Vatican Urges Israel To Ban Gay Parade

Robert, liberal is just another way of saying “Idiot”.

You are most definitely a liberal.

Robert, liberal is just another way of saying “Idiot”.

You are most definitely a liberal.

The Church’s aims are to enhance human life and assist human beings to find and bond with God. It does not have sodomy and lust in its remit and therefore cannot be expected to support ‘Gay’ ‘rights’. ‘Diversity’ is another buzz-word that has no place in Church business. Diversity in human affairs includes sin – that which damages the human soul/spirit – hence cannot be supported. If you have trouble with that, think about the Health Service, would you expect it to support asthma or menningitis, in the name of ‘diversity’, rather than recognising them as being inimicble to good health?

The Church’s aims are to enhance human life and assist human beings to find and bond with God. It does not have sodomy and lust in its remit and therefore cannot be expected to support ‘Gay’ ‘rights’. ‘Diversity’ is another buzz-word that has no place in Church business. Diversity in human affairs includes sin – that which damages the human soul/spirit – hence cannot be supported. If you have trouble with that, think about the Health Service, would you expect it to support asthma or menningitis, in the name of ‘diversity’, rather than recognising them as being inimicble to good health?

Robert, Robert, wherer shall we begin?

“Worldwide, AIDS is predominantly a heterosexual disease.”

There are lies, and there are damned lies. Then there are statistics. In our innumerate culteure, we can (and must) usually just stop at the damned lies. The Red Cross does a pretty good job of it:

http://www.redcross.org/services/hss/tips/gaydisease.html

In responce to the rhetorical question, “Isn’t AIDS a gay disease?” just the bald-faced puddle of lapdog slop,

“[Why no you ignorant Christian/Jew-boy pig!] Anyone can get HIV through blood-to-blood or sexual contact with a person with HIV. Like anyone else, men who have sex with men are at risk if they have contact with an HIV-positive person’s blood, semen, vaginal fluid or breast milk, [or communion hosts handled by your priest].”

We should affirm now, while it’s on everyone’s mind, that black lung disease is not a coal miner’s disease. Like anyone else, miners who suck dirty air for a living are at risk if they have contact with an HIV-positive person’s blood while breathing asbestos, or even from just kissing their dogs followed by quickly smoking ten cigars dipped in formaldehyde.

Now, while I am chary to believe any statistics without doing the analysis myself and knowing exactly how the samples were selected and tests conducted, at least some information can be gleaned from the numbers produced by charlatans like the CDC and WHO. You can find such numbers here:

http://www.avert.org/usastatg.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#exposure
http://www.healthsquare.com/aids_stats.htm

They pretty much say the same thing about HIV/AIDS in America (and were possibly copied from each other), which is as follows:

The probability you have contracted AIDS through 2004 via male-male sexual contact is
441380/934861, or 47%. In precise mathematical notation this is stated “the probability that you got AIDS via Male-Male sex given that you have AIDS, is 47%,” and is notated P[Male-Male|AIDS] = 47%. Using the more succinct notation, the breakdown by exposure risk is

P[ Male-Male | AIDS ] = 47%
P[ Injection Drug Use | AIDS ] = 26%
P[ Heterosexual Contact | AIDS ] = 17%
P[ Other Means | AIDS ] = 9%

I am being generous to your argument, Robert, as there is another category that I do not understand, which I am including in the “Other Means” thereby lessening the first probability.

At first blush, since the first probability is less than 50%, your statement appears to be correct. But for normal people, i.e., non-drug users, the combined probability of having gotten
their AIDS is 17+9=26%. That’s less than 47%.

Alas, we come to the real argument, as the foregoing statistics are mindless tripe pre-masticated for the asses. Neither I, nor anyone else for the purpose of establishing our risk of contracting AIDS, should want to know how we got it, given that we already have it. We should
want to know how probable it is that we obtain it, given that we are in a certain risk group. In other words, we should want to know P[ AIDS | Male-Male]. Instead of counting the number of people who have obtained AIDS via male-male contact and dividing it by the total number of AIDS cases, the relevant statistic is the number of people who have obtained AIDS via male-
male contact divided by the total number of male-male engaging people, a.k.a. homosexuals.

The relevant probabilities can be calculated using Bayes’ Formula, making the assumptions that, in the United States the probability of contracting AIDS is about 5% and the probability of being homosexual is 10%. From this information and the previous statistics it can be calculated that

P[Contracting AIDS | you are a homosexual] = 24%
P[Contracting AIDS | you are a heterosexual] = 0.9 %

In other words, homosexuals are about 27 times more likely to contract AIDS. You can play around with the assumptions, but nothing reasonable will change the outcome.

Ahh, yes, you did say “worldwide.” Well, the above argument probably wins the day here as well. Add to this the fact that in the turd world, there is a tremendous amount of filth and filthy sexual practices, like AIDS-infected pigs raping young girls because they think it will cure them. You can think of these statistics as very noisy. You know, when falling from 1000 feet, hitting leg-first is just about as deadly as head-first. It’s a little different when slipping in the shower.

Well, hey, that clears that up. AIDS is, indeed, a homosexual disease. Just ask them…

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/09/30/state/n024720D15.DTL&type=health

P.S. I’m not disparaging homosexuals by saying that HIV/AIDS is a gay disease. Just don’t ask me to look up at the sun during the day and exclaim how dark and cold it is.

Robert, Robert, wherer shall we begin?

“Worldwide, AIDS is predominantly a heterosexual disease.”

There are lies, and there are damned lies. Then there are statistics. In our innumerate culteure, we can (and must) usually just stop at the damned lies. The Red Cross does a pretty good job of it:

http://www.redcross.org/services/hss/tips/gaydisease.html

In responce to the rhetorical question, “Isn’t AIDS a gay disease?” just the bald-faced puddle of lapdog slop,

“[Why no you ignorant Christian/Jew-boy pig!] Anyone can get HIV through blood-to-blood or sexual contact with a person with HIV. Like anyone else, men who have sex with men are at risk if they have contact with an HIV-positive person’s blood, semen, vaginal fluid or breast milk, [or communion hosts handled by your priest].”

We should affirm now, while it’s on everyone’s mind, that black lung disease is not a coal miner’s disease. Like anyone else, miners who suck dirty air for a living are at risk if they have contact with an HIV-positive person’s blood while breathing asbestos, or even from just kissing their dogs followed by quickly smoking ten cigars dipped in formaldehyde.

Now, while I am chary to believe any statistics without doing the analysis myself and knowing exactly how the samples were selected and tests conducted, at least some information can be gleaned from the numbers produced by charlatans like the CDC and WHO. You can find such numbers here:

http://www.avert.org/usastatg.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#exposure
http://www.healthsquare.com/aids_stats.htm

They pretty much say the same thing about HIV/AIDS in America (and were possibly copied from each other), which is as follows:

The probability you have contracted AIDS through 2004 via male-male sexual contact is
441380/934861, or 47%. In precise mathematical notation this is stated “the probability that you got AIDS via Male-Male sex given that you have AIDS, is 47%,” and is notated P[Male-Male|AIDS] = 47%. Using the more succinct notation, the breakdown by exposure risk is

P[ Male-Male | AIDS ] = 47%
P[ Injection Drug Use | AIDS ] = 26%
P[ Heterosexual Contact | AIDS ] = 17%
P[ Other Means | AIDS ] = 9%

I am being generous to your argument, Robert, as there is another category that I do not understand, which I am including in the “Other Means” thereby lessening the first probability.

At first blush, since the first probability is less than 50%, your statement appears to be correct. But for normal people, i.e., non-drug users, the combined probability of having gotten
their AIDS is 17+9=26%. That’s less than 47%.

Alas, we come to the real argument, as the foregoing statistics are mindless tripe pre-masticated for the asses. Neither I, nor anyone else for the purpose of establishing our risk of contracting AIDS, should want to know how we got it, given that we already have it. We should
want to know how probable it is that we obtain it, given that we are in a certain risk group. In other words, we should want to know P[ AIDS | Male-Male]. Instead of counting the number of people who have obtained AIDS via male-male contact and dividing it by the total number of AIDS cases, the relevant statistic is the number of people who have obtained AIDS via male-
male contact divided by the total number of male-male engaging people, a.k.a. homosexuals.

The relevant probabilities can be calculated using Bayes’ Formula, making the assumptions that, in the United States the probability of contracting AIDS is about 5% and the probability of being homosexual is 10%. From this information and the previous statistics it can be calculated that

P[Contracting AIDS | you are a homosexual] = 24%
P[Contracting AIDS | you are a heterosexual] = 0.9 %

In other words, homosexuals are about 27 times more likely to contract AIDS. You can play around with the assumptions, but nothing reasonable will change the outcome.

Ahh, yes, you did say “worldwide.” Well, the above argument probably wins the day here as well. Add to this the fact that in the turd world, there is a tremendous amount of filth and filthy sexual practices, like AIDS-infected pigs raping young girls because they think it will cure them. You can think of these statistics as very noisy. You know, when falling from 1000 feet, hitting leg-first is just about as deadly as head-first. It’s a little different when slipping in the shower.

Well, hey, that clears that up. AIDS is, indeed, a homosexual disease. Just ask them…

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/09/30/state/n024720D15.DTL&type=health

P.S. I’m not disparaging homosexuals by saying that HIV/AIDS is a gay disease. Just don’t ask me to look up at the sun during the day and exclaim how dark and cold it is.

Robert Paul Reyes said, Reminder: Worldwide AIDS is predominantly a heterosexual disease. ”

wrong!!! Aids is predominantly a promiscuity disease, it does not and cannot differentiate between the genders or any of their PERSONAL choices. If your comment had even a shred of truth to it then the common cold would also be a predominantly heterosexual disease!!! Give your head a shake

Robert Paul Reyes said, Reminder: Worldwide AIDS is predominantly a heterosexual disease. ”

wrong!!! Aids is predominantly a promiscuity disease, it does not and cannot differentiate between the genders or any of their PERSONAL choices. If your comment had even a shred of truth to it then the common cold would also be a predominantly heterosexual disease!!! Give your head a shake

Reminder: Worldwide AIDS is predominantly a heterosexual disease.

Catholics, Evangelicals, Charismatics, Islamics… they all have one thing in common. They all espouse things that Roger Paul Reyes thinks they shouldn’t. Progressives are all about the diversity, until it’s people saying things that progressives reject. That’s when diversity gives way to my way or the highway with progressives.

Just where do atheists get off telling theists what they ought to be say? what’s the point here? Theists believe things you don’t. Theists have values that differ from yours. Why is this concept so difficult to process for someone who values diversity?

I really don’t understand progressives when they tell people that they ought to espouse things that conflict with their most deeply held values. Condemnation for beliefs that progressives find repugnant: I get that. I’m cool with it. I know you disagree with me on certain matters and we have room for debate there. But telling people that they ought to espouse certain things before convincing those people that the things that they ought to espouse are good? Seriously, what’s the deal here?

Get this straight RPR, various varieties of theists believe things that progressives find repugnant. that’s cool. really. After all, various varieties of theists also find repugnant many things that progressives believe. But if you want catholics to espouse the mystical purity of gayness, you’re going to have to get them to dump catholicism first.

“Instead of seeking to ban the parade, the Vatican should send a cardinal or two to march with the gay activists to show that they are in solidarity with their campaign for equal rights.”

Campaign for equal rights? The Gay movement is but one other minority group being exploited by the international socialist movement to undermine everyone’s rights, including the gays. Not surprisingly Marx called for the abolition of the family and a free sex society. Why? Because along with the Christian church, the family represents the transmission belt of the values of the societies they hope to overthrow.

Meanwhile the gay movement, directed by leftist operators, fights not for equal rights to express their sexual freedom in private as they please, but to push it on us in every public way possible, from rewriting school curriculums, to telling a private club like the Boy Scouts, who can and who cannot participate and or lead (or else!), to making it so that Church adoption services shut down because they MUST adopt out to Gay couples contrary to their belief system, to forcing privately owned apartment complexes to rent to gays, to bringing Christian ministers to justice for committing the “hate crime” of calling sin, sin, to forcing all a rate hike in private insurance premiums because they have used the law to force insurance companies to cover this high risk group who willfully engages in dangerous behaviors, to include giving them AIDS coverage, to usurping the Constitution by going straight to the courts to impose their laws on all of us instead of using the democratic process, and on and on and on.

How naive, blind, or cowardly can we get in our assessments of this movement. Up till 1971 homosexuality was diagnosed as a pathology. It was not by medicine, but by political power that the psychiatric community was FORCED to back down, and tell a lie about this unnatural disorder that produces a group with the highest suicide, alcoholism, drug abuse, partner abuse, child abuse rates on record – and add to that, a HOST, and I mean a HOST of bizarre diseases that constitute a public health risk.

There is nothing, NOTHING to be tolerant of here, other than to love the sinner, but hate the sin. As for its political implications – THEY STAND AS PROOF THAT THIS IS NOT ABOUT PRIVACY, BUT ABOUT IMPOSING AN TOTALITARIAN AGENDA ON ALL OF US.

This is true of some of many of the movers and shakers in the movement, though others get on board simply for Votes, for money, for power, for acceptance … They too are being exploited.

Revealingly, once the Communists accomplished their revolution in Russia, they started imprisoning gays, and turned back to the traditional family as the vital backbone of civilization that it is, even within a Communist state.

Religion should be an expression and celebration of the human spirit

An atheist telling people what “religion” should be like.

Now tell us about morality and goodness. They’re not the same as tolerance, which is an outgrowth of man’s baser instincts (I’m sure you understand those are evil).

It is difficult to find a group of individuals whose perspectives, interests, and standpoints less deserving of support than that group of individuals in the Vatican.

Individuals promoting “gay rights” actually manage precisely that.

What gays do in their own bedrooms is of no interest to me, but like jjtaup, I found the “gift” of AIDS from the promiscuous and conscienceless gays disgusting.

Homosexuals HAVE HAD their freedom in nations like Israel, the U.S., Germany, and France.

In fact, they have had special protections and privileges for years.

Their thinly-veiled recruiting/lobbying efforts for privileges, disguised as “expressions of freedom” deserve a fair bit of derision.

It is difficult to find a group of individuals whose perspectives, interests, and standpoints less deserving of support than that group of individuals in the Vatican.

Individuals promoting “gay rights” actually manage precisely that.

What gays do in their own bedrooms is of no interest to me, but like jjtaup, I found the “gift” of AIDS from the promiscuous and conscienceless gays disgusting.

Homosexuals HAVE HAD their freedom in nations like Israel, the U.S., Germany, and France.

In fact, they have had special protections and privileges for years.

Their thinly-veiled recruiting/lobbying efforts for privileges, disguised as “expressions of freedom” deserve a fair bit of derision.

Homosexuals are being used by a militant branch that purports to “further their liberties.” What a shame that this group (homosexuals) are so abused and trivialized. I would be enraged were viscious pretenders to deign to assume mastery over my thoughts and aspirations. Good for you, Pope!

It’s time for everyone who’s had enough of this bull*#@* to get just as angry, militant, in-your-face, intolerant, po’d, vocal, political, loud, offended, motivated, and ruthless as these charlatans and exploiters.

Robert, there isn’t any such thing as “equal rights.” That’s a canard invented by the left, just like “separation of church and state.” Tell a child born with no arms and legs about its equal rights to play tag with the others. Tell a hermaphrodite with malformed sexual organs of either/both sexes about its equal rights to raise a family from its own seed. If I wanted to march down the city street loudly proclaiming the merits of two-parent/opposite sex families, I bet I’d have a hard time getting the permit.

On the other hand, the promiscuous and unconscionable homosexuals who gave us the gift of aids (which does not at all include ALL homosexuals), for which San Francisco did not shut down the bath houses to prevent it’s spread, for which the government refrained from any discriminatory practice in giving blood thereby granting permission to murder, apparently need no permit to make the rest of us “eat it.”

How dare you compare what Martin Luther did for civil rights with what is being done in Jersualem. Gay marches are no longer about civil rights they are displays of arrogance. The law protects them, and the law is JUDEO CHRISTIAN!!!The gays are simply waving the flag of their arrogance in the face of the very religions that have given them rights at all. I would like to see organizers of this march put the SAME effort into a gay march in Iran or Saudia Arabia. The ONLY reason it is being done in Jerusalem is BECAUSE of the tolerance of Christians and Jews.

I really don’t understand some people’s insistance that they need to be able to offend somebody – in this case billions of people for the sake of “Freedom of Expression.” What a crock.

Why not for the sake of Freedom of Expression we just abort a baby at the alter during mass? Or even, just have somebody urinate on a cross or in the middle of a mosque?

Also what equal right are the homosexuals denied? Last I checked they get to commit murder by aids and I can’t kill anybody over the course of 10 years without going to jail. Where’s my rights here?