Unbelievable!!!!!

While I never agreed with the theology of Jerry Falwell....I always appreciated his moral stances.

Now that is even going by the way side.

This past weekend he had a "summit" with 200 gay activists and it went so well.....they will be worshipping with Jerry today.

I guess preaching from Romans 1 would be out of the question??? LOL

It appears Jerry has capitulated to "political correctness" and accepted the view that preaching against homosexuality is "homophobia."

There was no need for a summit.......just one word...."REPENT" because....homsexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God.

What part of that do they not understand??

Well....my question is.....will the Christian Church be the next to fall in line to "political correctness" and lessen the biblical stance against homosexuality.

I for one will never.

Want to read a great book??? Read..."Gay Rights or Wrongs" put out by College Press. Full of information on the truth about the number of gays (still a little less than 1% despite the rhetoric), full of information about AIDS (never has come close to killing the number they predicted and still project), shows that there never will be a cure for AIDS (proof....we can't even cure the common cold...also a virus), and yet we continue to pour more money into it per capita than cancer research. In fact, did you know that AIDS is not even a top ten killer???

Buy the book....get informed......keep the faith!!!

And please.....don't bother me with the "we have to luv 'em" rherotic. This is not an either/or.

-- Anonymous, October 24, 1999

Answers

Well said Sam!!!!

BTW.....in my previous three ministries I preached through the entire Bible at two of those congregations. It's called, "The Bible Book of the Month Club." It does make a difference.

At the other congregation.....we got 3/4 of the way through.

In my current congregation.....we just finished our second month. We are on our way.

I have generally found that our people are hungry for a systematic teaching through the Bible....as opposed to the "hit and miss....what's it gonna be this week" approach.

Anyone that knows me....knows how much I agree with you. Just tell it like it is.....and let the chips fall where they lie.

-- Anonymous, October 25, 1999

Malcam...

Only time will truly tell what Jerry was trying to accomplish.

But from what I saw.....and I followed it all weekend....I'm not impressed.

Keep in mind....this is the man who just a few weeks ago said "Tinky Winky" (or whatever that stupid doll's name is).....was a symbol of the Gay Community.

Now granted....that was riduculous to say that....but my point is....here....just a few weeks later we are having a "Summit" that goes so well that all 200 homosexuals wanted to attend church with Jerry that morning??? It just does not add up.

Now we are NEVER going to be able to satisfy those in the homosexual community. As long as we are going to preach against homosexuality...regardless of how caring we are.....we will be labled "homophobes" and "hate mongers."

Here is why. Homosexuals are not interested in just securing rights....they want affirmation of their lifestyle. It is important to them in order to ease some of the pain of their inner guilt.

They want that affirmation from no one more than they want it from the church.

Now mark my word on this.....watch and see if not too long from now you hear some homosexual activist claim the support of Jerry Falwell.

I believe Jerry hurt his witness and stand for the truth.

-- Anonymous, October 25, 1999

Brother Danny:

I just wanted to take a moment to say a hearty AMEN AND AMEN to your words in this post! I hope that I am wrong in expecting that some brother will soon write a post concerning how they cannot see even this matter as a "salvation issue". If and when such a post does arrive you and I can race for the opportunity to respond! Ha!

Though you will probably win the race inasmuch as I have a tendency to write what many of my brethern in this forum, who only write e- mails to me, call "diatribes". I had to look that word up you know! It means, " biting or abusive speech or writting." It is interesting that such can be applied to words that are true! Those who accuse others of such should first of all prove that such writting is not true. For we all know that the truth does often "bite". When Peter preached the first gospel sermon in Acts 2 we are told the effect his words had on his audience, " When they heard these words they were PRICKED in their hearts and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles men and brethren what shall we do?" Acts 2:36. Was that a diatribe? Were Peter's words "biting"? But you see the thing that prevents us of accusing Peter of a "diatribe" is that his words were true. The same can be said of Steven's speech in Acts 7. " You men who are stiff necked and uncircumsised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did." Then we are told, " Now when they heard this they were CUT TO THE QUICK, and began nashing their teeth at him." It is clear that his words had a "bite" to them. It is too bad that Steven were not speaking in this forum. For here he would receive more gentle treatment and only be accused of speaking "diatribes". We are told, "the word of God is quick and powerful and sharper than any two edged sword PEIRCING assunder of soul and spirit and the joints and marrow and is a DECERNER of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Hebrews 4:12. Now since the word of God is so sharp and peircing and therefore has a "bite" to it how could anyone preach it for long without someone perceiving of its "bite" as being a diatribe? I know that I seem to be off the subject but I noticed in other forums that you and others are also accused of writing "diatribes" and just wanted to let you know that I agree with and appreciate your willingness to stand for truth on issues like this one and others in spite of the fact that you recieve such unjust accusations. I also promise that if anyone supports the idea of homosexuality being acceptable to God and that Christians should be "tolerant" of such behavior among those in the Church I will fight such false doctrine as long as I have breath in me! The congregation where I worship does not now nor will they ever condone or in any way show support for the idea that homosexuality in not a sin. For it verily is indeed and we call upon those who practice such things to REPENT of them just as we call upon all others to repent of whatever sins that they may be guilty of before the Lord. That such is a sin cannot be denied by anyone who can read Romans 1:18-24.

You can rest assured brother Danny that I will never yeild to any type of "political correctness" on any issue involving truth much less concerning this pernicious evil of homosexuality. It is surely condemned in the scriptures in no uncertain terms. The very idea of "political correctness" implies complete incorrectness outside of the "political" arena. If something is "politically correct" you can be assured that it is incorrect in in every other way. For "correct" is a word that until recent times never needed modification. You were either correct or incorrect. But now we can be "politically correct" regardles of how "morally incorrect" we might be. The rise of this need to modify the word "correct" is a sad indicator of the measure of decay of this nation's moral fiber. I would expect to see such a decay among those who are "without" the kingdom of God and do not follow the doctrine of Christ. But if such should rise it's ugly head in the body of Christ we must "decapitate" it swiftly! So much for my latest "diatribe".

I pray that our Lord will bless you in your life and work Brother Gabbard. Your love for and stand for truth is strengthening indeed.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 24, 1999

Ya Know, the "Summit" part didn't bother me. At least the part where it appeared both sides were trying to stop the violence against one another. It does the cause of Christ no good to call people "Fags and Queers" and I believe Jesus would have condemned "hate crimes". But sin is sin, and for Jerry to invite the gay representatives to stand and be recognized as dignitaries pushed the envelope too far for me. In my first message of 1999, my "State of the Church" message I declared that the next big issue to face the body of Christ would be the gay issue. Euthanasia is coming, but the gay agenda will occupy our time for a long while. The simple fact is, Americans, including many Christians, don't believe in any absolute morality. A recent report I read said that half of all those claiming to be "born again" reject absolute right and wrong. Its time to get very basic. We need to start over in our pulpits. We are preaching to a post Christian crowd. We need to be very loving and very basic and very straight forward. Perhaps Christians should be ready for solid food, but they still need milk. I have been preaching a series called, "route 66", we are covering one book of the Bible per week. We finish the O.T. next week. I have been taking an informal survey since I got to the "Minor" Prophets. Over half of the congregation has never read them and nearly half didn't know there were books called "Habakkuk", "Zephaniah", and "Haggai" in the Bible. And these are good people. Some have been Christians a long time.

I'm rambling, sorry. But my point is, we can't assume that people believe Homosexuality is sinful behavior. We have to teach it. Explain it. Lovingly and firmly. And we need to reach out lovingly to the gay community as Jesus did the woman caught in adultry. Forgive her, defend her as a person, and challenge her to "go and sin no more."

-- Anonymous, October 25, 1999

Although I know very few details about Falwell's summit meeting, what I saw on the Sunday morning news doesn't quite fit in with what you men are writing. I don't think that Falwell intended to say that homosexuality was even 1% OK. Over and over, at the expense of making Mr. White (spokesman on the TV news for the homosexuals) extremely agitated and mad looking, Falwell called homosexuality against the Word of God, a sin, something that needed to be repented of.

I, too, had the impression that Falwell was giving in to "political correctness" by holding this convention, but after seeing the news, and hearing that his intention (at least reported by the secular news media) was not to say homosexuality is OK but rather to say that true Christians are not to treat homosexuals as people to physically attack, beat up and murder on the streets, but rather to show them the love of God and help them to repent of their sins, I felt I must have misjudged him. However, this is based on about a 5 minute TV interview I saw that took place early this past Sunday morning after the convention. Perhaps the convention was totally different than what Falwell and White presented in this interview. Maybe some of you who know more accurate details and where I can confirm those details could enlighten me further as to whether or not Falwell was compromising the truth of God's word on the issue of homosexuality or not.

Thanks.

Malcam

-- Anonymous, October 25, 1999

Amen to all you brothers on this one!

I wholeheartedly agree with you on this one. I too watched all that I could concerning this summit and was pretty much disgusted by it. It is true that Jerry never condoned homosexuality, but his very presence with this group was a moral (or is that immoral) victory for the homosexual community. This was a slippery slope that would have best been avoided. And as far as this being a conference to end violence, can anyone show me a recent news article that speaks of a violent act committed against a homosexual because the attacker had a Christian mandate to do it? I haven't seen any. All I see is preachers quoting the Bible, as on this Forum, and I see folks like our ex-Surgeon General who told a homosexual gathering that the Christians were their enemies and had to be defeated. Danny, you know my stance on this issue - and it ain't about to change - ever. As far as "name-calling" is concerned, personally have have no qualms about calling homosexuals "queers" - as it is a better word. "Queer" means different or strange - which is exactly what these people act like. "Gay" is not a good name as it means happy. These people are not happy - otherwise they would not have to work so hard to gain society's approval. They can never be happy, be at peace, until they can be reached and affected by Christ's version of the Gospel - as man's version that is being spouted by too many "churches" ain't going to get the job done. I am not a biggot or hateful person - I feel for Homosexuals like I do all sinners. If they cannot (or will not) be reached with the Gospel, I pity them not only for their eternity but for their current life as well. Unfortunately, neither God nor I cannot help them if they will not except the truth concerning their sin and repent.

And besides - if I were to accept Homosexuality, I would have to go buy a purple suit to preach in.

-- Anonymous, October 25, 1999

Uh, Mark? That would be a pink suit, not a purple one. But just take that maroon polyester one and bleach it a bit. It'll do. :-D

-- Anonymous, October 25, 1999

Someday I'm gonna get myself in trouble poking fun at ya'll preachers.:-D

-- Anonymous, October 25, 1999

Actually Nate,

I like the Maroon one too much to deface it.

Sears does sell a pink sportcoat that ought to fit the bill though.........Ha! :~)

-- Anonymous, October 25, 1999

Fellow Believers,

I have a real problem with the following statement in the original post: "This past weekend he had a "summit" with 200 gay activists and it went so well.....they will be worshipping with Jerry today." Great! I am excited to hear that these people will be worshiping with Christians! I am in no way a "fan" of Falwell, however I firmly believe that homosexuals should be invited to worship with us. That's where they need to be. Jesus Himself said, "It's not the healthy who need a doctor." A homosexual would be more than welcome to worship at the church I serve, because that's where they need to be. If we are going to shut out the homosexuals then we must shut out the foul-mouthed, the adulterers, and all of the other sinners. Do you think these people are more likely to repent in an environment filled with the love of God and His Holy Spirit or among a group of hate-mongers telling them they are not welcome in their church and that they are going to burn in hell. It is this kind of "rhetoric" that gives Christianity a bad name! Is it not our job as Christians to condemn a person to hell, it is our job to reach out to them in love and share the Good News of Jesus Christ with them. The old addage is appropriate here: "Hate the sin, love the sinner." I hope we haven't forgotten our past states as "the lost".

-- Anonymous, October 28, 1999

Given a lot of thought to this issue. A couple of pointers, then my thoughts:

Sam -- You are correct. Jesus DID condemn hate, equating it to murder. Now, "hate crimes?" I have a problem here. Why should a crime be punished more for being instituted due to hate? Murder is murder, be it for hate or a few $$$. I wonder ... if the shooter at the church in Texas who killed the worshippers there had lived, would he have been tried for a "hate crime?" His statements certainly were hatful of followers of Christ. Off the subject, but wanted to get that out there.

Danny -- You are correct about systematic Bible teaching. Having learned the Bible Book of the Month Program from Doc Smith, and seeing it in action at Cocoa, I used it in Charleston and at Oak Grove in PA. Went over very well. GoodBible teaching will not only point out the sin of homosexuality, but also the sin of hate, gossip, and all the rest. Keep it up (as I'm sure you are).

Mark -- I can't think of any artilces re: Christian -vs- homosexual violence either. But you and I both know that our congregations have people in who hate ... maybe homosexuals, maybe people of other ethnic backgrounds ... maybe ???? Of course, we are to hate the sin, but we are to do all we can to win that sinner to the Lord, and that must be done in love. Again, I know you understand that.

A couple of other thoughts. A campus minister I am associated with who works on the campus of Penn State noted that he and one of the students of the CSF there attended an open meeting of G-L-B-T (that's the catch phrase used now to group the lot together: Gay-Lesbian- Bisexual-Transgendered). They went not to support what was taking place (not in the least), but to have discussion where possible, to show that not all who claim the name of Christ are hateful. They were quick in the discussions to denounce what the people were involved in as sin, but they were able to speak with a number in a calm manner, which many of the GLBT in attendance never thought a Christian could do, or would bother taking the time to do. What will be the outcome of all that -- who knows? Maybe some will attend the CSF and come to a saving knowldge of the Lord ... maybe not. I think it's safe to say had the minister not visited and spoke with them, they certainly never would have come to visit CSF.

I remember the big push for "homosexual rights" in Tampa back in the early 90's. Hillsboro county and Tampa in specific was a test area for this rights movement. I attended a couple of the planning meetings that the churches were having then in order to discuss what people could do to counter the movement. (Yes Danny, it was not a movement towards "rights" but a movement towards acceptance). There was a young man there who had come out of homosexuality, accepted Christ, was baptized, and was very active against the movement. He made a comment one time that he had renounced homosexuality, but it was a continual battle for him, and there were times he fell into the sin again ... much as we fall into whatever our sin is that easily entangles. I mentioned to my elders that it might be a good idea to have this young man come out to help teach our congregation about the truth behind the movement and what they could do for the Kingdom about all this (as most congregations and Christians, our people didn'tsee the need to be involved at all). When we discussed his continued battle against this sin, one elder campaigned against him coming. Something to the effect; "We don't need a practicing homosexual in our church." I was quick to point out that we had plenty of practicing liars, gossips, etc., but to no avail. I even pointed out that we had some that weren't practicing anymore, but had achieved professional status.

Point being ... homosexuality is a sin, but no more a sin than gossip, tax cheating, lying, etc. We have been very forthright here at IUP to invite EVERYONE to our CSF CELEBRATIONS! That would include people of denominational backgrounds, neo-pagans, tree-huggers, non- believers, and even the GLBT crowd. I pray more sinners attend in order that we have a chance to teach the truth of the Word. Will I cave in to this movement ... AIN'T NO WAY! But I will do all I can to show the love of Christ to all who sin and are lost, in hopes (biblical hope) of winning them to Him.

Darrell H Combs

-- Anonymous, October 28, 1999

Good job, Darrell. Tony Campolo once pointed out the following (and in the Ozark Christian College chapel, no less) -- "If we are to be judged by what we have a tendancy or temptation toward, rather than by what we actually do, then I am a liar, I am an adulterer, I am a thief, I am a cheat . . . I am a sinner." (Not exact words, but the best paraphrase available almost 20 years after the fact.)

-- Anonymous, October 28, 1999

It amazes me how we will get on the band wagon against homosexuality and will not hold the same principles against all other types of sinful behavior. I Corinthians 6:9-11 tells us that there must have been in the church at Corinth some who were in their past sinful lifes practicing homosexuality and through Christ they were changed.

I have heard of people who will not go to a family gathering because they did not want their children to be near a known homosexual. But these same people will take their children around those who have been divorced, practicing pre-martial sex, and committing adultary. they will take them to gatherings that are full of gossips and liars. Isn't it time that we speak out against all sins and try to teach our children concerning sin and it's effects upon their lifes? Isn't a person who is practicing pre-martial sex or committing adultary just as bad? We seem to tell our children it is alright to be a pervert as long as you are not a homosexual. And who have your children been effected more by, a homosexual or those committing pre-marital sex or committing adultary? Since we know that only 1% of the population is homosexual, I would imagine they have been effected by the fornicators and those committing adultary.

Our churches do not want to hear about sexual issues or marriage issues because they are not living their lifes to his glory. Look I have found that you will not have many below the age of 35 who are not quility of pre-marital sex, divorce, or adultary. When you begin to preach against it, you will see what happens. They like you to speak against homosexuality because most of them are not effected by it, it is someone elses sin but don't you dare meddle in their sinful life.

What is the best way to overcome homosexuality. It is to teach, teach and teach. Teach it like the Scriptures. Teach it as a sin. But then you Dads, take serious being a father. Those who still believe that homosexuality is not normal behavior have found out that it is not a gene that makes one homosexual but it generally starts at home. Not to blame the fathers for the decision but sometimes our envirnoment makes certain sins more attrative and tempting than others. Look at www.narth.com.

I hope we will realize that we need to not only speak out against homosexuals but we need to speak out against hate, hate that leads to people thinking it is alright beating someone because they are homosexuals. Look I have heard some Christian folks talk about wanting to go a kill all those homosexuals. This is a sin as well and I think and hope that is what Falwell was speaking against. I don't agree with Falwell in much of anything but if he was trying to tell the Christian community that we need to start reaching these people with the message of Christ to transform them instead of trying to kill them, I say "Amen".

-- Anonymous, October 30, 1999

As per my previous post, I had no problem with the "summit" per say. I didn't even have a problem with the "gay activists" going to Church at Thomas Road, but when Jerry appeared to treat them like dignitaries, I think he went a little far. Let's suppose I had lunch with some guys from the gym who were cheating on their wives. Lets suppose those guys came to church the next day. Now lets suppose I single them out for special treatment as my friends. What message does that send. Well, lets put some new vegetables in the stew. Let's suppose that some of these adulterers are well known in the community and the press is at the luncheon and cover the event on the evening news. Does that change the perception when I make a big deal of their appearance in Church the next morning. Probably. I think the same about the "summit". And, to be fair, most of us only have a liberal media version of events. How's that for a sweeping generalization? I am apalled by the protestors outside of Thomas Road Baptist Church. In Jesus name carrying nasty banners and shouting slurs. WWJD? Jesus would have said, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." After we'd all left in embarrassment, he would have turned to the sinner and said, "Go and Sin No More." Boy, am I windy this morning!

-- Anonymous, October 30, 1999

I still subscribe to the hate the sin but love the sinner approach. I listened to what Jerry Falwell said i.e. it is still a sin. I have preached for years that if Jesus were in my town that he would go for the town drunk & prostitute in later years I added the drug dealer. We all are welcome to come to the Lord with our sins. We all have them. Some are just hidden better than others. Even though I must admit Homosexuals & Lesbians make me uncomfortable but that is my problem. I think that the underlying teaching of the New testament whether it be Jesus Or Paul is that we are to be sexually pure which takes in all areas of this discussion. The key word often forgotten by many is that we are a called to---REPENT--not a popular word anymore. I have never really trusted the news media to portay any of this truthfully. I have a real problem with those who claim to be Homosexual or Lesbian PREACHERS and expect me to accept that. I don't, I can't, I never will and that does not make me homophobic or hateful! I also cannot accept the concept of whole churches that are labeled "Metropolitan" meaning promoters of this type of sexual sin as if it were ok. It never was & never will be. Again the Church that I am a part of follows the teaching of Jesus---Go & sin no more!!!

-- Anonymous, October 31, 1999

I am sending the following letter to the editor of our local paper, in response to a local "Reverend" who said we should accept the homosexual lifestyle as an "alternative" expression of "God's love." Or some claptrap like that. I will also be posting it in my weekly "According to John" column on my church's website. But you gentlemen and ladies get to read it first. =) ______________________________

Contrary to liberal opinion, the Bible is not at all ambiguous on the subject of homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22 says, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Leviticus 20:13 says, "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable." Romans 1:27 reads, "In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." And in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 we find, "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

"But I was born this way ... God made me this way." Born that way ... perhaps. But God didn't make anyone that way. God created man perfect, but sin entered the world through one man (Romans 5:12). Since that Fall, all men have a predisposition to sin. How is homosexuality any different than stealing, adultery, or murder in that regard? It is still sin; it is still rebellion against God's will. Supposing (and I don't doubt that this will eventually happen!) they find a gene that makes people predisposed toward pedophilia? Does that make it OK to be a pedophile? Of course not, what absurd logic! How is homosexuality any different? It is still a sin! God expects us to rise above our fallen nature, and holds us accountable when we willfully refuse to do so. "There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus" (Romans 3:23-24). It was Jesus who said to the sinner, "Go, and sin no more."

You cannot say you "love" someone, and at the same time tell them that God approves of something He specifically says He abhors. That is the same as patting a starving man on the head and saying, "Be well fed" (James 2:16). Woe to those who call good evil and evil good (Isaiah 5:20)! It would be better for them if they tied a millstone around their neck and jumped into the sea (Mark 9:42)! God also holds accountable those who are in positions of spiritual authority yet fail to proclaim His will. Just as spiritual leaders are to be counted worthy of double honor (1 Timothy 5:17), they shall also receive a greater condemnation (James 3:1). Like Ezekiel (33:6), the sinner's blood will be on their head.

I believe we should embrace the sinner, yes, even the homosexual, as a lost soul that God loves and Jesus died for, while at the same time still renouncing and reviling the sin of homosexuality. We need to stop being afraid to speak the truth in love, just because of the current politically correct winds or societal "enlightenment." God hasn't changed, His Word hasn't changed. Let God be true and every man a liar!

-- Anonymous, December 29, 1999

I have often wondered about Romans 1:27 - "In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

Do you any of you believe that "received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion" is why we have so many sexually transmitted diseases today including aids?

-- Anonymous, December 30, 1999

While sexually transmitted diseases might be apart of the penalty, I would seriously hesitate to include AIDS in the list. AIDS is also spread by heteorsexual acts, drug needles, and blood transfusions. Along with drug users and homosexuals, AIDS in its early days struck hard against hemophiliacs, an inherited condition where sufferers' blood lacks the capability to clot on its own, making it possible for them to bleed to death from paper cuts.

-- Anonymous, December 30, 1999

I believe that AIDs is a punishment (judgment) against the practice and acceptance of homosexuality. Just because it affects others does not make it any less a judgment.

When AIDS first appeared it was known as G.R.I.D. which stands for Gay Related Immune Disorder. It was later redesignated as AIDS to take the Homosexual stigma off of it. That was the only politically correct thing to do.

An excellent book on the subject is by Jeffrey Satinover and is titled "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth." It is not a "bash" book, but instead is full of relevant info that we need to know.

BTW, DLee, I haven't forgotten about the study I promised you. Trying to be thorough while being busy with other things is time-consuming. Bear with me :o)

-- Anonymous, December 30, 1999

Scott -- I would love to have the references to the GRID -vs- AIDS names you noted. Could I find that in the book your refer to, or do you have other references to the name change. Just the changing of the name says a lot about our PC'ness!

Darrell H Combs

-- Anonymous, December 30, 1999

Yes Darrell. The info is in the book. It is published by Baker and the ISBN is 080105625X. Here is a quote from the introduction: "AIDS had appeared on the scene, the deadly modern disease that has stalked our lives, headlines, and imaginations like a medieval plague. It was known to us then simply as GRID, "gay-related immune disorder." This name reflected the fact that in Europe, America, and Asia, AIDS was then - as it remains today - dramatically disproportionate among male homosexuals." p. 11.

Another quote from p. 16: "So the first move in the early eighties was to eliminate the aerlier name on the condition. Because under the right circumstances the virus was transmissible to anyone, pressure was swiftly generated to rename "gay-related immune disorder" to AIDS: 'Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.' Though the connection to homosexuality is universaly understood to be valid and medical literature still speaks of homosexuality as the major risk factor for AIDS ... In short, the response to AIDS was politicized from the start."

I have no stock in the book, but it has been a great help to me. Fort Lauderdale has a very large homosexual population and the book puts a lot of info at your fingertips. The author has the credentials to write this. It is an excellent book for reference.

Hope this helps.

-- Anonymous, December 30, 1999