DEPRAVITY WITHIN THE GAY COMMUNITY KNOWS NO BOUNDS, as many homosexuals
known as ‘Bug Chasers’ seek to have sex with men who are HIV positive,
so that they too may contract the ‘Gift’ of HIV in what they term “the
ultimate erotic experience”.
When I say that there are “many” who seek this perverted experience,
there are contested statistics put forward. Rolling Stone claims that
25% of gay men are bug chasers, while a study quoted in Wikipedia put
the number at 7.5%.
There is a documentary available on YouTube called THE GIFT, while here I
post a shorter interview [4 mins], with the producer ………..
The wikipedia article on it is here ……..
Where innocent li’l ol’ me caught up with this suicidal activity was on
Reddit where, on a particular forum, gay men were putting out requests
to find other men with the ‘gift’. The language was the most vile and
sickening I can recall seeing where the ‘gifted’ and the ‘chasers’ were
exchanging what they would like to do with each other. And, no thanks to
the facebook friend who alerted me to it.
BUT, why do I bring this up now?
Alerting others to this activity will probably be of no consequence in
this post-modern world where relativism and situational ethics prevail
for the sake of “love being love” and Truth is now whatever you claim
it to be for yourself. But, the area where this issue does affect others
in the world of rights and redress is the world where our taxes are
getting poured into the health care of these intentionally sick people
with self-inflicted disease.
They will eventually need medical care and, even if this were given in a
public hospital with little cost to the afflicted, our taxes pay for
that hospital and all treatments given. Then, additionally, it’s fair to
say that they will choose medication, either as a cure or for the
easing of distressing symptoms. THIS IS MY POINT, since we are powerless
to restrict the activity itself and even to do so would impinge on
their ‘rights’. But we can do something about the public taxpayer
funding of treatment. What actually prompted this blog post was
yesterday’s article by the ABC which says ……..
“A ground-breaking HIV prevention drug has been approved for taxpayer
subsidy in Australia — marking a major milestone in the four decades
long battle against HIV and AIDS.
The Federal Health Minister Greg Hunt previously promised government funding for the drug if approved by the committee.
The decision is expected to see the over-the-counter cost of the drug drop from up to $1,000 to about $40.
Victorian AIDS Council CEO Simon Ruth said it should be available by the middle of the year from any doctor or pharmacy.”
NO WAY JOSE !! We should and must not subsidize these people to the tune
of $1000 per treatment. We can and should put pressure on the
appropriate government Ministers to not fund treatments for this
self-inflicted disease. But, there’s a problem. Or two or three. The
taxpayer, remember, already funds HIV treatments in public hospitals for
HIV patients, some of whom have contracted the disease via
non-homosexual sex. Gays who have contracted the virus via sex know the
risks they have taken, yet they are subsidized without taxpayer protest.
Of course the argument will be made in relation to subsidized cancer
treatment for smokers. While that argument appears justified, it is not.
Why? Because for one thing [apart from the addiction angle], long term
smokers will have paid around $100,000 in taxes over aproximately 50
years and so have paid for their treatment by proxy. Another problem
inherent here is determining which infected person has contracted HIV
deliberately as a ‘bug chaser’, who should be excluded from receiving
subsidized care. This area is above my pay grade, so I will leave
readers to ponder and to take any action that they deem warranted. There
are many articles on bug chasing per se, and I will leave you with this
one ……….
Kyrie Eleison.
If there is one thing that the corona virus crisis might make parents realize, about their children's education, it's this: how useless and dangerous is the propaganda in public school about the need for radical sex-"education" programs. Sex lessons that include teaching children that boys can be girls and girls can be boys. Give "consent" for sex and everything will be fine. Children are just too young to deal with these kind of explicit content. Topics such as anal sex and gender identity cannot be properly processed by a young mind that has not yet developed the executive function of the brain. This is why much of the content taught under the guise of sex "education" amounts to child abuse.
