From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: BofA and UW can now support discrimination against blacks and Jews
Summary: More on this nonsense about sexual orientation and AIDS
Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc., Chicago, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 01:32:37 GMT

Rec.scouting removed from newsgroups line; no longer relavent.

In article <Bu9KrG.510@ddsw1.mcs.com> arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) writes:
>karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>: In article <Bu8tt2.91D@ddsw1.mcs.com> arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) writes:
>: >philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>: >:     Here's a question for you:  Why is it that homophobia is now
>: >: the only acceptable form of discrimination in the U.S.?
>: > 
>: >For the simple reason that it is considered evil by the majority of
>: >the population.  However, there are many such forms of discrimination
>: >that are considered acceptable in the US.
>: 
>: By your standards "the people" should be able to discriminate against people
>: who aren't Jewish, or Christian, or Islamic, on exactly the same grounds.

.....

>Sorry for the misunderstanding.  I was providing an objective response to the
>question, from a viewpoint I do not share.  Although I do not share the PC
>view of homosexual behaviour either, I do not consider it evil.  I leave that
>to the religious fanatics.  I do not consider it just another alternate 
>lifestyle but I do not propose discriminating against those who do but 
>neither do I support special status for them.

I don't believe that homosexuals are (nor have been) asking for anything more 
than equal protection under the law.  NOWHERE have I seen them campaigning
for "special" privileges.  I see them attempting to prevent their civil
rights from being denied and abridged due to their sexual preference.  

Big difference here.

I do not support giving >any< group of people "special" privileges that the
rest of us do not enjoy.  This includes Affirmative Action, which is nothing 
more than legal discrimination in reverse.  However, I do support >equal<
protection under the law of the land.

>There are two areas where I support a limited form of "discrimination" to 
>protect the rights of others.  For one, I have serious reservations about
>homosexual couples adopting children, who I suspect by most amazing
>coincidence will become homosexual.

Your suspicions have not been shown to be correct.  Everything I have read
on this subject say that about 10% of those children will consider
themselves "homosexual", which is darn close to the general population.  One
big difference you might see is that those kids who >do< find themselves
with a homosexual orientation might not have as much of a problem with their
orientation if they're raised in a gay or lesbian household; at least they
have accepting parents!

If you want to refute this then lets see evidence.

>Secondly, as the group that brought us AIDS and the group that still has
>the highest proportion of AIDS "victims", I feel most comfortable at arm's
>length until or unless the individual's status is known.

Incorrect.  The group that brought us AIDS was the black African man and
woman, where this virus has been identified dating back to the 1950s at
least.  Only in the last 15 years has it made its way into North America;
the vector appears to be a gay airline steward (who probably had sex with an
infected person overseas).  Further, the majority of the >planet's< AIDS 
victims are >heterosexuals<; it is only in the US that we have the anomaly 
of gays being a more significant vector.  They won't maintain this for long 
-- the present evidence suggests that the incidence of infection among gay 
men is dropping rapidly, while that among IV drug users is skyrocketing -- 
more due to the war on some drugs than anything else (no clean syringes 
available).  The incidence of >lesbian< transmission of HIV is so close to 
zero as to be nearly unmeasurable -- >much< lower than that of heterosexuals.
It seems that their sexual practices just aren't conducive to the
transmission of this virus.

Further, it is impossible to state >with certainty< your (or anyone else's)
HIV status at any given moment.  You can only play averages here.  Is 99%
good enough for you?  If so, then "unknown" is good enough too, as with 200
million people in the US there would need to be 2 million HIV+ persons
walking around right now in the US to exceed that chance >without any
screening procedures at all<.

>Unfortunately, I would keep any know AIDS victim at arms length and I suppoes
>that is a form of discrimination too but that is because our government
>refuses to protect up from AIDS and I have to take what measure seem
>appropriate to me.

Jack, >every one of us< is a potential AIDS victim.  Have you been operated 
on in the last 20 years?  Had sexual intercourse?  Used an IV drug with
other than known sterile equipment?  If any of these questions are answered
"yes" then you are potentially at risk.   You can say "but my partner and I
are monogamous" -- but how can you be 100% CERTAIN that they are telling the
truth?  The fact is you can't.  So you roll the dice >every time< you have
sex or go into an operating room.  Condoms are good insurance, but like all 
insurance, they don't always pay off.  Men have it better here, as the 
evidence suggests that female -> male transmission during "normal" sex is 
rather difficult, while the converse is not true.

If HIV had a "easy" transmission vector there would be 50 million dead
Americans right now and we'd have an epidemic far worse than the black 
plague on our hands.  The risk of catching HIV, >providing< you do not 
engage in high-risk behavior, is less than the risk of getting run over 
by a car when you cross the street.  This does not make the disease less 
of a tragedy -- not at all.  But it does put the risk in perspective.

This disease has >absolutely< nothing to do with sexual orientation.  It
>does< have something to do with a particular risky practice common among
gay men until recently.  The connection is blood<>fluid exchange.

It is a proven fact that it is next to impossible to catch HIV in any 
other fashion, crazed lunatics on the "Family Channel" and the "700 Club" 
notwithstanding.  For proof of this you need only to look at the health-care
workers who work with AIDS and HIV+ people daily -- the only vector there
appears to be physical body damage with contaminated items such as a needle
stick.  If this were an airborne or other easily-transmissible disease, such
as by casual physical contact, there wouldn't be a doctor or nurse alive in
a hospital today.

Yet there are.

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination,alt.atheism,alt.politics.homosexuality