Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Harm in Homosexuality?
General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 309 (159260)
11-14-2004 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by The Dread Dormammu
11-10-2004 5:19 AM


Their is evidence that the average homosexual lifestyle is rather harmful. One of the main reasons is the huge amount of partners that most homosexuals have which results in the spread of AIDS among many homosexuals. From this website by the US Department of Health, it can be seem that about 60% of men are infected with AIDS through homosexual sex, while only 15% of men are infected through heterosexual sex. Thus it is more likely for you to contract aids if you are gay then if you are not.

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by The Dread Dormammu, posted 11-10-2004 5:19 AM The Dread Dormammu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by berberry, posted 11-14-2004 12:51 AM General Nazort has replied
 Message 13 by pink sasquatch, posted 11-14-2004 12:58 AM General Nazort has replied

General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 309 (159277)
11-14-2004 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by berberry
11-14-2004 12:51 AM


That's bullshit, Nazort! AIDS is far from the only STD, and most of its victims are straight, not gay.
I just gave you statistics showing that most AIDS victims in the US are homosexuals. Do you have statistics backing up your claims that most victims are in fact heterosexuals? Also, what does other STDs have to do with the fact that most AIDS victims are homosexuals?
One of the characteristics of the emergence of 'gay culture' has been the encouragement of the high level of promiscuity which, for various reasons, is a feature of male homosexuality the world over. Long-term, stable and single partner homosexual partnerships, although they do exist, are comparatively rare: 74% of male homosexuals reported having more than 100 partners during their lifetime, 65% reported having sex only once with more than half their partners, 28% reported having more than 1000 partners, 10% of homosexuals and 28% of lesbians claim to be quasi married. (cf Bell & Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity among Men and Women, New York: Simon & SChuster, 1978: 308,346)
And could you please explain what you mean by your simple-minded reference to the "homosexual lifestyle"?
The promiscuity is what I was referring to.
One of the characteristics of the emergence of 'gay culture' has been the encouragement of the high level of promiscuity which, for various reasons, is a feature of male homosexuality the world over. Long-term, stable and single partner homosexual partnerships, although they do exist, are comparatively rare: 74% of male homosexuals reported having more than 100 partners during their lifetime, 65% reported having sex only once with more than half their partners, 28% reported having more than 1000 partners, 10% of homosexuals and 28% of lesbians claim to be quasi married. (cf Bell & Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity among Men and Women, New York: Simon & SChuster, 1978: 308,346)

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by berberry, posted 11-14-2004 12:51 AM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by berberry, posted 11-14-2004 2:52 AM General Nazort has not replied

General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 309 (159278)
11-14-2004 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by pink sasquatch
11-14-2004 12:58 AM


Re: promiscuity, yes. homosexuality, no.
I don't think we can say that "most" homosexuals have a "huge amount of partners" unless you have some evidence to that effect.
See above post.
In any case, since you have identified the problem as promiscuity, you have not shown that "homosexuality" is harmful; you've shown that promiscuity is harmful.
Homosexuals and heterosexuals alike have the ability to choose unsafe sex or many partners - these things increase the likelihood STD transmission, not sexual orientation.
True. I guess the question then becomes does homosexuality lead to promiscuity, or are only the already promiscious likely to become homosexuals?
Is being "black" a harmful lifestyle, too?
Heh, no I would not call it a harmful lifestyle, but I guess those statistics mean it is more dangerous to be black.
Also, if you consider the entire world, the leading cause of the spread of HIV is heterosexual sex. Thus the average heterosexual lifestyle is harmful, according to your logical.
Most of that is because of the epidemic in Africa, where most people dont know that sex causes AIDS. You can't use that to show heterosexuality is more harmful - Africa skews the statistics. I wanted to stick with the US, where people are knowledeable about these things and dont have that kind of excuse.
(edited to add a not)
This message has been edited by General Nazort, 11-17-2004 11:54 AM

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by pink sasquatch, posted 11-14-2004 12:58 AM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by pink sasquatch, posted 11-14-2004 2:52 AM General Nazort has replied
 Message 19 by pink sasquatch, posted 11-14-2004 3:24 AM General Nazort has replied
 Message 23 by Silent H, posted 11-14-2004 6:12 AM General Nazort has not replied

General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 240 of 309 (161609)
11-19-2004 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by pink sasquatch
11-14-2004 2:52 AM


Re: 1978!?! historical perspective needed.
Sorry for taking so long to respond...
No, the question becomes, do you have any source on homosexual behavior that isn't thirty years old? Your assertion that the present "homosexual lifestyle" is one of promiscuity needs evidence.
Ok, sorry for the outdated stats.
From http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/000418.html:
Homosexuals still have 3-4 times as many partners as heterosexuals. Source: Laumann, FO. Gagnon, JH., Micheal, RT., Micheals, S., The Social Organization of Sexuality ( Chicago: university of Chicago Press, 1994 ).
A three-year study in Boston found that 77% of 481 male subjects had had more than 10 partners in the previous 5 years, 34% more than 50 partners in the previous 5 years. Source: G. R. Seage III et al., " The Relation Between Nitrite Inhalants, Unprotected Anal Intercourse and the Risk of Immunodeficiency Virus Infection," American Journal of Epidemiology 135 (January 1, 1992), p. 5.
The national gay and lesbian publication, The Advocate, reported " of 600 gay and bisexual male Milwaukeeans, 73% said they've had sex in the past six months with someone they never saw again." Source: The Advocate, June 14, 1994, p.16.
An upscale homosexual men's magazine, Genre, surveyed 1037 readers in October of 1996. Here are some of the results: " One of the single largest groups in the gay community still experiencing an increase of HIV are supposedly monogamous couples." 52% have had sex in a public park. 45% have participated in three-way sex. 42% have had sex with more than 100 different partners and 16% claim between 40 to 100 partners. Source: LaBarbera, Peter, " Survey finds 40% of Gay men have had more than 40 Sex Partners," The Lambda Report, January-February 1998, p.20.
Dr. Martin Dannecker, a homosexual German Sexologist, studied 900 homosexuals in 1991 living in "steady relationships". 83% of males had numerous sexual encounters outside their partnerships over a one-year period. Dr. Dannecker observed "clear differences in the manner of sexual gratification" between single and non-single gay men that were the reverse of what he expected. Of the homosexual men in steady relationships, he wrote, " the average number of homosexual contacts per person was 115 in the past year." In Contrast, single gay men had only 45 sexual contacts. Source: Wittmeier, Carmen, " Now they know the other half," Alberta Report, 1999 06 07, p.27.
______________________________________________________________
(I'm assuming you meant to say "not a harmful lifestyle".)
No, the statistics do not mean that ethnicity determines "danger" of HIV infection. It implies that there are black culture attributes (likely in a certain subculture) that result in a higher rate of exposure. It is those attributes, and not "blackness", that increase likelihood of HIV infection.
Yes I meant "not," sorry for the typo
Yes, what you say here is correct. I was extremely unclear - I did not mean to say that "blackness" in itself is dangerous - just the sububculture of blacks, as you say.
Just like it is not "homosexuality", but certain attributes of (a likely subculture of) homosexuality that increase risk.
Yes - the subculture of homosexuality increases risk. But I think the very nature of homosexuality itself often (not always) leads to this dangerous subculture.
Yes, I can, following your simple reading of statistics. I did exactly what you did, only with global statistics rather than national statistics. In examining the global epidemic, would you throw out the US numbers because they "skew the statistics" towards homosexuality?
Since I used a much bigger sample size, I have a better representation of the average person with HIV, and that average person is heterosexual.
Again, Africa throws a loop in everything when you are trying to compare homosexuality and heterosexuality. 30 years ago the US did not know about the dangers of AIDs- true. So lets look at the recent statistics, when the US DOES know the risk - you will still find homosexuals are the greatest group both with AIDS and being diagnosed with new cases of AIDS.
You need to learn some AIDS-related history. The epidemic spread of HIV in homosexual populations of the US happened twenty years ago, when the US was no more "knowledgeable about these things" than Africans currently are.
Fine - look at US statistics now.

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by pink sasquatch, posted 11-14-2004 2:52 AM pink sasquatch has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Rrhain, posted 11-23-2004 4:59 AM General Nazort has not replied

General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 242 of 309 (161617)
11-19-2004 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by pink sasquatch
11-14-2004 3:24 AM


Re: More fun with statistics!
Okay. Let's look at data from a recent CDC report on HIV in the US:
Where exactly did youget this chart? I looked up the The HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report Vol 14 online at CDC - Page Not Found and could not find these stats... perhaps I missed them. I DID find these stats however:
Diagnoses of HIV/AIDS and AIDS:
By exposure category, diagnoses of HIV/AIDS increased
each year during 1999—2002 among men
who have sex with men (MSM) and, to a lesser degree,
among heterosexuals. In addition, diagnoses
decreased among injection drug users (IDUs), MSM
who were also IDUs, and among children. In 2002,
MSM (44%) and persons exposed through heterosexual
contact (35%) accounted for 79% of all new
diagnoses of HIV/AIDS.
Notice the 44% for homosexuals as compared to 35% for heterosexual contact.
Persons living with HIV/AIDS:
Of the 298,248 male adults and adolescents (>13
years of age) living with AIDS, 58% were MSM,
23% were IDUs, 10% had been exposed through
heterosexual contact, and 8% were MSM who were
also IDUs.
10% through heterosexual contact... 58% homosexuals.

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by pink sasquatch, posted 11-14-2004 3:24 AM pink sasquatch has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Silent H, posted 11-20-2004 5:15 AM General Nazort has replied

General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 250 of 309 (162348)
11-22-2004 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by Silent H
11-20-2004 5:15 AM


Re: More fun with statistics!
Holmes says,
Did you by any chance notice the technical notes which explain the limitations of the stats, which on top of many other issues explicitly showed how transmission calculation method is inherently skewed toward m2m?
No - thanks for calling me attention to it. I'm assuming you are referring to this:
Persons whose exposure category is classified as maleto-
male sexual contact include men who report sexual contact
with other men (i.e., homosexual contact) and men who
report sexual contact with both men and women (i.e., bisexual
contact). Persons whose exposure category is classified
as heterosexual contact are persons who report specific
heterosexual contact with a person with, or at increased
risk for, HIV infection (e.g., an injection drug user).
While this does skew the results, one would think that if this bisexual category very even somewhat significant a seperate category would be created - since they were lumped in with purely homosexual men suggest that it was in fact not a very significant category and this the results are only slighly skewed. Also, there is another group of people for whom a seperate category WAS made - the homosexual/injection drug category:
For surveillance purposes, cases of HIV infection (not
AIDS) and AIDS are counted only once in a hierarchy of
exposure categories. Persons with more than one reported
mode of exposure to HIV are classified in the exposure
category listed first in the hierarchy. The exception is men
who report sexual contact with other men and injection drug
use; this group makes up a separate exposure category.
Some of the members of this group could be included in the purely homosexual group, which at least partially negates any bias resulting from including bisexuals in the homosexual group.
How would this not make sense given that HIV first entered/impacted the US in the gay population? That neither indicates it is a gay phenomonon in the US, and especially not worldwide.
Ok, but now HIV has entered both the homosexual and heterosexual sectors of the population, and yet diagnoses of HIV (which estimate new cases) are still higher for homosexuals.
General, did you not see my post #23 which was a reply to your post? It is on page 2 of this thread. I totally spanked your assertion that gay is a cause, or that promiscuity is a cause, or that sex in any way shape or form is a cause of HIV.
Yes I saw it, and what you say there is perfectly true. When I said sex causes AIDS, I did not expect people to take it so literally. Of course I know that sex is the primary mode of transmission for the virus, not the cause itself. I assumed people would see it in this way, but I was wrong - I should have been more clear.
And if this is true is meningitis a sign that kids shouldn't go to college? The Nile virus a sign that God hates the elderly who don't stay home on summer nights?
I have made no claims as to the reason for AIDS, or said that it is a specific punishment from God. My only assertion is that in the US the average homosexual lifestyle is more harmful than the average heterosexual lifestyle.

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Silent H, posted 11-20-2004 5:15 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Silent H, posted 11-22-2004 2:49 PM General Nazort has not replied
 Message 276 by Silent H, posted 11-23-2004 10:04 AM General Nazort has not replied

General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 300 of 309 (163244)
11-25-2004 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by crashfrog
11-17-2004 11:53 PM


Crashfrog writes,
What they're trying to do is get you to butt the hell out of things that aren't any of your business. When you stand in the way of gay marriage, for instance, that's not just you refusing to like homosexuality. That's you standing, unconstitutionally and counter to the principles of America, in the way of equal rights for gay people.
I just wanted to point out that gays DO have equal rights. They are subject to all the same laws that heterosexuals are, and have all the same rights that heterosexuals do.
Marriage rights:
You have the right marry anyone of the opposite sex. You do NOT have the right to marry anyone of the same sex. Doesn't matter if you are gay or straight, this applies exactly the same way to both groups.
Gay people have the right to marry anyone they want - of the opposite sex, just as heterosexuals have the right to marry anyone they want - of the opposite sex. Homosexual people do NOT have the right to marry someone of the same sex, just as heterosexual people do NOT have the right to marry someone of the same sex.
There is no right that heterosexuals have the homosexuals don't have. It is all equal. So please don't say that gays are fighting for equal rights - they are fighting for ADDITIONAL rights. They ALREADY have equal rights.

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by crashfrog, posted 11-17-2004 11:53 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Morte, posted 11-25-2004 6:58 PM General Nazort has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024