Do you find our point on view here on this page agreeable? Would you like to support this message of AIDS and Hep B & C to both the Gay & Straight Community? If you have a web page of like mind to this one and if your page does not display nudity, four-lettered words, or any graphic sexual pictures...Then sign the guestbook and leave your e-mail address. Click "Private Message" if you wish to avoid others from reading your message or e-mail address and we will reply to you. If we find your page in harmony to our message..we will e-mail you the code to place this free banner on your web page.
Knowing The Medical & Spiritual Facts About The Dangers Of AIDS and Hep B & C Spread Through Anal Sex And Blood Transfusions
The Creator of this web site: "My brother is currently fighting HepC. He is straight but got it through a blood transfusion over 15 years ago. It just showed up last year."
In my research of what are the top ways that both AIDS and Hep B is spread '2' ironic and unlikely resources prove to add up and agree with each other, both medically and spiritually. Oddly, one source is from a source that would be viewed as fundamental from the right, while the other would be viewed by many as being from the far left....The One Source is a gay men's web site, a page created by and ran by men who happen to be attracted to the same sex (Homosexual), And the other Jehovah's Witnesses...Dispite there differences both group's findings from both medical and Scriptural FACTS add up and are in agreement...that the two most common and dangerous ways AIDS and Hep B & C are spread from....Anal Sex (whether homosexual...man to man...or...heterosexual...man to women...and blood transfusions.
Educating Both Homosexuals AND Hetrosexuals On The Dangerous FACTS On the HIGH Potential Spread of AIDS & Hep B Through Anal Sex.
The PROVEN Health Dangers Of Anal Sex..Whether Gay or Straight!
When it comes to the dangers of AIDS, Hep B and C, and STDs...sexual orientation is irrelevant. Infact, 135,628 cases of AIDS were attributed to "HETEROsexual" contact. What you are not told is the FORM the "Heterosexual contact" took. People may assume, because of the label "HETEROsexual", that it was penile/vaginal sexual contact. This is unlikely for (2) reasons.
1) More men are likely to use a condom in penile/vaginal sex to prevent pregnancy;
And, 2) contrary to misconception , the vagina is fairly hostile to HIV taking hold, where as the anus will welcome it readily! Most women infected by HIV became so by participating in anal intercourse, or repeated unprotected vaginal sex with an infected partner (who almost always contracted HIV via anal intercourse or *IV drug use).
The playground acronym for AIDS: "Anally Injected Death Sentence" is not inaccurate in this respect! AIDS is seldom spread in other ways sexually....But is spread equally high through blood transfusions. Being gay (attracted to the same sex) does not spread AIDS. Anal "sex" does.
What The Public...Both The Gay Community AND The Straight Don't Want You To Know About The FACTS Concerning The Very Real Health Risks/Dangers of Anal Sex!
A website created and ran by gay men states, "Those in the homosexual community who support anal sex no matter what will call us "oppressive" because we point out that anal sex is indirectly killing people. They would call us "homophobic", despite the fact that we don't limit the message about the dangers of anal sex to "gAy" men. They will try to minimize the dangers of "anal sex" -- despite the fact that the figures on the chart above won't budge for them."
He continues, "They talk about "condom education campaigns", but it becomes obvious over a decade into such campaigns that either the campaigns do not work, or the fact that condoms DO fail, - accounts for the 2002 figures on AIDS charted above! The fact is that "anal intercourse", is a leading vector for virtually ALL sexually transmitted diseases & at levels many times higher!
Because of the image that anal-sex driven obession on the part of gay men and the damage it has done to the reputation of men and women who are simply attracted to the same-sex : Many people do not know to draw a distinction between "gay" being attracted to the same sex) & "anal" sex, -- But we DO."
The PROVEN Health Dangers of Anal Sex..Whether Gay or Straight Married Couples!
Here's a number for you: According to the CDC, condoms fail about 2% of the time during anal sex. On a 360 day year, that's 720 (360x2 partners). 720x2%= 14 condom failures. Since it only takes (1) failure to spread HIV, that's 1300% overkill. In psychology, people are sometimes classified based on their willingness to accept a suggestion.
In the minds of susceptible people,lacking either the willingness or faculty to question blanket statements about reality, these people live in a world made of half myth & half truth; -- And they cannot understand why the people around them succumb to the likes of HIV. Ask those still alive why they didn't become HIV+ too (the answers will all have 1-thing in common: an avoidance of anal penetration).
The PROVEN Health Dangers of Blood Transfusions!
According to U.S.News & World Report (May 1, 1989), about 5 percent of those given blood in the United States get hepatitis-175,000 people a year. About half become chronic carriers, and at least 1 in 5 develop cirrhosis or cancer of the liver. It is estimated that 4,000 die. Imagine the headlines you would read if a jumbo jet crashed, killing all aboard. But 4,000 deaths amount to a full jumbo jet crashing every month!
A director of the American Red Cross made this disturbing comment: "We can't just keep adding test after test for each infectious agent that might be spread."-Medical World News, May 8, 1989.
AIDS is caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), which can be spread by blood. The modern plague of AIDS came to light in 1981. The very next year, health experts learned that the virus could probably be passed on in blood products. It is now admitted that the blood industry was slow to respond, even after tests were available to identify blood containing HIV antibodies. Testing of donor blood finally began in 1985,* but even then it was not applied to blood products that were already on the shelf.
What The Public Health Workers Don't Want You To Know About The FACTS Concerning The Very Real Health Risks/Dangers of Blood Transfusions
With good reason, health-care workers and members of the public are reassessing their view of blood. One must not forget that patients other than Jehovah's Witnesses often choose not to follow their doctor's recommendations. According to Appelbaum and Roth,1 19% of patients at teaching hospitals refused at least one treatment or procedure, even though 15% of such refusals "were potentially life endangering."
The general view that "the doctor knows best" causes most patients to defer to their doctor's skill and knowledge. But how subtly dangerous it would be for a physician to proceed as if this phrase were a scientific fact and to treat patients accordingly. True, our medical training, licensing, and experience give us noteworthy privileges in the medical arena. Our patients, though, have rights. And, as we are likely aware, the law (even the Constitution) gives greater weight to rights.
Is it not true that the vast majority of cases physicians have confronted, or likely will, can be managed without blood? What we studied and know best has to do with medical problems, yet patients are human beings whose individual values and goals cannot be ignored. They know best about their own priorities, their own morals and conscience, which give life meaning for them.
Numerous reports of major surgery on Witness patients show that many physicians can, in good conscience and with success, accommodate the request not to employ blood. While JW's refuse blood for religious reasons, more and more non-JW patients are choosing to avoid blood because of risks such as AIDS, non-A non-B hepatitis, and immunologic reactions. We may present to them our views as to whether such risks seem minor compared to the benefits.
But, as the American Medical Association points out, the patient is "the final arbiter as to whether he will take his chances with the treatment or operation recommended by the doctor or risk living without it. Such is the natural right of the individual, which the law recognizes."10.
What Is It PRECISELY That The Bible REALLY Says It Against? Same Sex Attraction? All Non-Intercourse-Based Sex? Or Simply Anal Sex?
There are a couple of webpages ran by non-anal-sex gay men has done indepth scriptural research into I Corinthians 6:9 and the orginal precise meanigs of the Greek and Hebrew words used there. What their findings concluded is that the quote, "Men who lie with men, and women who change the natural natural of themselves," Actually translates from Greek as, "Men who have anal sex with men, and women who change their natural way of having intercourse (penin to Vagina) to sodomy=anal sex.
GREEK- πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται οὔτε κλέπται οὔτε πλεονέκται οὔτε μέθυσοι οὐ λοίδοροι οὐχ ἅρπαγες βασιλείαν Θεοῦ οὐ κληρονομήσουσι
The Greek term is: "arsenokoitēs" - a term that should have been translated as "male-prostitute" from the Hebrew "qâdêsh" [Which hints that "Young's Literal" isn't so 'literal' after all]). Then, the invention of: "SODOMITE" later became "HOMOSEXUAL OFFENDER". (Lev 20:18). Under Moses, sex with women was limited to penetration in the 'front' hole.
This understanding becomes the anchor used to define the exact prohibition in Leviticus 20:13 above. The phrase "as he lies with a woman" means "penetrative";
And since men have no "front hole" to 'penetrate', then only one other "hole" in the pubic region remains. Moses law simply makes it clear that "You don't go there!"...
From the concepts of the original text, I would suggest that the word "arsenokoitēs" practices like anal-play that might tend to spread disease or cause other forms of harm. However, basic same sex attraction is simply not forbidden by the text.
The very foundation of Christianity is one of love and the New testament makes exceedingly clear that "Love works no ill toward its neighbor - therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." Actions contrary to that are usually self evident; -- And same sex attractions are not antagonistic to that principle.
Do not steal, do not murder, & the like. The negative repercussions of breaking such laws are visible instantly. Mala prohibita laws are in place to dissuade 'states of mind' that have high probabilities of eventually harming someone. "Do not drive while intoxicated", is such an example; -- Not because drunk driving in an of itself is harmful, but because it inevitably leads to tragedy of the driver &/ others. The primary, broad sweeping theme of New Testament Christianity is a command to Love God and to Love People.
See, an attitude of LOVE automatically self-governs the individual because you can't be acting in a spirit of love while you're stealing from somebody. You can't be acting in an attitude of love while you're encouraging the breaking of contracts or personal vows (yours or somebody else's). You're not acting in an attitude of love while driving drunk.
You're not acting in love if you're spreading disease. So then, the Law in Lev 20:13 is specifically forbidding anal penetration -- the same form that male/male rape takes! OBVIOUS: Anal sex is a major vector for disease (STD's like AIDS). It's not very pleasurable for the recipient; & the mechanics of the act cause other problems -- well documented.
But, doesn't "gay sex", mean "anal sex"?
The fact is that many, many men who have had relationships with other men involving physical intimacy have never desired nor participated in anal penetration.
A large number of gay men don't like anal sex. "Gay" does N0T equal "anal sex"..
Anal sex, in stark contrast is an emotionally detached & dangerous behavior - all it's own; - A behavior that many self-professed "Hetero"sexual couples engage in.
One gay man shares his view, "In CONTEXT, Paul's use of the terminology "women put aside the natural use" does not mean lesbianism (as there is no Law in Moses against that)! He's talking about women who are having anal sex with men! Paul's condemnation is about the practices of fertility cult prostitutes & their adoption of anal sex."
It's bad judgment to have anything to do with it no matter what a person's "0rientation" supposedly is. Ironically, regardless of how dangerous the act is, there are people who will staunchly defend their "right" to partake in it. Interestingly, but not surprisingly, these same people seem to insist that spreading their death-disease buffet into the rest of humanity is their "right" as well. Unforuantly, there are some people out there that just don't care who they hurt as long as they get what they want.
Extremes On The Right And Left, Religious & Secular:
1.The religious right are major spreaders of the gangrenous teaching that "to be attracted to the same sex =anal sex."
2.A far, far left (with their "anything goes" selfishness, -- unchecked by any healthy aversions); This unforuantly includes many, if not all the liberal churches.
3. Finally the establishments backed by government/s who promote the so-called concept of "safe-sex" with slogans like "Use a condom EVERY time". (See how the unspoken lie is built into the slogan. After all: If you need a condom every time, there must be penetration every time, - which implies that gay-sex = anal).
1) Love God.
2) Love people.
Love works no ill toward its neighbor -- therefore it fulfills the law (Gal 5:14)! Anal sex (not simply attarction to the same sex) is forbidden under Moses' law because it has a tremendous affinity to cause harm in so many ways. God forbade certain acts like anal sex because they can be absolutely devastating -- often deadly. Men who are attracted to men, but abstain from anal-sex have as their testimony: One of the lowest rates of sexually transmitted diseases among any demographic.
Lesbians are probably the only group that is lower in STD incidences. Some may argue that Paul forbids it in Romans 1. Paul wrote to, "not go beyond what was written."
We must acknoweldge that FACT that many misrepresentations of Paul's writing have been proven by Progressive bibical researchers. For example, The Christian For Bibical Equality HAVE PROVEN that Paul's statements regarding women and the word "HEAD" HAVE BEEN ALTERED from the TRUE ORGINAL meanings in Greek and Hebrew. Also likewise has it been proven by Progressives that the Hebrew word for SHEOL has been merged with Hell and Hades and Ghennena when this Hebrew word actually means a be dead or permanently or to cease to be forever rather than to be tormented by fire forever, as the extreme right churches teach.
In light of these FACTS, it seems only logical that one who is interested in the subject of one's sexual orientation being towards the same sex should be researched, and to verify for oneself if these interpretations that these different individual's statements these men here made that I quoted, make sense to you and add up.
As with the Hades+Ghennena subject, and with the women's equality subject and the many meanings of the word "HEAD" in Greek, it would be a good idea to do likewise with the this topic of same sex attraction and anal sex and make an indepth study of Greek and Hebrew words and meanings.
After all, Paul DID advice in Acts 11:17 to, "Check all things that are taught to you and see if they are really so." God's character becomes marred -- when He is portrayed as an arbitrary rule maker, who's just on a power trip as "God". This is precisely what the Serpent proposed in Eden.
So what do you call it when a self-pronounced "holy-straight" couples engaging in anal sex, pointing the finger of judgment at gays for the same thing? Hyprocrisy. What's not good for the gay goose and gander..is not good for the str8 goose and gander.
You have men who are attracted to men being told by so-called "Christians" that God rejects all same-sex attraction & that they must 'change' and make themselves become attracted to the opposite sex to be accepted. These effectively shut up the kingdom of God in men's faces -- just as Jesus said the religious hypocrites of his day did.
So, feeling rejected by God for who they attracted to, these victims of misinformation often indulge in all sorts of revelry (after all ... if you're damned for just existing, then why follow any code of ethics?). Once again missing the point that it isn't same-sex attractions that cause the misery, but violating other Godly principles.
Paul explains in the chapter directly: "You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things!" - Rom 2:1 Paul continues ..."Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance? But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed." -
Paul's message to those who condemningly judge the ones he describes in Romans. His message is, "Don't judge the Pagans, because some of the things they do, - are the very things going on with you; -- & when you judge them, you condemn yourselves. Here's the good news. God is not against same-sex attractions, but anal "sex" is the forbidden thing (& for good reasons). Since a person CAN be "gay" & abstain from the anal form of sex, there need be no fear of AIDS or any other disease resulting from the deadly act of anal. Romans 1 is a scathing exposition on prostitution & anal-sex, -- not about being attracted to the same sex...
Many Judeo-Christian faith groups of the more fundamental nature such as the more far right branches of Evangelical Protestantism, Pentacostals, Roman Catholic, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, and Mormons have voiced their disaproval of non-intercourse sex such as oral sex and masturbation..whether solo or mutural. Regardless of 'their personal opinion,' nether oral sex nor masturbation is mentioned in the Bible as a unnatural or a forbidden thing...as anal sex is.
You might feel, 'Transfusions are hazardous...but there any high-quality alternatives to blood transfusions. Note the word "quality."Are there legitimate and effective ways to manage serious medical problems without using blood? Happily, the answer is yes. Though most surgeons have claimed that they gave blood only when absolutely necessary, after the AIDS epidemic arose their use of blood dropped rapidly. An editorial in Mayo Clinic Proceedings (September 1988) said that "one of the few benefits of the epidemic" was that it "resulted in various strategies on the part of patients and physicians to avoid blood transfusion."
A blood-bank official explains: "What has changed is the intensity of the message, the receptivity of clinicians to the message (because of an increased perception of risks), and the demand for consideration of alternatives." -Transfusion Medicine Reviews, October 1989.
SURGERY, YES -BUT WITHOUT TRANSFUSIONS
Many people today will not accept blood. For health reasons, they are requesting what JW's seek primarily on religious grounds: quality medical care employing alternative nonblood management. As we have noted, major surgery is still possible. If you have any lingering doubts, some other evidence from medical literature may dispel them.Little children too? "Forty-eight pediatric open heart surgical procedures were performed with bloodless techniques regardless of surgical complexity." The children were as small as 10.3 pounds (4.7 kg).
"Because of consistent success in JW's and the fact that blood transfusion carries a risk of serious complications, we are currently performing most of our pediatric cardiac operations without transfusion." -Circulation, September 1984.
'What about bloodless surgery of other types?' you may wonder. Medical Hotline (April/May 1983) told of surgery on "JW's who underwent major gynecological and obstetric operations [at Wayne State University, U.S.A.] without blood transfusions." The newsletter reported: "There were no more deaths and complications than in women who had undergone similar operations with blood transfusions." The newsletter then commented: "The results of this study may warrant a fresh look at the use of blood for all women undergoing obstetric and gynecological operations."
At the hospital of Göttingen University (Germany), 30 patients who declined blood underwent general surgery. "No complications arose that could not also have arisen with patients who accept blood transfusions. . . . That recourse to a transfusion is not possible should not be overrated, and thus should not lead to refraining from an operation that is necessary and surgically justifiable." -Risiko in der Chirurgie, 1987.
Even brain surgery without using blood has been done on numerous adults and children, for instance, at New York University Medical Center. In 1989 Dr. Joseph Ransohoff, head of neurosurgery, wrote: "It is very clear that in most instances avoidance of blood products can be achieved with minimal risk in patients who have religious tenets against the use of these products, particularly if surgery can be carried out expeditiously and with a relatively short operative period. Of considerable interest is the fact that I often forget that the patient is a JW until at the time of discharge when they thank me for having respected their religious beliefs."
Finally, can intricate heart and vascular surgery without blood be performed on adults and children? Dr. Denton A. Cooley was a pioneer in doing just that. As you can see in the medical article reprinted in the Appendix, on pages 27-9, based on an earlier analysis, Dr. Cooley's conclusion was "that the risk of surgery in patients of the JW's group has not been substantially higher than for others."
Now, after performing 1,106 of these operations, he writes: "In every instance my agreement or contract with the patient is maintained," that is, to use no blood.They actively pursue quality care because they want to get well. They are convinced that obeying God's law on blood is wise, which view has a positive influence in nonblood surgery.
Professor Dr. V. Schlosser, of the surgical hospital at the University of Freiburg (Germany), noted: "Among this group of patients, the incidence of bleeding during the perioperative period was not higher; the complications were, if anything, fewer. The special view of illness, typical of JW's a positive influence in the perioperative process." -Herz Kreislauf, August 1987.
Back To Topics
Back To Main Page
