Monday, April 30, 2012

Gay killer blames Moses for gay suffering

Gay anti-bully Dan Savage gave a speech recently to a bunch of high school kids interested in journalism.


Savage lives up to his name. His talk, ostensibly about bullying, is bullying directed at Christian kids, scores of whom walked out in the middle of the screed. Savage is legendary for his venom-- his scatological internet attack on Rick Santorum speaks for itself. Just why would organizers of this conference for high school kids invite this scumbag (no pun) to talk?

Savage reels off his boilerplate anti-Christian hate, implicitly blaming the Christian kids in the audience for gay suffering. But there's so much irony. It's been a couple of millenia since the last gay stoning, if I've got my facts right. The biblical injunction against homosexual acts is still valid of course, but Leviticus has been superceded. The new Guy in charge explicitly condemns stoning for sexual sin. Savage didn't get the memo.

But gay men are being killed every day-- in unspeakably horrible ways-- by... ummm... how to say it tactfully?... well...... other gay men. Every gay man with AIDS got the disease from Moses a gay man. In the U.S. 300,000 gay men have died of AIDS. AIDS is a death cornucopia, so actually gay men have died of pneumocystis pneumonia, Kaposi's sarcoma, lymphoma, tuberculosis, fungemia, fulminant salmonella, shigella, listeria, campylobacter, cryptosporidiosis, microsporidiosis, mycobacterium avium, clostridium difficile, toxoplasmosis, cryptococcus, progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, rectal carcinomas, hepatocellular carcinomas, head and neck cancers, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and stoning. 

Actually, stoning is not on the CDC list for causes of death among gay men. How times have changed.

AIDS is two things: it is transmissible, and it is behavioral. It is an infection spread (among gay men) by gay sex. It's not in the water, nor on toilet seats, nor caused by smoking, nor the result of stoning (even severe stoning won't cause AIDS). It is the result of gay men with AIDS having anal intercourse with gay men without AIDS, who then get AIDS and have intercourse with gay men without AIDS, who then... . You get the picture.

In other words, AIDS among gay men is caused by infected men (most of whom know they are infected) giving it to guys who often don't know they are infected. Western blots are generally not available in bathroom stalls,etc. so anonymous promiscuity is the perfect storm for an epidemic.

All that's needed for an epidemic to really get going is to have media savvy potential vectors publicly lie about the real cause of the epidemic.

Enter Mr. Savage.

Is Mr. Savage personally complicit in gay deaths from AIDS? Well, yea. How so? AIDS is a completely man-made epidemic. Completely. Like smoking.  Like drunk driving. And the people who hawk smoking-- tobacco company execs, etc.-- carry a heavy moral burden for the deaths of people who buy their products. The people who hawk gay sex-- Mr. Savage comes to mind-- carry a heavy moral burden for the deaths of people who buy the stuff they hawk. People who hawk products that kill people are... oh... gee... what's the word... ummm... killers. People who hawk gay sex are killers-- just like people who stone people, except that people who stone people don't generally profit in any personal way from killing, unlike Mr. Motivational Speaker-Sex Columnist-Editor-Author Dan Savage.

And of course people stopped hawking stoning 2000 years ago. But hawking gay sex is on the upswing.

Mr. Savage blubbers on about stoning and Leviticus-- which kill no gay men at all-- while he makes a nice living hawking gay sex, which is the Zyclon B of the gay holocaust.

"Oh", you exclaim, "Savage is only hawking safe sex. Sero-segregation, and all that". Right. Like the "drive really slow" response to drunk driving.

If you want a peek into gay ethics, keep in mind that the maxim "only give fatal diseases to people who already have them" is a raging controversy.

Unlike cancer or heart disease or accidental deaths, AIDS among gay men is 100% preventable. It is a man-made epidemic, in the sense that we have it entirely within our power to unmake it. We know how to stop it. Here's how:


It's in Leviticus, implicitly of course, and it permeates Christian teaching. Here are some of the rules:

1) Only have sex with your opposite-sex spouse.
2) Don't have sex with men (if you're a man)
3) If you are a man with AIDS, don't have sex with anyone, because you might give it to them and kill them.

Oh, and this rule:

4) Don't hawk things that kill people.

Admittedly, Levitical rules are hard to follow. Advocating chastity can also put a damp on your speaker fees. But the remarkable thing about this Christian chastity thing is that, unlike condoms, it works. Always. 100%. Follow the rules, and you and your friends never get AIDS. It's like a super condom.

And then you can take your chances with stoning.


  1. I was reading this morning an article about how a majority of British doctors believe that smokers and the obese should be turned away from emergency rooms for non-life threatening medical problems. The rationale seems to be that people who smoke and people who are obese have brought their upon themselves and the taxpayer shouldn't be expected to foot the bill for their lifestyle decisions.

    That's actually a great argument against government in the health care industry, not such a great argument against turning away sick people because it's "their fault."

    But I immediately thought of AIDS patients. If the government ever tried to regulate sexual behavior for the same reason that it tries to regulate smoking and now eating--because the ramifications of such bad behavior drive up the cost of health care--the Left would scream bloody murder. Nobody tells them what to do with their private parts, NOBODY!!!

    But I think we should all admit that except for a small percentage of people who contracted AIDS in the womb, the rest of them made a conscious choice to do something very irresponsible. And now they have a terrible disease.

    And if we were really concerned about "health" (as liberals think that they are), they would be spreading the message that AIDS is preventable and not engaging in sodomy is the way to do it.


  2. "If you want a peek into gay ethics, keep in mind that the maxim "only give fatal diseases to people who already have them" is a raging controversy."

    I laughed myself silly. Reminds me of the scummy Andrew Sullivan. He's HIV positive and he posted a personal ad on "Bareback" means unprotected sex, by the way. They have a whole website just for that.

    He said that he was interested in "bi-scenes, one-on-ones, three-ways, groups, parties, orgies and gang bangs," but not in "fats and fems."

    Of course, he disclosed beforehand that he had the virus, so I suppose it's all cool, right?


  3. English not being my mother tongue I will leave to others how to respond to Savage.

    All I can say is that he is a TDC.

  4. AIDS for the life expectancy dip in Sub-Saharan Africa in this chart:

    Either there are a LOT of gay men in Southern Africa, or your premise is nonsense.

    Using your reasoning, Michael, the Catholic Church's indictment of (and lies about) condoms are just as lethal as gay men choosing to have sex. Therefore the Church is just as guilty of murderous behavior.

    I know you'll want to respond that there wouldn't be an AIDS problem if people would just abstain from having sex, and therefore the condoms wouldn't be needed.

    That's fine, you or anyone else on this comment thread who has never had sex while using birth control technology is welcome to promote the chastity argument. But anyone who has had sex outside of the bounds marriage and/or who has employed technology to prevent pregnancy or STD transmission would be a completely disgusting hypocrite to stand on a moral soapbox and tell others to "just say no".

  5. The fact is that sex between two HIV-negative people won't lead to either partner acquiring HIV. A heterosexual couple, where one of them is HIV-positive will however very likely lead to one of them getting infected.

    There are no safe cigarette, but there is safe sex.

    1. Leonhard,

      "A heterosexual couple, where one of them is HIV-positive will however very likely lead to one of them getting infected. "
      HIV will infect regardless of the sex of the partner, true.
      But a heterosexual 'couple' (married, I assume) are engaging in monogamous sex.
      The BIG problem with the 'GLBT' lifestyle with regards to disease is the immoral and promiscuous nature of the liaisons.
      Let's face it, they are driven - much of the time - by lust, not love.
      (If you are comparing heterosexual and homosexual orgy goers...well they are both in danger.)

      "There are no safe cigarette, but there is safe sex."
      There is only 'filters' for either, and neither is 'safe'.
      The sex act is natural, while smoking is merely traditional. Both are addictive, time consuming, and risky.
      Homosexual sex is more akin to smoking.
      It is not any more natural for two members of the same sex to attempt to mate than it is for a man to smoke a weed or fact I would argue it is a lot LESS natural to do so.
      I have often stated I think it is BIZARRE we live in an age where smoking pot is illegal, and cigars/cigarettes/booze are nearly so... while abortion is pushed, 'gay marriage' is made law, and 'transgender' (drag queens) models run for Ms. Universe.
      I wonder what people looking back in 20 or 30 years will think?
      Will they still be blinded by this millennial madness, or will they have reversed course, and made hard about?
      My bet is on the latter.
      Won't be pretty, either way.

    2. "It is not any more natural for two members of the same sex to attempt to mate than it is for a man to smoke a weed or fact I would argue it is a lot LESS natural to do so."

      There are many animals that engage in same sex acts. There are no animals other than man that smoke weeds or plants.

    3. "There are many animals that engage in same sex acts. There are no animals other than man that smoke weeds or plants."
      Apples and oranges, Anon.
      There are many animals that kill and eat their young or eat their own faecal matter. There are no animals that build sky scrapers or paint frescos.
      Man is not an average 'animal'.
      What is natural for man does not equate what is natural for an animal. I would think that glaringly obvious.

    4. Perhaps a better comparison Anon?
      There are many animals that kill and eat their young. None of them prepare pharmaceuticals.
      While animals may engage in unnatural acts, like killing their young - they do not possess the ability to isolate and use chemicals in plants (for example) to their benefit. Elephants may gather to eat boozy fruit, but they do not ferment the booze. Cavies may chew Cocoa leaves and thus be able to live at great altitudes, but they do not make cocaine for aesthetic. The use of Tobacco to 'smudge' or 'smoke' is similar. It changes the scent of the person smoking it. That has all sorts of implications in the deep woodlands - including avoiding being bitten by many nasty disease carrying bugs.
      So you're right really.
      Animals may bugger each other on occasion, but do not ever make a fine cigar.
      Of course, such standards of behaviour and such a definition of natural is only good if you are an animal (feral at that).
      For me, as a civilized human being, I will stick to the occasional Havana and the love of my wife - as they are what is 'natural' for us.

    5. @anon:

      Are there any sex acts that are unnatural? How about (gentle) oral sex on a newborn baby, done in such a way that the child is not harmed.

      Is that "natural"? Is that morally acceptable?

  6. Interesting. Didn't I post a comment here yesterday?

    Didn't I post a comment that referenced the death rate due to AIDS in Sub-Saharan Africa? Didn't I mention that AIDS is killing heterosexual people, and the Catholic Church is spreading lies in a lethal rampage of anti-condom advertising?

    Didn't I anticipate that people would respond by saying: "you don't need condoms if you simply don't have sex"?

    Didn't I welcome every commenter who has never used a condom or other birth control technology to go ahead and advocate a "just say no" policy? But anyone who HAS used technology to prevent pregnancy or STDs while pursuing recreational sex should probably not chime in to defend the Church's anti-condom policy in Africa.

    I guess a blog where people who have used birth control technology can hypocritically tell others to remain chaste is also a blog where someone can hypocritically advocate free speech while deleting dissenting comments.

    1. @RickK,
      Don't know what happened to your previous comments.
      I will say this: I have used condoms, and do not think they are anything but a 'filter'. The use of them by people who are engaging in monogamous relations is one thing, promoting them in order to turn the sex act into a 'safe' team sport is another entirely.
      The former is simply the private matter and choices of the individual, the latter is a social policy that OBVIOUSLY promotes promiscuity and thereby negates any positive effect the condoms may have had. Further promiscuity breaks the sacred and intimate bonds between a man and woman, reducing the act of of love making to an animal like rutting ritual. I want no part of that 'Brave New World' thanks. You 'engage' and take your Soma. I will make love and contrast pleasure with my pain.

      You pose a juvenile and silly question. Now it's my turn.
      In kind.
      Have you NEVER been in an intimate situation where you forgot the condom, or it was old, or you were somehow convinced it was 'okay' not to?
      Most people have and will experience this. They, on occasion, take that 'chance' to feel it 'natural'. Nobody likes how condoms feel.
      Most men and women alike do not like anything getting between them in love making (you'll note they are usually naked).
      That is the limit of the condom. People do not use them, even when available. The result in a PROMISCUOUS society is rampant diseases (especially among teens and youth) and fatherless children. We see very levels of these problems in our own cultures since the 1960's.

      So in summation, while I do not support the outright banning or even too much control on the sale of condoms, I also do not support the insanity of PROMOTING 'safe sex' (ie free love / promiscuity) to children. Children should abstain.
      Full stop.

      @all (especially those who are Christians!)
      An anecdote: I once was speaking to a war-friend of mine (who joined a religious order a few years later) about the Garden of Eden, and the truths of the Original Sin - the meanings within the story.
      In our conversation, which touched on many aspects of the transgression, the nature and meaning of the Serpent, God's reaction etc.
      We eventually got to the 'shame' felt by Adam and Eve that caused them to dress themselves, and thus make evident their eating of the fruit. He made a very interesting point that I think may shed light on the issue we discuss here, at least from a theological/religious perspective.
      He had suggested to me that the evil purpose of the 'clothing' was to come between the man and the woman, and this is one of the reasons for God's forbidding the tree and His outrage at their being dressed.
      It was a rather complex point, but very well argued. If he is correct then the condom game has a precedent leading all the way back to Genesis.
      It seems the serpent does NOT like us to 'multiply'.
      Killing babies or preventing them being born for selfish reasons is bad enough, but doing it for 'sustainability' (Mother Earth, Gaia etc) is a compound sin and blasphemy.

    2. "I will say this: I have used condoms, and do not think they are anything but a 'filter'. The use of them by people who are engaging in monogamous relations is one thing..."

      "Killing babies or preventing them being born for selfish reasons is bad enough..."

      One of the really wonderful aspects of being a member of the reality-based community is the freedom from the cognitive dissonance (or hypocrisy) that is you supernaturalists live with every day.

      Crus - many people don't like to wear seat belts. But that doesn't change the fact that the more people wear them, the more lives are saved. But to continue the analogy, the best way to avoid traffic deaths is to simply not drive. And if the Bible had a stake in driving habits, self-appointed moralists would be standing on their pedestals railing against seat belts because it makes driving too safe.

  7. I guess Christians advocating violence against people for being gay is a myth. Oh wait, it isn't.

    1. You can shove your d**k in the first hole in the ground that suits you, I could'nt care less...

    2. "You can shove your d**k in the first hole in the ground that suits you, I could'nt care less..."

      No thanks. I can tell the difference. You, on the other hand, don't seem to be able to.

  8. Well well.... Look at that. Another comment deleted.

    So much for free speech.

    I guess when you're defending the Church, principles are optional. "The end justifies the means" - which chapter and verse is that?

    1. I haven't deleted any comments. What are you talking about?

      I have trouble accessing the spam filter from this computer. I'll check the filter as soon as I can.

      Be careful of accusing me of deleting comments. I rarely do that, and I don't like being accused of it.

  9. I published two comments, on separate nights, that appeared after I published them but were gone the next day.

    If you're not in control of which comments are deleted, then I apologize for accusing you.

  10. There were several comments in the spam filter, from you and from art numlock. They're free.