Matt Foreman is the executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and has recently admitted to the public at his organization's  national conference February meeting that HIV/AIDS is a "gay disease." 

His statement regarding AIDS surprised many of the attendees when he said, “Folks, with 70% of the people in this country living with HIV being gay or bi(sexual), we cannot deny that HIV is a gay disease. We have to own that and face up to that.”

So now when we, who are not in this lifestyle, repeat this it can't be considered hate speech right?  I mean this is not a surprise to the general public. We've been saying this for years and have been told it's not politically correct to do so and that it's hateful to say such things.   All along it wasn't hateful...it was truthful. 

Gary Glenn, president of AFA of Michigan, said in a press release: “Despite medical data identifying homosexual activity among males as by far the largest single source of HIV infection in the U.S., homosexual activists have routinely condemned conservative and public health organizations for characterizing the disease as being predominantly associated with and spread by homosexual behavior.”

Some of the activists are agreeing with Foreman's original statement. Sean Strub, founder of a "gay" magazine said:   “What Matt meant was we as a gay community have to take more responsibility for the epidemic. Too much of the (gay) community has relegated the epidemic as some other community’s concern.”

Later on in another interview, however, Foreman said “I don’t blame our community for the fact that MSM [men who have sex with men] still account for nearly three quarters of men living with HIV,” Foreman said. “I hold our government accountable” for failing to deal effectively with the AIDS crisis.

So whose fault is it really?  Why is it ok now to admit all this?  Does the success of the "gay" agenda, now make this admission possible?   He certainly did alot of crowing about the inevitable success of the activists as they have more and more cities and states passing laws in their favor.  He went on to say:

“Look at our progress in the percentage of the U.S. population covered by a law that protects people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation – 0% in 1970, 4% in 1980, 12% in 1990, 28% in 2000 and today 52% – over half the U.S. population now has these protections." 

Yes, look at that.  Are we getting more and more progressive or more and more accepting of sinful behavior?  I guess it depends on which side you're on. 

The success of wealthy, gay rights activists like Jon Stryker and Tim Gill, who have successfully targeted for removal candidates who refuse to accept the gay agenda, was a highlight of Foreman’s speech. These activists, he said, have “helped fund campaigns to take out bigots and elect pro-LGBT candidates. All of this was done over the well-funded, homophobic attack machine of America’s anti-gay industry.”

Where's the hate speech police when you need em'? 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 



Comments
on Apr 05, 2008
Oh. I thought you were going to admit that you were gay.

Man, that would have been great.
on Apr 05, 2008

hahahahahaa...I'm laughing quite hard SC.....thanks for the humor! 

You are the cat's meow!  Don't let anyone tell you different. 

Sorry to ruin your day tho...

 

 

on Apr 05, 2008

No argument: If you're gay or sleep with women who have AIDS and you are not protected, you are at risk of getting AIDs. I won't go into the physiological aspect too deeply but if men are using (to me), unnatural methods of sexual behaviour, what do they expect? If you can get Hepatitis from faecal contamination can you image the risks these guys take.

Gay sex is far riskier than lesbian sex and is open to more contamination whether condoms are used or not. I'm speaking here of risks and I can't see the attraction at all. Being a healthy heterosexual I wouldn't would I?

Why would a man love another man when there is no healthy way to copulate? Think about that.

on Apr 05, 2008

Why would a man love another man when there is no healthy way to copulate? Think about that.


I think it's because they like it...just a guess, though.


Of course AIDS ravages the gay community because some don't take the precaution to use protection as much as heterosexuals do. There's no risk of pregnancy so they just go at it...unfortunately with that attitude things will catch up with you which is why such a large proportion of those infected are gay.

I wouldn't classify AIDS as a "gay disease" myself, though. It can affect anyone...it's not sexual orientation specific. "Gay disease" would imply it only affects homosexuals...which of course it doesn't. That's misleading.

We should blame whoever ate/was bitten by/screwed whatever animal(presumed monkey) that started AIDS in the first place.

~Zoo



on Apr 05, 2008
Matt Foreman is the executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and has recently admitted to the public at his organization's national conference February meeting that HIV/AIDS is a "gay disease."
His statement regarding AIDS surprised many of the attendees when he said, “Folks, with 70% of the people in this country living with HIV being gay or bi(sexual), we cannot deny that HIV is a gay disease. We have to own that and face up to that.”


Truth that HIV/AIDS is a "gay disease" is what we've known all along. I'm glad it's finally being publicized.

Not sure, but think there has been a policy of banning homosexuals from giving blood and possibly sperm ever since 1985. That tells us right there they knew this as true all along.

The Red Cross keeps getting sued for discrimination over this policy but they are looking out for the greater good of the public..and are well within their right to do so.

on Apr 05, 2008
... HIV/AIDS does not care whether you are gay or straight. It is going to kill you if it can get to you. That is all it cares about.

Just because it started in the gay community doesn't make it limited to homosexuals. It is a problem that everyone should be aware of. But I'd be extra cautious if I was going to have sex with anyone besides my wife. Which I won't be doing.
on Apr 05, 2008

The Red Cross keeps getting sued for discrimination over this policy

Yes, remember just recently a high school was NOT allowed to give blood or be used as a facility because homosexuals weren't allowed to donate?  Hopefully this new news will help things in that department. 

I remember my dad years ago saying "of course it's a gay disease"  when all the media and politicians were tiptoing around the obvious trying their best not to spread this news.   All you had to do was see who the majority were getting sick.   They didn't want to admit this then because it was like speaking against a certain social group of people and it was politically incorrect to do so.    So it's good they themselves have come out to admit this is a problem  and they need to own it.  

 I respect that.  Good for them.  Let's see where it goes from here tho. 

 

 

on Apr 06, 2008
I think the idea of avoiding the HIV=gay association was to make sure everyone realised they could get it too, regardless of whether or not they had sex hetero or homo.
on Apr 06, 2008
... HIV/AIDS does not care whether you are gay or straight. It is going to kill you if it can get to you. That is all it cares about.

Just because it started in the gay community doesn't make it limited to homosexuals. It is a problem that everyone should be aware of.


There ya go.

~Zoo
on Apr 06, 2008

There ya go

that wasn't the point.  I, nor anyone else, has said anything about it being limited to the homosexuals. 

I think the idea of avoiding the HIV=gay association was to make sure everyone realised they could get it too, regardless of whether or not they had sex hetero or homo.

I don't think that's the reason. 

What's the matter, did ya give up on evolution?

I only wrote about Sally Kern and now here....again.....is that too much all at once for you to handle? 

Besides....think of me lately as just writing about current events.  I can't help what's in the news.  In fact there's alot in the news lately regarding the homosexual agenda.  But I've not been limited to just that bit of news either. 

Geeeseh LW.....you complain when I write on religion, then you complain about the evolution....then you complain because I write about homosexuals.....anymore you'd like to suggest I NOT write about? 

 

 

 

on Apr 06, 2008





I took it easy on you...that's actually a spoof on this: WWW Link

~Zoo
on Apr 06, 2008
I belong to a cult?  ( 

Besides....I didn't quote any scripture here....as applicable yes, but that's not this blog or my last or the one before that. So is it religion, evolution or homosexuality you think I shouldn't write about?

Com'on LW...you know quite well I cover quite a bit of diff subjects...but I do have my favorites like anyone else around here.

Vacant eyed? Can you see me?   





on Apr 06, 2008
I don't think that's the reason.


Clearly, but I thought there should at least be an attempt on this article to put forward the way diseases are publicised.
on Apr 07, 2008
The Red Cross keeps getting sued for discrimination over this policy


The sad part is it is not a Red Cross policy. It is an FDA policy, and the blood banks of America have no control over it.

As for the HS, I find their attitude, as well as San Jose State to be stupid, ignorant and self defeating.