Homosexuality among men and the grim risks it entails

SO is it just man on man anal sex that causes aids?

or are we saying man on woman anal sex causes aids too??

reply to post by Reprobation

Well it's a good thing science and medicine have given us the gift of STD tests then. Those that will be careless won't change due to risk. I'm not gay but know a few couples personally and each of them in the early stages of their relationship went and had the test done together. Easy as pie!

who's homosexual tendencies are you against here?

ours or yours?

I don't understand why someone would actually care if people are gay or not.

does it matter?

Originally posted by DisasterButton
AIDS is not a "homosexual" virus.

Its an ignorance virus. People do not care enough about themselves to take precautionary measures.

...thats not true... it may be partially true but, as you stated it, its a lie...

...when hiv was new in the usofa and still very hushed up - i had radical surgery (cancer)... the blood supply was not tested back then even though, we later found out, that the federal government had known for a long time that the testing was needed...

...when i heard about the failure of the federal government to mandate testing of the blood supply - and - that if the blood i had received during surgery had been tainted with hiv, it could lay dormant for a decade or two, i wanted to kill someone... they didnt have a quick test back then to tell me if i was harboring hiv... so i just had to live with the worry and very scary possibility... so did my children's father...

...there are tons of heterosexual people, homosexual people and bisexual people (from that era) who share the same story as me and the same worries... its been 30yrs since my surgery, so i'm fairly sure i got lucky but lots of people did not and it had nothing to do with us not caring enough about ourselves to take precautions...

...also - babies are born with hiv... your crude statement blames them... tsk, tsk, tsk...

Originally posted by Fishticon84

Originally posted by GonzoSinister
SO is it just man on man anal sex that causes aids?

or are we saying man on woman anal sex causes aids too??

Just man on man.
No reason as to why though. Probably has something to do with God and his hate of gays, yet his love of science.

or you know.. god hates gays but likes to spice up the bedroom every now and then... and who can blame him


Like essentially im asking is this like a virus that knows when your man bits are in the bottom bits of a man and not a woman? or are you suggesting that all mens bums are an aids ridden virus pool waiting to be unleashed but women are ok?? the OP has brought up many questions

Well there appears to be an Elephant in the room here, in the form of a question that no one has asked the OP yet. So I'll just go ahead ask.....

What led you to such penetrating (Pun intended) and in-depth investigation of gay anal sex??

This thread is hate-mongering and trollish.
Just to point out-in Africa where the disease is rampant-The continent has about 17% of the worlds population but accounts for 67% of all AIDS cases and over 70% of all AIDS related deaths-at least in 2009.

I can promise you that the gay population affected in that case is insignificant.

The problem is most people believe they will never get sick and or die, and more over think that modern medicine will cure everything anyway.

Perhaps you should try and understand the topics you chest thump about while seeking things to embolden your confirmation bias.

You all seem to be missing the point entirely.

While I don't necessarily agree with what s/he says (s/he already suggested that lots of the statistics regarding gays are lies, so why should we believe THESE statistics? Just what IS the truth?), it's rather clear that this thread is simply about attempting to educate people (THAT would be the "point," geniuses); I'm really not seeing the "hate."

reply to post by Reprobation


Statistics are a goofy thing.. They allow people to make an argument based on them, yet people fail to understand how they fit into a larger and more complex picture.

Example:
Take the Population of the United States and pull the crime statistics.
Take the Population of Canada and pull the crime statistics.

The US has a significantly larger population than Canada. When you compare those stats to each other, you are going to find areas where canadas percentages are a lot higher than the US.

Does it mean they commit more crimes? Nope - What it does mean is the number of crimes committed when compared against the actual statistical reporting body increase the percentage. So a person could take those crime stats from Canada, compare them to the of the US, and make an argument, based on those stats that Canada is more dangerous in some crimes than the US is.

Another example if some are missing the point. In law enforcement, when we do a traffic stop we are required to include biographical information of the contact - IE we are required to report if the driver was black, white, indian, latino etc etc etc.

If I stop 11 cars, and issue 2 cars a citation, that stat is 20%+/- cited / 80%+/- verbal warning.
However, the state, when doing their reporting to the FBI, the traffic stats are broken down by city and then race with no clarifiying information.

If 1 of those people cited are white, and 1 is black, and all the warnings issued were to white people, its reported seperately.

At the top level it is going to show that out of every traffic stop made -

* - 10% of the time white people were issued a citation
* - 100% of the time black people were issued a citation.

According to the stat, the officers in that department are racists and racially profiling, when in reality that is not the case at all.

If you take 50 straight couples who contracted aids and you take 50 gay couples who contracted aids and compare them as is, 100% of those 2 groups contraced aids. When you remove the direct comparison between the 2, and compare the number of straight couples who contracted the disease and compare that number to all straight couples, the stats will be lower because its being compare to a larger sampleing size, and the comparison of gay couples who contracted the disease when compaared to just the gay community, the percentage is larger because the sampleing size is smaller.

So yeah, the stats in the op can be taken many different ways. They just chose to use the generic for religious belief purposes. I say religious because of the way the OP is done. To me the stats were specifically chosen in order to paint a picture without clarifying opinions of the OP and the specific way the stats were used.

You can take any medical stat - Cancer, Cycle cell anemia etc and you can make the exact same argument depending on what parts of the information are used.

I think we should be more concerned with helping each other out as humans rather than target a group and judge. The stats on HIV / AIDS should be an eye opener that we need more funding in science and medical rsearch to find a cure for a disease that affects everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, instead of condemning them.

Just saying...

reply to post by Bleak


No it isnt.
The thread is saying that gay = sick. It is a common tactic of bashing-to make this sort of claim. In regards to statistics-that too is cherry picked.

Did you not even read the topic?

Simple fact is there are many families of the HIV virus. Some live only in women. It can also be spread via breast milk.

This does not make a woman a "grim risk".

In Africa a staggering portion of the population are infected with HIV. Has nothing to do with homosexuality. It has to do with ignorance and hubris.

HIV is no different than any other disease on earth. The risk factor is from people thinking they are immune to tragedy and that medicine will cure everything anyway-Hetereo groups see less of a spread simply because condom use is far more common as a practice birth control device.

That is all.

Nothing to see here. No credible claims on anything. Certainly nothing scientific in the thread to claim "Grim Risk".

reply to post by lordtyp0

Did you read the damned topic? Nobody said that ONLY gays acquire AIDS. This isn't about that at all. Read the OP again. You clearly are missing the point.

reply to post by Reprobation


Something my biomed teacher told me was that.
In the next decade, homosexual men will outnumber heterosexual men 5 to 1.
This is mainly due to the chemicals being added to our food, homosexuality, is a disability, and it's caused due to testosterone suppression to the fetus whilst its in its mothers womb, by the food the mother eats during her pregnancy this would affect the baby's neuroendocrine cells.
As for reversing it, i have no idea, i guess in theory we could increase testosterone whilst decreasing estrogen.
But i doubt it would work, unless it's done during the fetus's developing stages.
I myself, have unnaturally high estrogen levels for a male, there's nothing i can do to reduce it, i'm not gay but i think this has strangely made me a better person.

reply to post by Reprobation


The only risk among male homosexuals is that your partner probably has the slut gene.

Recent studies show women cheat in a relationship when they are dissatisfied with the sex or the partner.
Men cheat "because they have an urge." This is the only grim risk. When 2 men are together you up the odds somebody in this relationship is going to cheat. Of course that all comes down to individual character. Some people have more of it than others. Wondering if you can give me a definition? Kind of doubt it.

I was going to add that homosexuality among women does not have that "grim risk" of your partner cheating or leaving you at all.

Homosexual women seem to mate until death do them part and have a greater tendency to stay together for life.

Rates of separation are MUCH LOWER and rates of fidelity are MUCH HIGHER than the traditional men with women pairings.

Originally posted by Bleak
reply to post by lordtyp0

 

Did you read the damned topic? Nobody said that ONLY gays acquire AIDS. This isn't about that at all. Read the OP again. You clearly are missing the point.

Not really. Gay bashing. We got it.

reply to post by lordtyp0

The thread is saying that gay = sick.

Those would be your words, not the OP's. You're just sounding paranoid now.

"Somebody's bringing up gay statistics!? Oh, the hate! The HATE!!!"


reply to post by newcovenant

How about attempting to actually refute the OP instead of just bitching about perceived bigotry? I ask you a simple question: What the hell is so bigoted, so intolerant, about bringing up STATISTICS!?!? WHERE is the "hate"?