1 posted on
07/02/2003 10:25:10 AM PDT by
presidio9
To: presidio9
Yes, I can now see why this group "needs" Supream Court contrived constitutional protections!
To: presidio9
Maybe if AIDS lobbying groups stopped lobbying to encourage gay men and other irresponsible groups to get AIDS, fewer of them would get AIDS?
Nah, too un-PC.
It's the GOVERNMENT'S fault (no matter what government) that idiots get AIDS.
3 posted on
07/02/2003 10:31:46 AM PDT by
cake_crumb
(UN Resolutions=Very Expensive, Very SCRATCHY Toilet Paper)
To: presidio9
If you have to be convinced by advertisements not to engage in suicidal behavior, you're too far gone to help.
Sodomites have decided to ignore right and wrong already, why does it surprise people that they've moved on to ignoring cause and effect?
4 posted on
07/02/2003 10:39:32 AM PDT by
wideawake
(God bless our brave soldiers and their Commander in Chief)
To: presidio9
Increasingly, it is said gay men are making choices about whether to use condoms based on risk reduction rather than elimination.
Well, considering that condoms are about 85% effective, when used properly, in preventing pregnancy, they can't be used for risk elimination anyway. Especially when you consider:
A sperm is about 5 times bigger than the HIV virus
Pregnancy is possible about 5 to 10 days out of the month for most women, compared to the 365 days per year susceptibility of HIV.
Several additional reasons that the effectivity of condoms in preventing HIV infection in anal sex is probably even lower than their effectivity in preventing pregnancy are a little too distasteful to list in detail.
To: presidio9
Have these people never heard of that rare phenomenon called 'personal responsibility'?
7 posted on
07/02/2003 10:43:56 AM PDT by
LQDSWRD
To: presidio9
In 10 years, maybe they'll all be dead.
8 posted on
07/02/2003 10:44:24 AM PDT by
ffusco
(Maecilius Fuscus,Governor of Longovicium , Manchester, England. 238-244 AD)
To: presidio9
And barebacking may not be a problem if two men having sex are of the same HIV status - both negative, or both positive. Sure. Putting your thing into sewage is good for it. Fecal matter is recommended as an unguent by everyone.
Is this idiot nuts or what?
9 posted on
07/02/2003 10:48:23 AM PDT by
jimt
To: presidio9
11 posted on
07/02/2003 10:52:26 AM PDT by
mikeb704
To: presidio9
In the Australian context, barebacking is about taking risks and denying consequences. Actually, it's about taking risks and shifting the consequences and made possible by liberal enablers like those at the Morning Herald. It is ironic that those whose "compassion" compels them to squeal the loudest are those causing the damage.
12 posted on
07/02/2003 11:04:32 AM PDT by
laredo44
To: presidio9
Does anyone come right out and say: Homosexuality means an early and often painful death from AIDS?
To: presidio9
The saddest and most thought provoking situation I have been involved in lately is meeting someone who is now a good friend of mine; a gay, Christian, conservative guy.
He has his pistol permit. He's libertarian conservative who believes 100% in defending the Constitution. He believes he will probably go to Hell for being a homosexual. He says he was born that way and just knew from a very early age that he did not like girls and was attracted to guys. He is truly disgusted by outward displays of sexual affection, both homosexual and heterosexual, gay pride parades, cries for "equal rights" (he says special rights), etc.
He believes in the Bible and it tears me up that he believes he will go to Hell. I guess he's still trying to figure out why God made him a walking irony. I wonder myself what God's plan for him was, if he indeed was born gay.
He's not promiscious, I think he's been with a couple of people before, but he wants to find a like-minded guy and be in a committed relationship. I guess the moral of the story is that not all gay guys are promiscuous flamers.
15 posted on
07/02/2003 11:13:45 AM PDT by
bc2
To: presidio9
So more will die...it is survival of fittest and they prove to stupid to survive. Ok.
To: presidio9
I suspect the U.S. Supreme Court would or will rule that "barebacking" is a Constitutional right.
27 posted on
07/02/2003 5:45:35 PM PDT by
El Gato
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson