AIDS and sex

Ever heard from some celebrity that sex has nothing to do with AIDS, that AIDS is everyone's problem because anyone can get it? Try telling it to a Red Cross worker.

We're having a blood drive at our church today. Here's a quote from their required reading before you donate:

"You are at risk for getting infected [with AIDS] if you
1- have ever used needles to take drugs, steroids, or anything not prescribed by your doctor
2- are a male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977
3- have ever taken money, drugs or other payment for sex since 1977
4- have had sexual contact in the past 12 months with anyone described above
5- received clotting factor concentrates for a bleeding disorder such as hemophilia
6- were born in, or lived in, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Niger, or Nigeria, since 1977
7- since 1977, received a blood transfusion or medical treatment with a blood product in any of these countries, or
8- had sex with anyone who, since 1977, was born in or lived in any of these countries."

Now, counting #6-8 are there because AIDS is so prevalent there. But why is it prevalent there? Because of #1-4 (I doubt they have medicine as advanced as clotting factor concentrates in most parts of these countries.

So, 4 of the 5 possibilities for getting AIDS are due to an immoral lifestyle.

Postscript: their definition of "sexual activity" includes the phrase, "whether or not a condom or other protection was used." Oh, so condoms aren't the answer anymore?

If the Red Cross won't take such risks with other people's blood, shouldn't people know the risks to themselves for certain practices, instead of touting "safe sex with the partner of your choice"?


  1. Terril4:11 PM

    Thanks for the post. A good explanation of the phrase "hate the sin, love the sinner". However, I challenge the statement that there is a genetic link to homosexuality. Any research that has been said to find the genetic link has been refuted. I believe there is a "sinful link" to homosexuality just as all of your other examples. God Bless.

  2. I agree, terril, but downplay it in order to downplay science relative to morality. I am strongly against a supposed genetic link giving ANY credibility to the pro-gay argument.

    Your need to challenge the scientific claims tells me you may place too much weight on the science in the argument.

  3. Terril9:45 PM

    Steve, that was my point. One of the arguments the pro-gay side uses is the "natural" relationship for them as a gay. Pro gays want to interpret Romans 1 as though it is natural for them to be in a same sex relationship. I misunderstood your original post in that I thought you were allowing for a gay gene. I agree, science has nothing to do with it. It is sinfulness.

  4. Ones predispositions are beside the point. We are all predisposed to sin, that is not an excuse. So the genetic argument, even though it is constantly unproven, is a straw man that misses the point. Even if a genetic predisposition exists, that is not an excuse to do what is sinful.

  5. Housekeeping note:

    These comments are on the AIDS and sex post, but they relate to the post below.

    Note that the "posted by Steve" and "comments" line comes at the bottom of the post, not the top...