one, in this case, and his choice of title reinforces my opinion that he's decided to dwell on the irrelevant aspects of the Robinson fiasco. They're about to install a practicing gay man and apostate as BISHOP IN MY CHURCH, and Kinsolving thinks it might be even worse if he has an EARTHLY DISEASE?

Exactly. Asking for a test after the barn door has been opened is irrelevant at this time. The point is Robinson is now in a even higher position in the church and is defiantly breaking God's law. It's disgusting to think this scum will be ministering to the people. I'm curious what his message will be... never mind, we already know it's Satan's work. Anyone check under his mitre for numbers?

You are asserting that gay sex is no unhealthy when the life span of such people is less than 50? That one characteristic of that life style is not promiscuous sex? That an increasing number of normal sexual relations occur outside marriage? Believe me as a guy when I say the obvious--that most guys get married because we want a sexual partner. We STAY married because we want someone who is more than that and--believe it or not-- because we want children. But it is evident that fewer and fewer guys are buying into the traditional marriage, one being that it avoids the very real possibiity of divorce in a society where so many women want the same things as men. Gays live in the same society and marriage offers fewer benefits.

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.