Friday, January 27, 2012

So I was on this little show....

As you may have heard I was on some little radio show to talk about my "don't teach gay" bill. After a few minutes, the host (Who shall we say was not of a receptive lifestyle) jumped topics and I made some comments on how the homosexual lifestyle was WAAAAAAY more risky then the hetero sexual lifestyle. Of course the regulars went bonkers. Here are some facts on the issues we covered.


Here are a few links with a compilation of facts found elsewhere mostly from the CDC

On the short lifespan of homosexuals,http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnSx/HSx/hosx_lifspn.htm

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/3/657.abstract
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2005/feb/05021709

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/fastfacts-msm-final508comp.pdfOdds of getting AIDS through vaginal sex
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/895/what-are-the-odds-of-getting-aids-from-ordinary-heterosexual-sex

Many people love to throw around numbers from Africa and say the AIDS numbers are higher there for heterosexuals. This is true but mostly because in Africa it is common to practice anal sex as a form of birth control among prostitutes (an activity that is much more prevalent then in the US) and others. When I spoke on the radio show I was talking of vaginal heterosexual sex in the US. What are the odds here?


This was posted in the KNS today and are probably conservative numbers as it probably includes anal sex as a form of heterosexual sex (again, not what I was talking about).

"UNAIDS estimates that in the U.S., living with HIV as of 2009, 310,000 are women.The total US population as of 2010 is 308,745,538

Lets just go with about 50% are female = 154,372,000 female population.
Lets then say you take absolutely no care and sleep with anyone willy nilly. Your odds of getting a female with AIDS is 1 in @ 4970.

Lets go with the pro in the article who said on average, heterosexual intercourse between an infected person and a non infected person results in transmission of the disease about "one in a thousand times." (I assume this is without a condom)
Right off the bat that puts your odds of getting AIDS through heterosexual sex at about 1 in 5 million.

Most "Normal" people I imagine would also stay away from the IV drug users, hemophiliacs, known disease carriers, prostitutes and other high risk people. Also conceding a man less likely to receive the disease then a women because of the nature of sex, the odds of a man getting AIDS from a female are pretty low.
Add a condom and some common sense and you can add probably at least add a 0 to the number."


Who IS getting AIDS

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/aa/ and http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm or
_http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2009/aug/09082609



I admit (As I did in the interview), I am not a historian on AIDS (If you listen to the actual uncut interview I was asked to tell what I had heard was the history of AIDS) The research on sex with a monkey being the first transmitter of AIDS has not been proven nor firmly dis proven. It is one of about 5 theories I was able to find on the source of AIDS. No credible source said any one was clearly definitive one way or the other.
It was first published I think in a book which documents the history of the AIDS epidemic is entitled "And the Band Played On." The author of "And the Band Played on" was appalled by the unsanitary and degrading behavior of homosexuals. He died of AIDS a year after his book was published.

The homosexual pilot comment was first printed in the American Journal of medicine article about "Patient 0". His name was Gaeton Dugas. While possibly not the first person with AIDS he is still widely considered the person who widely transmitted the modern outbreak of the disease in the gay community. I admit I gave him false credit. I said I thought he was a pilot as I recall. He was a flight attendant.

Here is a link on that...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ga%C3%ABtan_Dugas

As for the reason for the interview (My bill on parental responsibility of teaching sexuality to very young children) Here are some points of view for you to consider.


-It is a parents responsibility to decide when a child is ready to grasp such a complex issue as sexuality and what they want to tell the child about that complex subject. Not a teachers.

- All children develop mentally at different rates. I do not feel a teacher with an agenda (Be it pro
or con) is the appropriate person to decide "Now is the time" for an entire class of children just because they may think one way or another on an issue and want to espouse it.

-A teacher is not a trained child psychologist or psychiatrist and could do as much harm as good to a sexually confused child.

-I doubt many on the other side would want a teacher who said "Homosexuality is evil, dirty and wrong" just because they felt that it was what is appropriate, that it is what they thought the children needed to and were ready to hear. This bill ensures neutrality from teachers.

-Physically threatening behavior is what is and needs to remain covered for all groups. Not the sexuality of the victim. We already have anti bullying legislation passed in Tennessee (In fact I co sponsored it 2 or 3 years ago when it passed) so all children are protected from bullying in our schools.

-We do not need an un equal justice system that creates special separate classes of protected people that gets special protection under the law.

-Nor do we need to silence the first amendment rights of religious free speech of those in our schools whose family may hold different beliefs (as long as those beliefs are not physically threatening).

-While there is a scientific and educational need to mention the basics of heterosexuality when teaching the basics of reproduction (XY chromosomes, etc.) there is no scientific need to mention homosexuality as homosexuals do not naturally reproduce.

-We are falling behind the rest of the world in math, science, and English amongst other things. Tennessee ranks about 46th in most areas. Social engineering is just one less issue teachers should have to worry about teaching as part of their curricula.

37 comments:

  1. Here is the metaphor: After all the years of instruction to avoid fried foods because it contributes to heart disease, this study arrives.
    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/fried-food-heart-risk-myth-according-researchers-181122532.html
    The point is that everyone who believes that they know precisely what the disease AIDS is and why it spreads, risks eventually appearing foolish. If we knew for certain we'd get rid of it.
    The question is, at what age and who begins the instruction in public schools about sexuality?
    Senator Campfield raises a legitimate public policy question and everyone accusing him of homophobia needs to take step back and consider this question, and then answer that question with something other than "we should leave it up to the individual instructor".
    Any suggestion that this somehow condones bullying is demagoguery.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i fully agree. in campfield's defense interview, this is the point he's trying to make a priority. i agree that it's for the families to deal with. and at the very least, the guidance counselor should be equipped to deal with these issues if the child can't go to his or her parents about it.

      Delete
    2. Agreed, although the Senator could do more to establish his neutrality when concerning this issue. Some comments seem to be geared more towards a homophobic point of view. Despite this the issue being addressed is one of sexuality education in schools. I believe that rather than passing a bill banning discussion of homosexuality (which leaves these children uninformed on a relevant lifestyle), perhaps the current sexual education programs should be updated to include homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle choice.

      Delete
    3. No offense, but middle school students could find better "sources" than you this. Seriously "Dear Cecil" back in 1988? I can find some quack on the internet who say pretty much anything. Not to mention, the "article" didn't say that having vaginal sex made you less likely to contract AIDS than anal sex. It just said that if you have sex with people who don't have AIDS you won't get AIDS and if you have sex with people who might have AIDS you are more likely to get AIDS. Duh!

      Delete
  2. You are so uninformed and ignorant. And you are an embarrassment to the state of Tennessee. I know this will not get published and I really do not care, but you will see it.

    Anyone can put a link on a blog to something that is as twisted as your own ignorance. It is just plain wrong for you to do that. Use "Facts" from respected, well known sources, to do otherwise is dangerous.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Perhaps we are falling behind in science because instead of studying actual science, too many politicians concern themselves with non-scientific things?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Frank no one can deny that there are well respected researchers who differ on the clinical definition of AIDS.
    People who have been there to look into the siutation in Africa report that care workers are insulted by an inference that in the absence of clean water and appropriate sanitation whatever illnesses they face are somehow controlled by a rockgod (BONO) politainer's edict, shilling for the pharmaceutical company's sales of condoms and AZT, from his "moral high ground." As if African people's conduct is one only of promicuous philandering. It is that same type of militant ignorance which once delayed the identification of a US AIDS outbreak during the late 70s when the gay community, so bent on proving that no exclsuive connection to it, men were deliberately donating blood to prove they were healty.
    So please, let's focus on the real issues and what this Senator is doing here, to have us address as a public the question, of when and who to have instruct our children about their sexuality.
    Or, perhaps you'd prefer to simply leave the answers to that paragon of morality, Hugh Hefner, because he did such a fabulous job of inculcating my generation on how we should all objectify women?

    ReplyDelete
  5. The reason children should not be taught about homosexuality in schools is that it is morally wrong. Most of the major religions of the world, including Christianity, teach that homosexual expression is morally wrong, and that it goes against natural law.

    All throughout the Bible, it says that homosexual expression is a very serious sin, that it is an abomination before God, so serious in nature that the practice of it can cause a person to lose their eternal salvation.

    Who would want their children to be taught about something like this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Um...hello? Separation of church and state? Unless you want to advocate other things the Bible talks about--not eating shellfish, selling your daughter into slavery--than let's keep it factual.

      Delete
    2. Umm... hello? Perhaps you haven't heard about that little thing the Founding Fathers mentioned--separation of church and state? Unless you want to advocate other things the Bible talks about--don't eat shellfish, but go ahead and sell your daughter into slavery--let's keep it factual.

      Delete
    3. Not ALL of us believe the Bible is the word of God....

      Delete
    4. "All throughout the bible"?????? Where? A few places which various translators have interpreted as opposing homosexuality. Many of those who are experts on the original texts of this extremely man created, cobbled together, book think otherwise. Nowhere (except in loose biased translations) does it actually say gay sex is wrong. Interesting how so-called Christians (particularly the pastors driving around in cadillacs)can cherry pick bits from the bible to suit them, but miss the inconvenient bits e.g. camels and needles and, as another poster has indicated, slavery.

      Delete
    5. Dear Senator Stacey Campfield, you don't want young children to be taught about gays at school, yet you can't stop talking about gay sex, or monkey sex, or other sex acts on the radio, television and internet. Dear Mr. Campfield, if you don't want children to hear about gay sex, stop talking about it!

      You also go on to say that heterosexual sex is safer than homosexual sex, well actually, women are at a higher risk of contracting HIV from heterosexual sex than with another woman (which is, surprise! also homosexual sex). Sorry to burst your iron clad discourse Campfield.

      Delete
    6. whether or not you believe it is morally wrong isn't the issue. children should be learning morals in the family and not at school. maybe how to socially interact with other people at school, but not morals. everyone has different morals, and they're developed at home (for the most part).

      Delete
    7. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

      1 Corinthians 6:11

      Genesis 19

      Leviticus 18:22

      Leviticus 20:13

      Romans 1:26-27

      Delete
    8. The bible says lots of things. You cannot just pick and choose what you will follow. You say the bible says that homosexuality is wrong. Let's go with that for a moment. Do you wear gold? Oh no, that's against the bible (1 Timothy 2:9). Are you divorced? Oh no, that's absolutely against the Bible (Mark 10:11-12). I won't even go into all of the things in Leviticus even though homophobics quote it all the time. I am so sick of people who preach against homosexuality because the Bible says so. The Bible says lots of things that are misinterpreted or reflect the times in which they were written.

      Delete
    9. Anyone with a child who was gay and considering suicide would want that child to be taught that homosexuality is part of life.

      Delete
    10. Dear Anonymous, I am reluctant to write this, because I am doubtful that it will have any effect on you except to make you angry. However, with that being said- I feel I need to write a reply, so that others don't feel that your rant is based in facts.
      First of all, I would like to apologize for the behavior of the "Christian/s" who mistreated you,and led you to hate the things of Christ- if that is the reason for your current condition. If they did evil things against you, then you should know that it was AGAINST the teachings of Christ, and the fault lies with them (and not Christianity).
      As far as your post goes...it is obvious that you haven't read the Bible or know much about its contents- but the Bible is very clear that God considers homosexuality to be sin.(Romans 1:26-32 and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, to list 2)
      The Bible itself is supported by an overwhelming amount of historical and archaeological evidence, like the finding of the dead sea scrolls, which were found in the 50s (which show that the copies we have were exactly the same as the originals). I don't know who your "experts" are, but I doubt any well known atheists would even consider them as a source. Most actual experts on ancient writings consider the Bible to be historically accurate and use it to evaluate other writings, and to help them explain and understand historical events, even though they may personally be opposed to its teaching. I would encourage you to do a lot more research, so you can see for yourself the reliability of scripture, and the multitude of evidence from other historical writings, archaeology, and science that endorse the Bible and its message.
      I am also sorry that many men have tried to take advantage of people by preaching a false gospel, but I don't think owning a Cadillac is the measuring stick of truth?
      ...and finally, I don't understand what you're after when you say that the "inconvenient bits" are "camels and needles" and "slavery", so since I am apparently slow- I'll let you clear that up for me. Good luck with your research- let me know if you need any good, reputable sources.
      Peace!

      Delete
    11. The bible is fiction.
      now that this is established your argument is flawed. The reason we would want to teach something like this to our children is because the potential homosexuals among these children need to know that this is a possibility. If they only hear the arrogant point of view presented by religions, coming to terms as a homosexual when they become sexually aware will be easier for them and they wont feel outcast because they are "an abomination before god". Teaching a child a about homosexuality will not make them a homosexual, but it will allow them to realize a gay person is just a person.

      Delete
    12. The word "homosexual" didn't even exist until the 19th century. It has no place in valid translations of the bible. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/

      Delete
  6. Your sources are absolutely ridiculous and show your ignorance and lack of knowledge on the subject way of life. I'm ashamed that someone like you is in office, as you are an elected official that should be trying to protect the people of your district. ALL people, not just the ones you find morally superior.

    The gay issue in school is more complex than you would like to think. It's important to be able to be discussed in school, as it is an issue that may come up at an early age. There are families that have same sex parents raising young children (yes, even in your district), and the topic can potentially come up. Not in terms of sexuality, but in curiosity and interest in the situation. Is a teacher supposed to brush the question aside, or address it in a professional manner and make the child living in the same sex household feel respected and included.

    Please consider all the people's feelings in your district, before you make hurtful statements. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Please stop referring to yourself as "regular" or "normal" as you are neither. You are an embarrasment to the great state of Tennessee.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I am so proud that we have someone in the Tennessee State Senate who cares enough about our children to want to try and protect them from learning about homosexuality in the wrong environment. If children have questions, they need to ask their parents, who should love them enough to answer all of their questions, in the right moral perspective.

    I would not want just anyone who might be teaching in the schools to give young children misinformation, possibly causing them to make behavioral mistakes that they would regret for the rest of their lives.

    If children have curiosity, they need to ask their parents, not their teachers, at such an early age. Christian parents and parents of other faiths do not want liberal teachers telling their children that the practice of homosexuality is morally okay!

    Senator Campfield has done his research and is quite knowledgeable on this subject. I am just thankful we have someone so decent and so good, representing us in Nashville!

    All of this uproar in the media, over the past couple of days, has been caused mainly by people who are living with the shame and guilt caused by the sin of living a homosexual lifestyle. It is morally wrong, and they that know that it is. May God forgive them!

    All of us, at the end of our lives, will go to our Creator to be judged by His standards. We will know for sure, at that time, that Senator Campfield was right, that the Bible is right. May we turn from our sins and receive the Lord's forgiveness, before it is too late!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes! Senator Campfield and Jesus both had it right! Lets worship them! Let them run our lives, and make us do their bidding. They know better than any of us stupid idiots.

      Delete
    2. Then stop letting teachers babysit your kids! If you want them to be ignorant and selfish like you then homeschool them- teach them everything YOU apparently know. Obviously you think teachers are not credible or rational people, so it makes sense to let them watch and teach your kids for about 13 yers.

      Delete
  9. Campfield: "Frank no one can deny that there are well respected researchers who differ on the clinical definition of AIDS."

    Again, bad research. There is NO debate among "well respected researchers" on the clinical definition of AIDS. Unless you include among "well respected" any person at all who wants to say nonsense. Senator, please get informed and stop making things up based on your lack of education about topics.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I would just like to add that in Africa, for the bride to be a virgin is culturally essential to Muslims. So anal sex is one way the woman can preserve her virginity -- in addtion to being an effective method of birth control.

    Years ago the UN did a study of sub-Saharan African populations regarding HIV transmission. They found, surprisingly, that circumcision was the biggest factor providing protection from acquiring the HIV virus among sexually active males.

    ReplyDelete
  11. First of all, if those were your sources for an academic paper, any decent professor who tear them apart.

    Second of all, "vaginal sex" =/= "heterosexual sex". There are so many things that fall under the category of heterosexual sex, just like there are so many things that fall under the category of homosexual sex. And most of them are overlapping, including anal sex.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I realize my first comment would not get published as my language was reprehensible. So let me explain in clean words. I only believe that AIDS it transmitted from one alien to one human from rectal probing during abductions. This is why there is no need to use protection when having sex with the ladies. Oh, and I'm hiv+. That's because I was abducted 6 years ago. I don't get treatment because I only have sex with ladies so they can't get it from me. You're my hero for exposing the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This is actually disgusting. I'm embarrassed that Canadians and Americans get lumped together. Teaching a child to be accepting and understanding of those who live differently than they do - sounds like a pretty good idea to me. Homosexuality is not taught to children, you either are gay or you aren't. Not teaching about diversity creates shame where it need not be. You should be ashamed of yourselves for putting words in God's mouth. I'm so thankful I live in Canada and that my daughter is not being taught such garbage and ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I heard Senator Canfield on the David Pakman show, and found I agreed with many things that he was saying, but Mr. Pakman-who was critical of some of Mr Canfield's statements- attacked the senator with some unsubstantiated 'facts' of his own. I don't know where the truth lies, but I do know that liberals(of which I am one)- in general - are intolerant of views different than their own - not a good thing when we are trying to find a common ground.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I have a friend who is gay (she is married to her partner). She is an elementary school teacher. She does not bring up the topic of sexuality on her own, but inevitably the students ask about her personal life, her spouse, etc. What is she supposed to say? Lie to them? Tell them she can't talk about it? The more restrictions you place on speech, the fewer freedoms we all have access to.
    As a Republican, surely you can agree that we need less government intrusion in our lives, not more.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arvid_Noe

    This is just too fun.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Normal people stay away from hemophiliacs?!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Senator,

    "homosexual lifestyle was WAAAAAAY more risky then the hetero sexual lifestyle"

    The correct comparative usage here is "than" not then.

    ReplyDelete

Here are the rules for comments. Know them. Live them.

http://lastcar.blogspot.com/2011/04/rules-for-comments.html?m=1