»Homosexuality spreads AIDS, heterosexuality not really«
|
|||
 knn: There seems to be something very unhealthy when living a homosexual LIFE STYLE. I say life style (rather than "homo-sex"), because I want to include behaviour like promiscuity and drugs (poppers). Of-topic. This thread, as the subject states, is about homosexuality and AIDS. posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgTechnology, Computers, Science, InternetScience (Assorted topics)Homosexuality spreads AIDS, heterosexuality not really |
|
|||
|
knn: Magic Johnson has no AIDS, as far as I know. He was merely tested HIV positive. Big difference. There's no point in splitting hairs between AIDS and HIV. If you do so, then I can immediately argue that sex doesn't spread AIDS --- it only spreads HIV. posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Tiefling: There's no point in splitting hairs between AIDS and HIV. There is a very very big difference. As you know people are killed by the flu. But the flu is mostly a killing disease only when other factors exist. For example malnutrition. The same applies to HIV. HIV itself is only a virus. But if you take drugs and have an unhealthy lifestyle then it KILLS you. Scientists also say that some people are immune to HIV. Also this is supported by the numbers I gave you: AIDS deaths are 50x less frequent than infections. Tiefling: Of-topic. This thread, as the subject states, is about homosexuality and AIDS. How the heck can this be offtopic? This is how homosexuality spreads AIDS. Tis includes of course the homosexual lifestyle. posted by knn |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
volonteshiva: I would add that we probably shouldn't blanket all of homosexuals into one set. There are many today that don't lead a dangerous, promiscuous lifestyle. Many are monogomous and disease-free, especially in light of how much HIV/AIDS has affected the gay community. Yes, that's true, but: Have they lived THEIR WHOLE LIFE life like that? Or just the recent years? Maybe a 30+ year homosexual lives NOW a monogamous life, but when he was 15+ he was sexing around with 400+ partners. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: Maybe a 30+ year homosexual lives NOW a monogamous life, but when he was 15+ he was sexing around with 400+ partners. knn finally grasps the concept --- this is about promiscuity! woo-hoo, congratulations to knn! posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Every single one of you is misquoting statistics and making assumptions about AIDS and its 'supposed' link to homosexuals. Lets get the facts right. AIDS is not caught so stop saying people catch AIDS: it stands for Aquired Imuno-deficiency Syndrome and is the consequence of the bodies inability to protect itself from cancers, cell mutations, pneumonia etc as the HIV virus completely destroys the white blood cells in the body. And just to shock you all, this isn't a 'gay epidemic' in the slightest. In fact, the numbers of hetrosexual people becoming infected with the HIV virus has risen drastically in britain almost overtaking the homosexual rate of infection. To blame promiscuity for this Virus is ridiculous. Whilst I understand being sexually active increases the risk, that is a personal choice. How can humans be blamed for a virus however? That is like saying that people with cancer are lesser human beings, and we all know that many cancers are caused because of lifestyle choices (smoking for example). This now highly treatable virus is becoming less of a threat the closer we are to a cure, and believe me, having family in the pharmeceuticals industry, that is very close. You may reason that many religious groups are right for condeming homosexuality as it ultimately leads to AIDS (or so you say). I'm a Christian, and also a homosexual and I do not understand any connection the bible makes to it being a mortal sin. Never once does the bible condemn homosexuality and in direct contrast to many Christian's dissaproval of gay people, the bible promotes love and acceptance of all throughout. What ever happened to human compassion? Let us stop pointing the finger of blame at minority or 'condemned' groups in order to justify our own narrow-minded opinions. Let's look at the wider issue here: the world, and the survival and protection of all it's beauty, including human beings. I urge you to get down on street level with the outcasts of society, to help those in Africa, to protest against imorral laws and unjust acts of violence, prejudice and hate. Don't sit at home and try and blame other people for what you see as 'the downfall of the human race'... get active and make a difference. Nat Splat x x x posted by Nat Splat |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
I mostly agree, except... Nat Splat: To blame promiscuity for this Virus is ridiculous. I can blame promiscuity for HIV inasmuch as I can blame promiscuity for syphilis. posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Nat Splat: And just to shock you all, this isn't a 'gay epidemic' in the slightest. In fact, the numbers of hetrosexual people becoming infected with the HIV virus has risen drastically in britain almost overtaking the homosexual rate of infection. Statistics? Nat Splat: To blame promiscuity for this Virus is ridiculous. Whilst I understand being sexually active increases the risk, that is a personal choice. So you agree, that promiscuity raises the risk? Why do you disagree with my statements then? Nat Splat: That is like saying that people with cancer are lesser human beings, and we all know that many cancers are caused because of lifestyle choices (smoking for example). But that's exactly the case. Cancer is actually a good example. Of course ANYONE can get cancer, but if you are a chainsmoker and working at "Asbestos Limited" then yes, your chances are much higher. Don't blame it on plants (= tobacco), blame it on your life style Nat Splat: I'm a Christian, and also a homosexual Aaah, now it comes out. I wonder how many of the people who disagree with the statistics I bring forward are gay and/or have taken drugs. Nat Splat: I do not understand any connection the bible makes to it being a mortal sin. Never once does the bible condemn homosexuality and in direct contrast to many Christian's dissaproval of gay people This thread has not much to do with the bible. The correct threads are IMO → Is homosexuality immoral? and IMO → Where does the bible write homosexuality is bad? Nat Splat: Let us stop pointing the finger of blame at minority or 'condemned' groups in order to justify our own narrow-minded opinions. I never finger-pointed. After all I even wrote that AIDS stays within the risk groups and basically only gays live shorter because of AIDS. Nat Splat: Let's look at the wider issue here: the world, and the survival and protection of all it's beauty, including human beings. Jesus, now you not only sound as a gay and Christian. Now you sound as someone in his last stage of AIDS. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
This is not scientific! The facts about HIV/AIDS are as clear as day.  People who dispute them are doing so cynically to advance their own anti-scientific agendas. This is like putting one of my posts under religion because I hate religion. It's offtopic. Forget about condoms for a second (but not if you are planning on having sex tonight, guys, if so stop reading here.)| If gay men stuck to blowjobs (which many do) there would be fewer AIDS cases in the gay community. However, if straight men stuck to blowjobs, there would be fewer AIDS cases in the straight community, but there would be no babies born. Gay men can always find lesbians to have their babies through in-vitro fertilization or artificial insemination, but they don't always try. Straight men cannot always find willing partners to engage in vaginal intercourse, but they always try. Therefore, I say heterosexuality is the cause of AIDS. And I am: 28 years old, heterosexual, and 100% HIV-negative. And I have never had an HIV test. You do the math. posted by sleuthslayer |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 sleuthslayer: This is not scientific! The facts about HIV/AIDS are as clear as day.
niaid.nih.gov... I see nothing at that site that would add anything to this topic or deny or alter anything I posted. sleuthslayer: Therefore, I say heterosexuality is the cause of AIDS. And I am: 28 years old, heterosexual, and 100% HIV-negative. And I have never had an HIV test. You do the math. ? posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 looks like it depends upon the time frame in which you are trying to prove knn the first catagory is IN 2003, the later is THROUGH 2003 the stats in 2003 seem to be very close homosexual->homosexual VS heterosexual>heterosexual but if you take all cases THROUGH 2003, homosexual cases are far above AIDS Cases by Exposure Category
Following is the distribution of the estimated number of diagnoses of AIDS among adults and adolescents by exposure category. A breakdown by sex is provided where appropriate. Exposure Category Estimated # of AIDS Cases, in 2003 Male Female Total Male-to-male sexual contact 17,969 - 17,969 Injection Drug Use 6,353 3,096 9,449 Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 1,877 - 1,877 Heterosexual contact 5,133 8,127 13,260 Other* 281 276 557 Exposure Category Estimated # of AIDS Cases, Through 2003 Male Female Total Male-to-male sexual contact 440,887 - 440,887 Injection Drug Use 175,988 70,558 246,546 Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 62,418 - 62,418 Heterosexual contact 56,403 93,586 149,989 Other* 14,191 6,535 20,726
so does this mean hetero->hetero is becoming more prevolent? posted by The ONEder Man |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 The ONEder Man: so does this mean hetero->hetero is becoming more prevolent? 1) First of all it means nothing, since you don't know how many heteros merely SAID they got it from sex and not from drug abuse. 2) I don't understand why you make any prevalence conclusions from these statistics. The only thing I can conclude is that since the new cases are approx the same for homos as for heteros (18k:13k), homosexuals die slower (440k still living vs 150k still living). But actually I cannot tell from these stats whether it shows ALL cases (including the ones who died, or still living cases). posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: 1) First of all it means nothing, since you don't know how many heteros merely SAID they got it from sex and not from drug abuse. if you are going to argue on what if's or speculation, how can you believe either sides of the stats? knn: I don't understand why you make any prevalence conclusions from these statistics. where did i make any conclusion whatsoever? i thought it was obvious from my question that you quoted, i was curious if a conclusion could be made with so little to go on. the only reason i put those statistics on there is that you were challenging everyone to find some that were close on both sides. I do find some for 2003 that are close and you dismiss them saying "well they might not be telling the whole truth" why do we quote websites for you in a debate again? please tell me posted by The ONEder Man |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 The ONEder Man: I do find some for 2003 that are close and you dismiss them saying "well they might not be telling the whole truth"
why do we quote websites for you in a debate again? please tell me It was OK to link to this site but the stats are not of much use. Neither any statistical link that _I_ have posted, nor any other link shows the whole truth. It seems that either such statistics are not made or not available right now. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
 Register Log in |
The time now is 9 January 2009, 21:01 php B.B. |