Entertainer Buju Banton, who has been in a Florida jail awaiting trial on drug charges since last December, will have to wait a bit longer to know his fate.
The trial was again rescheduled on Friday, this time to September.
According to the Tampa Tribune newspaper, district judge James Moody moved the trial without giving a reason.
The new development reportedly angered Banton's attorney David Markus who argued that the latest date change is costly for the defence which will have to re-arrange travel plans for witnesses.
Markus also said the date change violates the Speedy Trial Act which requires a defendant's trial to start within 70 days of them being arrested.
Objections overruled
Moody overruled Markus' objections.
This is the third time the trial has been rescheduled. It was originally set for April 19 but two weeks before the start, Moody set it back to June 21.
The Tribune reported that a new date will be set in August.
Moody's surprise switch is another setback for Banton and his legal team which is led by Markus, a high-profile Miami lawyer. In March, Markus lobbied for Banton to be removed to a facility where conditions are more suitable to his Rastafarian diet. That request was denied.
Banton has been incarcerated since his arrest by Federal agents in Miami on December 10. He and two other men were charged with conspiring to distribute cocaine, and face lengthy prison sentences.
The entertainer and his attorney have challenged the agents' story, saying he was set up.
Banton (Mark Myrie) is best known for songs like Browning, Deportee and Driver. His 1995 album, Til Shiloh, is regarded as one of the great reggae albums.
He has had several clashes with gay rights groups in the United States and Europe, largely over his 1993 song Boom Bye Bye. Last year, his Rasta Got Soul tour of the US was marred by protests from gay activists.
Several shows in major cities had to be cancelled.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Lubricant Use May Raise HIV Infection Risk During Unprotected Anal Sex
Lab study found some products have a toxic effect on cells, tissue
(HealthDay News) -- The use of lubricants during unprotected anal intercourse may indirectly raise the risk of HIV transmission in the receptive partner, among both men and women, new research warns.
Click here to find out more!
Concern about the possibility is being raised in the form of two new studies, and revolves around the fact that HIV infection risk rises if other infections are already present in the rectal lining of the receptive partner, the study authors noted.
In that light, indications that some lubricants may contribute to a generally increased risk for sexually transmitted infections, and therefore in turn for HIV, are scheduled for presentation this week in Pittsburgh at the International Microbicides Conference.
Conducted between 2006 and 2008, one study -- which focused on approximately 900 residents in the Baltimore and Los Angeles region -- observed that men and women who use lubricants in general are three times more likely to have some form of a rectal sexually transmitted infection. The finding held regardless of gender, HIV status, condom use, and the number of sex partners the study participants had had in the prior month.
Although no specific lubricants were identified as particularly problematic, most study participants said they used a water-based lubricant (76 percent), while 28 percent used silicon-based products, 17 percent oil-based lubricants, and 6 percent said used a numbing lubricant.
The second study -- led by Charlene Dezzutti of the University of Pittsburgh and the Microbicide Trials Network -- looked at five of the most popular over-the-counter and/or mail-order lubricants, identified as such through a survey of 9,000 men and women living in 100 different countries.
All the lubricants were water-based, except for one silicon-based product.
The research team -- including collaborators from International Rectal Microbicide Advocates (IRMA) -- did not examine the effect of lubricant use during actual sex. However, in laboratory testing, some of the lubricants were found to have a toxic effect on cells and rectal tissue, perhaps as the result of the dissolved salts and sugars the products contained.
PRE and Wet Platinum were found to be the safest lubricants in terms of toxicity, whereas Astroglide and KY Jelly appeared to be the most problematic.
"We know we can't make any conclusions based on this one small study," cautioned IRMA lubricant safety advocate Marc-Andre LeBlanc, in a news release. "Further research is absolutely necessary to understand the potential role of sexual lubricants in HIV transmission. We should be able to provide consumer guidance regarding lubes that are found to be safer than others."
"Some lubes are probably better than others, but we don't know where any of the currently available products fall along the spectrum from good to bad," added IRMA chair Jim Pickett.
"We must ensure that existing lubes don't facilitate HIV transmission," he added. "People have a right to this kind of information, and it's very past due."
Conference organizers pointed out that in the United States, 90 percent of men who have sex with men -- whether self-identified as gay or not -- engage in receptive anal intercourse. Between 10 percent and 35 percent of heterosexual women have done so at least once. And in either instance, condoms are often not used, while lubricants are.
Source
(HealthDay News) -- The use of lubricants during unprotected anal intercourse may indirectly raise the risk of HIV transmission in the receptive partner, among both men and women, new research warns.
Click here to find out more!
Concern about the possibility is being raised in the form of two new studies, and revolves around the fact that HIV infection risk rises if other infections are already present in the rectal lining of the receptive partner, the study authors noted.
In that light, indications that some lubricants may contribute to a generally increased risk for sexually transmitted infections, and therefore in turn for HIV, are scheduled for presentation this week in Pittsburgh at the International Microbicides Conference.
Conducted between 2006 and 2008, one study -- which focused on approximately 900 residents in the Baltimore and Los Angeles region -- observed that men and women who use lubricants in general are three times more likely to have some form of a rectal sexually transmitted infection. The finding held regardless of gender, HIV status, condom use, and the number of sex partners the study participants had had in the prior month.
Although no specific lubricants were identified as particularly problematic, most study participants said they used a water-based lubricant (76 percent), while 28 percent used silicon-based products, 17 percent oil-based lubricants, and 6 percent said used a numbing lubricant.
The second study -- led by Charlene Dezzutti of the University of Pittsburgh and the Microbicide Trials Network -- looked at five of the most popular over-the-counter and/or mail-order lubricants, identified as such through a survey of 9,000 men and women living in 100 different countries.
All the lubricants were water-based, except for one silicon-based product.
The research team -- including collaborators from International Rectal Microbicide Advocates (IRMA) -- did not examine the effect of lubricant use during actual sex. However, in laboratory testing, some of the lubricants were found to have a toxic effect on cells and rectal tissue, perhaps as the result of the dissolved salts and sugars the products contained.
PRE and Wet Platinum were found to be the safest lubricants in terms of toxicity, whereas Astroglide and KY Jelly appeared to be the most problematic.
"We know we can't make any conclusions based on this one small study," cautioned IRMA lubricant safety advocate Marc-Andre LeBlanc, in a news release. "Further research is absolutely necessary to understand the potential role of sexual lubricants in HIV transmission. We should be able to provide consumer guidance regarding lubes that are found to be safer than others."
"Some lubes are probably better than others, but we don't know where any of the currently available products fall along the spectrum from good to bad," added IRMA chair Jim Pickett.
"We must ensure that existing lubes don't facilitate HIV transmission," he added. "People have a right to this kind of information, and it's very past due."
Conference organizers pointed out that in the United States, 90 percent of men who have sex with men -- whether self-identified as gay or not -- engage in receptive anal intercourse. Between 10 percent and 35 percent of heterosexual women have done so at least once. And in either instance, condoms are often not used, while lubricants are.
Source
Using ARVs to Prevent HIV Could Result in Drug Resistance
Their scientific methods may have been quite different, but their conclusions were not. In asking whether drug resistance could be a problem if antiretroviral (ARV) drugs become a mainstay for HIV prevention, the two studies - one involving a mathematical model and the other assays of cells and tissue - arrived at the same answer. Resistance could happen if people who are unknowingly already infected use the approach. The results of these studies, which were reported today at the International Microbicides Conference (M2010) in Pittsburgh, USA, underscore the importance of incorporating routine HIV testing and ongoing monitoring of infection status in any prevention program that involves the use of ARVs. Read more
Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), as the approach is called, involves the use of ARVs by HIV-negative people in order to reduce their risk of infection. Several clinical trials are testing whether PrEP can prevent HIV in different high-risk populations. With PrEP, a single ARV is used, typically once a day. While one ARV has the potential to prevent HIV in someone who is uninfected, one drug alone is not enough to suppress virus in someone who is infected, which is why at least three different ARVs, used in combination, are required in the treatment of HIV. If a person who is infected continues taking a single drug, the concern is that virus would become resistant to that drug or drugs in the same class, thereby limiting treatment options in the future.
The current research does not diminish the promise of PrEP and other ARV-based prevention approaches, the researchers say. What the studies provide is a more clear view of what is likely to be needed to ensure that PrEP can offer the most benefit to as many people as possible and with the least amount of risk. It is likely that any successful HIV prevention program which includes the use of ARVs will require routine screening for HIV in order to prevent HIV-infected people from inadvertently using PrEP when they are already infected.
Mathematical model identifies key factors that would influence spread of HIV drug resistance
if ARVs are used for prevention
Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a promising HIV prevention approach that involves use of antiretroviral (ARV) drugs by HIV-uninfected individuals to protect against infection. But, should clinical trials find the strategy successful and PrEP is then rolled out as a prevention approach in at-risk communities, there is concern that virus resistant to the ARVs potentially would emerge and spread. Indeed, a mathematical model found that if people who are already HIV-infected inadvertently use PrEP, drug resistance is very likely to occur. The finding underscores the importance of routine HIV testing and ongoing monitoring of infection status being a part of any PrEP program, says Ume Abbas, M.D., of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, who led the study.
Dr. Abbas and colleagues developed a model to simulate the impact of PrEP on HIV prevention and drug resistance in a region of sub-Saharan Africa, where HIV rates are among the highest, and to identify the determinants contributing most to HIV drug resistance prevalence. The model singled out two factors having the most influence, finding that the greater number of people who use PrEP who shouldn’t be and the longer they keep using the ARVs, the more prevalent drug resistance would be.
The model looked at different scenarios, including ones representative of the most pessimistic and the most optimistic situations. The optimistic scenario assumed that PrEP reduced the risk of infection by 75 percent, that 60 percent of the at-risk population used it, and 5 percent of the population of individuals who are already infected inadvertently used it. Under these conditions, the model predicted the prevalence of resistance after 10 years to be only 2.5 percent of the population. Under the pessimistic scenario, which assumed a 25 percent reduction in HIV risk with PrEP, 15 percent of the at-risk population being covered and 25 percent of those already infected using PrEP, resistance was expected to affect 40 percent of the population in 10 years. The model took into account age, gender, sexual activity, HIV status, stages of disease and PrEP use and discontinuation and HIV drug susceptibility.
Laboratory studies find ARV-based gels protect against infection with resistant virus
Researchers testing whether antiretroviral (ARV)- based candidate microbicides are effective against strains of HIV known to be resistant to these ARVs and/or drugs in the same class found they were indeed protective in laboratory studies. And in other tests trying to determine whether use of ARV-based microbicides could contribute to the emergence of drug resistant virus, they determined the possibility could exist if HIV infection was already present. Granted, experiments conducted in a laboratory cannot with any certainty predict what will be true in real-life settings, but the results are encouraging nonetheless, says Susan M. Schader, a doctoral student at McGill University and the McGill AIDS Centre in Montreal, Canada. Four ARV-based candidate microbicides were studied, including tenofovir and dapivirine, which belong to a class of ARVs called reverse transcriptase inhibitors that act on a key enzyme HIV needs for replicating itself. Tenofovir gel has already been tested in one clinical trial and another large clinical trial is underway, while a phase III trial of dapivirine is being planned. The researchers also looked at DS001 and DS003, which are in earlier phases of development as potential microbicides for preventing sexual transmission of HIV. Both are entry inhibitors that prevent HIV from getting inside cells by targeting specific docking stations on the cell surface.
There are at least nine known genetic subtypes of HIV-1. In the United States and Canada, most HIV infections are with the B subtype strain, while elsewhere in the world all other subtypes are predominant. Resistant virus is categorized accordingly. As the availability and use of ARVs increases in places like Africa, drug resistance will increasingly be more common. And people who develop resistance could feasibly infect others with virus that is drug-resistant. So, the researchers looked at how well each of the ARVs worked alone and in different combinations against cell cultures containing B subtype drug-resistant virus and three strains of non-B subtype resistant virus. They found each of the four candidate microbicide ARVs potent against the drug-resistant strains, although the ARV combinations (dapivirine plus tenofovir and dapivirine plus DS003) were more effective than any one drug. Interestingly, dapivirine and tenofovir used together was more effective against HIV resistant to dapivirine when compared to each drug used alone and to wild type HIV. To evaluate whether the ARV-based microbicide compounds could cause virus to become drug resistant, the researchers infected blood cells with different subtypes of HIV and exposed the infected cells to dapivirine alone and to dapivirine plus tenofovir continuously for more than 25 weeks to induce drug resistance. Drug resistance emerged only if HIV infection was present before the candidate microbicide ARVs were introduced and continued to be used.
Published in:
Citizen News Service (CNS), India/Thailand
Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), as the approach is called, involves the use of ARVs by HIV-negative people in order to reduce their risk of infection. Several clinical trials are testing whether PrEP can prevent HIV in different high-risk populations. With PrEP, a single ARV is used, typically once a day. While one ARV has the potential to prevent HIV in someone who is uninfected, one drug alone is not enough to suppress virus in someone who is infected, which is why at least three different ARVs, used in combination, are required in the treatment of HIV. If a person who is infected continues taking a single drug, the concern is that virus would become resistant to that drug or drugs in the same class, thereby limiting treatment options in the future.
The current research does not diminish the promise of PrEP and other ARV-based prevention approaches, the researchers say. What the studies provide is a more clear view of what is likely to be needed to ensure that PrEP can offer the most benefit to as many people as possible and with the least amount of risk. It is likely that any successful HIV prevention program which includes the use of ARVs will require routine screening for HIV in order to prevent HIV-infected people from inadvertently using PrEP when they are already infected.
Mathematical model identifies key factors that would influence spread of HIV drug resistance
if ARVs are used for prevention
Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a promising HIV prevention approach that involves use of antiretroviral (ARV) drugs by HIV-uninfected individuals to protect against infection. But, should clinical trials find the strategy successful and PrEP is then rolled out as a prevention approach in at-risk communities, there is concern that virus resistant to the ARVs potentially would emerge and spread. Indeed, a mathematical model found that if people who are already HIV-infected inadvertently use PrEP, drug resistance is very likely to occur. The finding underscores the importance of routine HIV testing and ongoing monitoring of infection status being a part of any PrEP program, says Ume Abbas, M.D., of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, who led the study.
Dr. Abbas and colleagues developed a model to simulate the impact of PrEP on HIV prevention and drug resistance in a region of sub-Saharan Africa, where HIV rates are among the highest, and to identify the determinants contributing most to HIV drug resistance prevalence. The model singled out two factors having the most influence, finding that the greater number of people who use PrEP who shouldn’t be and the longer they keep using the ARVs, the more prevalent drug resistance would be.
The model looked at different scenarios, including ones representative of the most pessimistic and the most optimistic situations. The optimistic scenario assumed that PrEP reduced the risk of infection by 75 percent, that 60 percent of the at-risk population used it, and 5 percent of the population of individuals who are already infected inadvertently used it. Under these conditions, the model predicted the prevalence of resistance after 10 years to be only 2.5 percent of the population. Under the pessimistic scenario, which assumed a 25 percent reduction in HIV risk with PrEP, 15 percent of the at-risk population being covered and 25 percent of those already infected using PrEP, resistance was expected to affect 40 percent of the population in 10 years. The model took into account age, gender, sexual activity, HIV status, stages of disease and PrEP use and discontinuation and HIV drug susceptibility.
Laboratory studies find ARV-based gels protect against infection with resistant virus
Researchers testing whether antiretroviral (ARV)- based candidate microbicides are effective against strains of HIV known to be resistant to these ARVs and/or drugs in the same class found they were indeed protective in laboratory studies. And in other tests trying to determine whether use of ARV-based microbicides could contribute to the emergence of drug resistant virus, they determined the possibility could exist if HIV infection was already present. Granted, experiments conducted in a laboratory cannot with any certainty predict what will be true in real-life settings, but the results are encouraging nonetheless, says Susan M. Schader, a doctoral student at McGill University and the McGill AIDS Centre in Montreal, Canada. Four ARV-based candidate microbicides were studied, including tenofovir and dapivirine, which belong to a class of ARVs called reverse transcriptase inhibitors that act on a key enzyme HIV needs for replicating itself. Tenofovir gel has already been tested in one clinical trial and another large clinical trial is underway, while a phase III trial of dapivirine is being planned. The researchers also looked at DS001 and DS003, which are in earlier phases of development as potential microbicides for preventing sexual transmission of HIV. Both are entry inhibitors that prevent HIV from getting inside cells by targeting specific docking stations on the cell surface.
There are at least nine known genetic subtypes of HIV-1. In the United States and Canada, most HIV infections are with the B subtype strain, while elsewhere in the world all other subtypes are predominant. Resistant virus is categorized accordingly. As the availability and use of ARVs increases in places like Africa, drug resistance will increasingly be more common. And people who develop resistance could feasibly infect others with virus that is drug-resistant. So, the researchers looked at how well each of the ARVs worked alone and in different combinations against cell cultures containing B subtype drug-resistant virus and three strains of non-B subtype resistant virus. They found each of the four candidate microbicide ARVs potent against the drug-resistant strains, although the ARV combinations (dapivirine plus tenofovir and dapivirine plus DS003) were more effective than any one drug. Interestingly, dapivirine and tenofovir used together was more effective against HIV resistant to dapivirine when compared to each drug used alone and to wild type HIV. To evaluate whether the ARV-based microbicide compounds could cause virus to become drug resistant, the researchers infected blood cells with different subtypes of HIV and exposed the infected cells to dapivirine alone and to dapivirine plus tenofovir continuously for more than 25 weeks to induce drug resistance. Drug resistance emerged only if HIV infection was present before the candidate microbicide ARVs were introduced and continued to be used.
Published in:
Citizen News Service (CNS), India/Thailand
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Why hate your gay brother? (Gleaner Letter)
The Editor, Sir:
In 1992 the World Health Organisation removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses, putting an end to over a century of institutionalised homophobia in the medical field. In 2003, the American Psychiatric Association stated that "homosexuality is not a disease that can be cured or altered," it is just another expression of human sexuality". And while no "gay gene" has been isolated, there is evidence that homosexuality occurs in many species in nature.
Yet, many Jamaican churchgoers believe in and preach deliverance for homosexuals. Some go further and claim that the right of consenting adult males to conduct their sexual relations in private should not be recognised as a civil right. To these persons, Reverend Clinton Chisholm among them, homosexuality is fluid and unstable as gays choose to sleep with men or women as their desires dictate. The irony is that these same persons accept that religious expression is also fluid as you can be born into one faith/denomination and change many times over your lifetime. Yet, the right to such fluid religious expression is constitutionally recognised.
It is highly hypocritical to say that your freedom to worship an invisible deity should be recognised while your right to love and engage in private consensual adult sexual relations with a visible human being is not. But doesn't the Bible warn of such persons who claim to love a God who they can't see but hate their brother who they see everyday?
I am, etc.,
MAURICE TOMLINSON
maurice_tomlinson@yahoo.com
Montego Bay, St James
In 1992 the World Health Organisation removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses, putting an end to over a century of institutionalised homophobia in the medical field. In 2003, the American Psychiatric Association stated that "homosexuality is not a disease that can be cured or altered," it is just another expression of human sexuality". And while no "gay gene" has been isolated, there is evidence that homosexuality occurs in many species in nature.
Yet, many Jamaican churchgoers believe in and preach deliverance for homosexuals. Some go further and claim that the right of consenting adult males to conduct their sexual relations in private should not be recognised as a civil right. To these persons, Reverend Clinton Chisholm among them, homosexuality is fluid and unstable as gays choose to sleep with men or women as their desires dictate. The irony is that these same persons accept that religious expression is also fluid as you can be born into one faith/denomination and change many times over your lifetime. Yet, the right to such fluid religious expression is constitutionally recognised.
It is highly hypocritical to say that your freedom to worship an invisible deity should be recognised while your right to love and engage in private consensual adult sexual relations with a visible human being is not. But doesn't the Bible warn of such persons who claim to love a God who they can't see but hate their brother who they see everyday?
I am, etc.,
MAURICE TOMLINSON
maurice_tomlinson@yahoo.com
Montego Bay, St James
... Biblical abominations? (Gleaner Letter)
The Editor, Sir:
For Jamaicans unsure that homosexuality is a sin and that homosexuals should be ostracised even to the point of attack we need to look no further that the good book for ratification of this view. Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination as many God-fearing contributors have taken great pains to point out.
In fact, so clear and unswerving has been your contributors' resolve around this point I am hoping they can help clarify some other points of God's laws as well. For instance:
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Trinidadians, but not Americans. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Americans?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Leviticus 1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
4. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
5. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
I am, etc.,
ALEXIS MICHAELS
lcrimsondawn_98@yahoo.com
For Jamaicans unsure that homosexuality is a sin and that homosexuals should be ostracised even to the point of attack we need to look no further that the good book for ratification of this view. Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination as many God-fearing contributors have taken great pains to point out.
In fact, so clear and unswerving has been your contributors' resolve around this point I am hoping they can help clarify some other points of God's laws as well. For instance:
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Trinidadians, but not Americans. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Americans?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Leviticus 1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
4. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
5. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
I am, etc.,
ALEXIS MICHAELS
lcrimsondawn_98@yahoo.com
Thursday, May 20, 2010
The Real Threat to the Family (The Gay Pastor)
I'm getting really irritated with the ludicrous arguments people continue to use in condemning homosexuality and gay marriage as an affront to the family, and as a force that will eventually destroy the family unit in society. These arguments are stupid on so many levels that I hardly know where to begin.First of all, let me deal with the extremes. Are there extremists amongst the advocates of gay marriage who are anti-establishment to the point of opposing the family unit altogether? Absolutely. They see it as a vestige of an outdated social construct, the intent of which is to hold people captive to relationships that were never chosen, to authorities that haven't necessarily earned the right to power (vis-a-vis mothers and fathers).
Now, the truth is that this is a ridiculous perspective. In fact, I don't believe that most of these extremists actually believe the foolishness they spout. To the contrary, I think they do long for a family unit, and that it is their history of hurt and disappointment that has led to their surface-level opposition to this universal structure that is inherent to our very nature as human beings--the family.
But, even if some of them truly do hate the family unit, who cares?!?! Are you going to tell me that a few kooks on our side actually characterize the vast majority of gay people and allies? Who in their right mind believes that we actually want to destroy the family? To the contrary, the very fact that we advocate gay marriage proves that we honor the family unit and desire, with all of our hearts, to have families of our own! What moron can't understand this?
I'm in the process of reading Straight & Narrow: Compassion & Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate, by Thomas E. Schmidt, and I've gotta tell you, his perception of the so-called gay agenda is as uninformed and bigoted as they come. I started out reading with a certain respect for the author because in chapter 1, he made it a point to talk about the error of highlighting extreme points of view on either side and using them as an argument against the other side. I thought, Well finally, a reasonable critic. But, as I continued to read, that's exactly what this man is doing--taking extreme views and pointing them out as the intention of the gay community in relation to society.
Schmidt says, "...the homosexual population continues to rely on the procreative population for familial support, patterns of relationship and of course the production of more homosexuals. It is as if someone's spleen had declared its independence, departed through an incision in the abdomen, and then periodically returned, leechlike, to draw nourishment from the same body. Are the critics spleenophobic, or is this misplaced organ living in a dream world?"
What the hell?!?! Yeah, that's the antigay version of compassion for you. First, they claim that we're out to turn straight people gay, but then they turn around and say that we're dependent upon the straight population for the production of more homosexuals. Hmmm... Sounds to me like he almost believes that people are born gay!
And then we get to the word "leechlike". We're leeching from the family structure that we supposedly hate. We hate the fact that we have mothers and fathers. We hate the fact that we have siblings; yet, we leech off of their love, and off of the unchosen relationships that we detest so much. Oh my God!
Who exactly is living in a dream world--gay people who don't have a problem with family and even want families of their own, or antigay people (some of whom are, themselves, gay), who can't resist from caricaturing the gay community as "the evil, big-nosed Jews who are intent on either ruling the world or destroying it!" Too bad we don't have another Hitler around to exterminate these familial leeches before they suck all of the life out of the family unit.
I just don't understand the logic. We hate the family so much that we want our own families? We hate fathers and mothers so much that we want to adopt children and provide them with loving fathers or loving mothers that will support and care for them? Why can't Schmidt and those like him understand that it's not the family we hate. It's the notion that their version of the family (one father and one mother) is the only possible one that can exist, to the exclusion of same-sex families or single-parent families.
But, then again, at least the Bible is on their side, right? Wrong! In both the Old and New Testaments, the family unit took multiple forms. There were units with one father and one mother (vis-à-vis the Adam and Eve paradigm), multiple mothers in a single family unit (vis-à-vis the Jacob, Leah, and Rachel paradigm, not to mention the concubines Bilhah and Zilpah), and even single-parent households, like Mary, after the death of her husband, Joseph. Even polygamy is affirmed by the fact that only bishops and deacons were commanded to be the husband of one wife, while nothing whatsoever was ever commanded of the rest of the Christian population!
Obviously, Genesis 1-2 isn't as indicative of the divine perspective on marriage as our opponents so monotonously claim--that is, unless you read it in isolation from the rest of the Bible and force commands upon all humankind where none exist in the text. Yet we're the ones who are accused of twisting Scripture.
And what about the famous argument that children need a mother and a father? On its surface, this argument is an affront to the many families that were forced to endure with a single parent, either as a result of abandonment or widowhood. Should we teach single parents that it is their Christian duty to get remarried as soon as possible, so as to recreate the structure that God requires of all legitimate families; or, on the other hand, is there some measure of grace that extends to people who may not meet the biblical ideal because of the circumstances involved?
And what exactly is this biblical ideal? Antigay Christians require a model of one man and one woman; but I've already demonstrated that Scripture, itself, doesn't contain such a rule. I would argue that the ideal has nothing to do with a person's sex, and more to do with a person's support structure. With two parents in the home, the weight of child-rearing and provision doesn't fall squarely upon one person's shoulders. Partnership is demonstrated in its best light by two people working together to provide a stable home environment, a stable social structure in which to raise children.
But, isn't it important for children to have the parental perspective of both a man and a woman? Isn't that a pertinent part of their childhood development? I don't believe that it is. The social construct of gender (man and woman) is not universal or enduring. Even since biblical times, the role of the man as provider and head of the household, and of the woman as housekeeper and helper to the husband, has morphed into a more equalized partnership in which both people contribute in all aspects of a healthy family environment. Some may claim that this is unbiblical, but if you ask me, it's a more accurate representation of the fact that in Christ there is neither male nor female. Truly, society has finally caught up with the perspective that God has always held of the divisions between man and woman--that there is no division at all! Wasn't that the pre-Fall intent, after all?
Besides, the argument always circles back to single-parent homes. Is the fact that single-parent homes have a greater chance of producing children who wind up troubled in adolescence and even later in life indicative of a need for a male and a female in the home; or is it, rather, indicative of the need of two adult figures to be present to help share the burden of child-rearing? I argue that it's the latter--that the sex of the people don't matter... It's a matter of quantity--is there someone there to help shoulder the burden? Is there someone there to help reinforce the authority of the other parent? Is there someone there to help provide a supervisory presence to children, ensuring that they aren't required to raise themselves while a single parent works his/her butt off trying to keep a roof over everyone's head?
Same-sex couples are every bit as capable of providing a stable home environment to children. In fact, one needn't theorize about it. There are plenty of living examples of such homes right now. We need only consider the development of these children.
It has been my experience that the only downside to such homes is the pressure brought to bear on children in the school system because they come from households with same-sex parents. Some claim that such bullying proves how heartless it is for parents to raise their children in same-sex households. But, it's interesting how they never consider how heartless it is for bigots to instill their antigay sentiments into yet another generation of children. It's obvious that these bully children got their cruel attitudes from somewhere; yet nobody ever calls their parents on the carpet to account for the fact that they've taught their children--explicitly or by antipathy--that it's okay to treat people in such ways. No, it's the same-sex parents who are at fault. Unbelievable!
Gay people are not the threat to the family unit. I'll tell you what the threat is. The threat is the Church's misguided efforts to oppose same-sex marriage, or same-sex adoptions. The threat is the fact that the Church is expending all of its time, energy, and resources fighting families that don't look like them, rather than trying to strengthen the crumbling families that already exist in their own local congregations. No, they're too busy picketing same-sex marriages, rather than divorce courts. They're too busy stopping families from existing, rather than preventing those that exist from falling apart.
Gay people don't hate the family. Gay people aren't out to destroy the family. We affirm family every day in the process of coming out so that our loved ones can have the chance to know and love us for who we are, as we know and love them. We affirm family every day in our pleas for the right to have families of our own. We affirm family every day by striving for the right to marry the person of our choosing. We affirm family every day by our desire to have children (via surrogacy) and/or to adopt children into our families, providing them with stable environments in which to be nurtured and to grow.
Oh no, my friends, we aren't the threat to the family. The antigay wing of the Church is!
Smallpox demise linked to spread of HIV infection
The worldwide eradication of smallpox may, inadvertently, have helped spread HIV infection, scientists believe.
By 1980 smallpox had been eradicated
Experts say the vaccine used to wipe out smallpox offered some protection against the Aids virus and, now it is no longer used, HIV has flourished.
The US investigators said trials indicated the smallpox jab interferes with how well HIV multiplies.
But they say in the journal BMC Immunology it is too early to recommend smallpox vaccine for fighting HIV.
Kill no cure
Lead researcher Dr Raymond Weinstein, from Virginia's George Mason University, said: "There have been several proposed explanations for the rapid spread of HIV in Africa, including wars, the reuse of unsterilised needles and the contamination of early batches of polio vaccine.
"However, all of these have been either disproved or do not sufficiently explain the behaviour of the HIV pandemic."
It is a plausible explanation
Jason Warriner, clinical director for the Terrence Higgins Trust
Dr Weinstein and his colleagues believe immunisation against smallpox may go some way to explain the recent rises in HIV prevalence.
Smallpox immunisation was gradually withdrawn from the 1950s to the 1970s, following the worldwide eradication of the disease, and HIV has been spreading exponentially since then, they say.
Now, only scientists and medical professionals working with smallpox are vaccinated.
To test if the events may be linked, the researchers looked at the white blood cells taken from people recently immunised against smallpox and tested how they responded to HIV.
They found significantly lower replication rates of HIV in blood cells from vaccinated individuals, compared with those from unvaccinated controls.
The smallpox vaccine appeared to cut HIV replication five-fold.
Immune boost
The researchers believe vaccination may offer some protection against HIV by producing long-term alterations in the immune system, possibly including the expression of a receptor called CCR5 on the surface of white blood cells, which is exploited by the smallpox virus and HIV.
Jason Warriner, clinical director for the Terrence Higgins Trust, said: "It's impossible to say whether the withdrawal of the smallpox vaccine contributed to the initial explosion of HIV cases worldwide, but it is a plausible explanation.
"This is an interesting piece of research, and not just as a history lesson. Anything that gives us greater understanding of how the virus replicates is another step on the road towards a vaccine and, one day, a cure.
"Further studies into the role receptor cells play are needed, and even then any discoveries are likely to be just one part of the solution.
"Until we find a way to eradicate the virus from the body, the focus should remain on stopping it being passed on in the first place."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)