Myth of Heterosexual AIDS

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
222

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
L
As for your reference, it’s another .com which means it’s 100% unreliable.

lolwut? According to you? But you linked a .bbc.co.uk. Let’s stop playing these silly games here. The guy at teh link provided references (read: evidence) of what he was saying. [/quote]

Again, I don’t have to change your mind on anything we’re talking about, but please take note of a few facts.

The world health organization has clearly stated that most of the AIDS contractions in Africa are caused by heterosexual sex. That’s proof for that heterosexual AIDS exists for the medical community and myself.

I also know of many people from Africa whose parents where killed by the disease. Again, my friend was orphaned when one of his parents slept with a member of the opposite sex and then passed on the Virus. I believe your response to that was, “Nuh uh!!!”. Very analytical of you.

As for the .com, I referenced a respected and well known news corporation for data concerning AIDS orphans. It’s a well know and documented fact that there are millions of them in Africa. You listed several questionable sources from .com websites that are highly questionable regarding factuality. The internet is rife with trash, if you can’t verify your information regarding the core of your argument from government or scholarly websites then the information is probably biased. The source you provided was an incredibly biased piece.

223

I can’t believe some of you are actually denying the fact of gay promiscuity, as if you don’t recall that either right now or not in the so distant past, your penis pretty much directed many of your decisions. That’s not a put down, it’s a fact of life for a man with a normal test level and in fact, this very site glorifies and is named after the very hormone responsible for most of our poor decisions. Like to take risk? You can likely blame test. That fight you had? Test. Can’t say no to pussy? Test. Watching porn? Test. Aggressive? Test.

So why is it so difficult for some of you to understand the unholy and unnatural dynamic at play when men like men - when testosterone is not tempered by estrogen, as nature intended it between potential mates. As I stated earlier, the equation lacks someone to say no. All over the world, right now, there are lonely men sitting home alone b/c they can’t find a date or a bootie call. Male gays have no such problem. As a consequence, they spread disease, like HIV, as rats spread the plague. If anal sex were “natural” (as some of you have argued that homosexuality is “natural” merely because it occurs), the rectum would be better constructed to handle it.

And semen would not have such a deleterious effect upon the immune system when penetrating the circulatory system. Homosexuality is as natural as the two headed snake. Nature allows both to occur, but she’d sure like a do-over in both instances. Is it any wonder that nature allows HIV to ravage the gay community like no other?

224

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
The source you provided was an incredibly biased piece.[/quote]

That source had footnotes. Did you review them? I’ll wait. Sorry sir, heterosexual sex does not explain the AIDS problem in Africa. If it were true, we’d experience a similar plague in our own cities. We are not. What we do know is what has already long been established; that women are much more vulnerable to transmission from men. And in the majority of cases, the men infected are infected by gay sex or sharing needles.

Even if you believe for instance a guy like Magic is not gay (I refuse to acknowledge so called bisexuality), he slept with literally hundreds, if not thousands of women before contracting it. The fact is, your arguments are not supported by the transmission rates from WOMAN TO MAN.

225

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:

HAHA, spoken like a true pissed of conservative. It’s good to hear that you’re not in fact the type of person who enjoys beating homosexuals, or any other type of minority. And you’re right about sexuality at work, it’s not appropriate at all.

However, for the last time I don’t appreciate you labeling my sexuality. It’s not appropriate in any social setting whatsoever.

And as for my “touchy feely bullshit”, we are talking about civil rights. Prejudice inevitably surrounds civil rights issues, for instance you believe all homosexuals are unfit for certain rights. However, if I could prove that even a handful of homosexual men were fit to raise children and even do a remarkable job with them would that make you think. Parents are always screened for adoption regardless so what’s really the issue with you?

FAIL.

I’m not even remotely pissed off about anything and I’m not necessarily a conservative. As Chris Rock said, I’m conservative on some things, liberal on others. In fact, I consider myself a bit of a libertarian. As for labeling your sexuality, if the label fits girl, wear it, work it girl!

And you could never prove to me that a single homosexual man should raise a child - the idea is repugnant to me. And yes, I’m aware of all the unfit hetero parents (before you raise the issue). And no, adoption is not the only issue. I don’t believe they are entitled to marriage, spousal benefits, adoption, etc. You and your kind are free to live your lifestyle free from prejudice and abuse - and that’s it.

[/quote]

Dude, I’m sorry if you didn’t know it but you’re the only one who can change your mind. If none of what I say has an impact on you, then just don’t listen. Simply rejecting everything I say to you doesn’t make you right, it just makes you unpleasant.

Also, I believe you called me a “pathetic save the world Liberal”. For someone who mentions labeling, it’s kind of ironic that you called me that. You definitely seems kind of angry to me, but who should know how you feel?

Again, you control you’re ability to change your mental attitude or opinion on this matter. You’ve already stated that theirs nothing I can say to change your mind, so what’s the point of having this discussion or any one for that matter?

226

[quote]:

Schlenkatank who is barely 19 wrote:

Insightful as always, Troll28.

Hey…Wittle dusty is back at his parents computer…isn’t that cute. Now remember to put that special cushion back after get down from your fathers chair…you’re getting to be a really big boy, I bet someday soon you won’t need that cushion…run along now the adults are talking…go on…

[/quote]

Right, like we’re supposed to be intimidated or swayed by the fact that you’re evidently older than us. Real slick mick…

227

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
The source you provided was an incredibly biased piece.

That source had footnotes. Did you review them? I’ll wait. Sorry sir, heterosexual sex does not explain the AIDS problem in Africa. If it were true, we’d experience a similar plague in our own cities. We are not. What we do know is what has already long been established; that women are much more vulnerable to transmission from men. And in the majority of cases, the men infected are infected by gay sex or sharing needles.

Even if you believe for instance a guy like Magic is not gay (I refuse to acknowledge so called bisexuality), he slept with literally hundreds, if not thousands of women before contracting it. The fact is, your arguments are not supported by the transmission rates from WOMAN TO MAN.

[/quote]

I haven’t reviewed the authors sources, although i’ve spent enough time sifting through piles of internet junk to know that when someone wants to propose an important/valid idea they do it one way. The article rejected the WHO as well, which is kind of a big clue.

You evidently don’t know anything about Africa. I know for a fact you have never been there and haven’t the slightest notion of the culture. Here’s a site to help you get started, Data | Be in the KNOW. There are vast differences between America and Africa. Wow, I didn’t realize you really didn’t know…

228

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
L
As for your reference, it’s another .com which means it’s 100% unreliable.

lolwut? According to you? But you linked a .bbc.co.uk. Let’s stop playing these silly games here. The guy at teh link provided references (read: evidence) of what he was saying.

Again, I don’t have to change your mind on anything we’re talking about, but please take note of a few facts.

The world health organization has clearly stated that most of the AIDS contractions in Africa are caused by heterosexual sex. That’s proof for that heterosexual AIDS exists for the medical community and myself.

I also know of many people from Africa whose parents where killed by the disease. Again, my friend was orphaned when one of his parents slept with a member of the opposite sex and then passed on the Virus. I believe your response to that was, “Nuh uh!!!”. Very analytical of you.

As for the .com, I referenced a respected and well known news corporation for data concerning AIDS orphans. [/quote]
I don’t know what the hell AIDS orphans have to do with this discussion.

Here’s what the WHO has been saying lately about heterosexual HIV:

So, somehow magically a “heterosexual” pandemic of HIV has managed to confine itself only to sub-Saharan Africa in this day and age of jet travel and immigration while every other freaking continent hasn’t experienced the same thing? Somehow, only sub-Saharan African ‘heterosexuals’ are getting HIV, while the rest of us are sleeping around like there’s no tomorrow and getting off scot-free? Does Occam’s razor exist in your universe?

Guy, live in a fantasy land for all I care. Just try to fix Africa with your checkbook and not mine, ok?

229

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
TheBodyGuard wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
The source you provided was an incredibly biased piece.

That source had footnotes. Did you review them? I’ll wait. Sorry sir, heterosexual sex does not explain the AIDS problem in Africa. If it were true, we’d experience a similar plague in our own cities. We are not. What we do know is what has already long been established; that women are much more vulnerable to transmission from men. And in the majority of cases, the men infected are infected by gay sex or sharing needles.

Even if you believe for instance a guy like Magic is not gay (I refuse to acknowledge so called bisexuality), he slept with literally hundreds, if not thousands of women before contracting it. The fact is, your arguments are not supported by the transmission rates from WOMAN TO MAN.

I haven’t reviewed the authors sources, although i’ve spent enough time sifting through piles of internet junk to know that when someone wants to propose an important/valid idea they do it one way. The article rejected the WHO as well, which is kind of a big clue.

You evidently don’t know anything about Africa. I know for a fact you have never been there and haven’t the slightest notion of the culture. Here’s a site to help you get started, Data | Be in the KNOW. There are vast differences between America and Africa. Wow, I didn’t realize you really didn’t know…
[/quote]

Honestly, I could care less about Africa and their “culture”. I live here.

230

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
Here’s a site to help you get started, Data | Be in the KNOW. There are vast differences between America and Africa. Wow, I didn’t realize you really didn’t know…
[/quote]

Nothing there at all that doesn’t gloss over the homosexual issue. They just assume it was heterosexually transmitted. And that’s what we’re talking about here. Please tell me, why this phenomena in Africa but nowhere else in the world? Are you telling me our safe sex practices are saving us? Because frankly, our safe sex practices are hit and miss. Did you happen to miss the passage about the high density of MEN in one of the early cities hit? Hmmm, bet they were all hetero eh?

231

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Guy, live in a fantasy land for all I care. Just try to fix Africa with your checkbook and not mine, ok?
[/quote]

x2.

Save the world from themselves if you must, but please do it with your own money. The world needs more Darwanism Accelerated, not less. They are hit the hardest because they are adapting the LEAST. And what happens in nature when you fail to adapt? And, if you fail to adapt, what do you have to offer the world? Nature is just cleaning up, that’s all. Let her do her job. The less we interfere, the better.

232

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Little dusty wrote:

Actually, since I minored in psychology, it was discussed and isn’t taken too seriously within the field. And it has nothing to do with political correctness. Quit using that as argument to dismiss what you disagree with.

You minored in psychology…who cares kid? If you wipe your ass with your Psych degree you’ll probably get more out of it than most do.

[/quote]

I doubt anyone cares, but it does show I might actually have a clue as to what I’m talking about. You on the other hand, use name calling and gay bashing as an argument.

Unfortunately, I signed a contract that says Uncle Sam is going to pay me.

But you believe whatever you want Troll28.

233

The fact remains that they took the tact they did to get funding. If this were portrayed from the beginning as merely a gay disease (which by and large it is), the fight would not have been funded as it was/is. Besides, Bush don’t care about gay people.

234

[quote]Gregus wrote:
And that promiscuity is arc welded to the gay community. Its part of the psychological package that makes one gay. Man are you ever in denial.

It’s like gays spend their whole life looking for love from a man. The love they never got from the most important man in their lives. [/quote]

You have no idea what you’re talking about. It’s amazing to me how people are so willing to buy into shallow stereotypes, and dismiss real people whose lives contradict those stereotypes, in order to confirm their preexisting ideas.

I’m not promiscuous, and I have many gay friends who are also not promiscuous. We live in established neighborhoods, pay taxes, raise kids, and go to soccer games just like everyone else. I realize nothing I say will convince you, but I’m still going to call out blatant misinformation like this when I see it.

235

You might not be promiscuous, but TONS of gay guys are. I know it for a fact from gay friends, and from looking at the obvious. In Philadelphia near me, there are two gay bathhouses, with the sole purpose of having sex with random men.

Gay guys are what ruined a park that I used to go fishing at, a guy straight up asked me if I wanted to get my dick sucked while I was out there, I got his licence plate number, and talked to a park ranger, come to find out that gay guys have been going there to have sex with each other. Rehoboth beach near me has a large gay population, and local business around there have had problems with gay guys destroying property, by cutting holes into stalls to make gloryholes.

Oh, and check out sites like craigslist, look at the personals sections. Start at the top and go down, what do you see? Women seeking men: Almost exclusively looking for dates, company, and such. Men seeking women: Mostly the same, looking for dates, and relationships.

Now go onto the other two, Women for women: Seems to be about 50/50, split between women looking for company and friendship, and those just looking for sex. Now on to Men for Men: Overwhelmingly nothing but guys looking to hook up and fuck one another.

You tell me that gay people aren’t WAY more promiscuous than straight people, and you’re telling nothing more than a lie. Obviously not EVERY gay person is that way, but if you honestly deny that it’s not a huge part of the gay community, then you’re walking around with your eyes closed.

236

[quote]forlife wrote:
You have no idea what you’re talking about. It’s amazing to me how people are so willing to buy into shallow stereotypes, and dismiss real people whose lives contradict those stereotypes, in order to confirm their preexisting ideas.

I’m not promiscuous, and I have many gay friends who are also not promiscuous. We live in established neighborhoods, pay taxes, raise kids, and go to soccer games just like everyone else. I realize nothing I say will convince you, but I’m still going to call out blatant misinformation like this when I see it.[/quote]

Raising kids and going to soccer games. I find this positively frightening.

It’s not misinfomation sir. Just because it doesn’t represent YOU and YOUR friends, doesn’t mean it’s not a mainstay of your “culture”. Furthermore, promiscuity among men is simply a reflection of our hormonal disposition as I have pointed out prior. You sir, and your friends, are a “study of a dozen” and not representative of what occurs in the gay community as a whole. In fact, if the gay community as a whole behaved in the manner you allege, then we wouldn’t have this thread at all would we? HIV/AIDS would not be a gay issue at all. Correct? But it is. And gay men ARE promiscuous.

Please leave raising children to heterosexuals. It’s difficult enough to be a kid without having a gay dad and his “partner” for parents. You guys are off your frikkin rockers.

237

[quote]counterfeitsoda wrote:
You might not be promiscuous, but TONS of gay guys are. I know it for a fact from gay friends, and from looking at the obvious. In Philadelphia near me, there are two gay bathhouses, with the sole purpose of having sex with random men.

Gay guys are what ruined a park that I used to go fishing at, a guy straight up asked me if I wanted to get my dick sucked while I was out there, I got his licence plate number, and talked to a park ranger, come to find out that gay guys have been going there to have sex with each other. Rehoboth beach near me has a large gay population, and local business around there have had problems with gay guys destroying property, by cutting holes into stalls to make gloryholes.

Oh, and check out sites like craigslist, look at the personals sections. Start at the top and go down, what do you see? Women seeking men: Almost exclusively looking for dates, company, and such. Men seeking women: Mostly the same, looking for dates, and relationships.

Now go onto the other two, Women for women: Seems to be about 50/50, split between women looking for company and friendship, and those just looking for sex. Now on to Men for Men: Overwhelmingly nothing but guys looking to hook up and fuck one another.

You tell me that gay people aren’t WAY more promiscuous than straight people, and you’re telling nothing more than a lie. Obviously not EVERY gay person is that way, but if you honestly deny that it’s not a huge part of the gay community, then you’re walking around with your eyes closed.[/quote]

I moved into my home on a dead end street about 9 years ago. Toward the end of the road, there is a dock near a stream that I understand was a gay trysting spot. Not anymore. Not on MY watch. I have a young child. If I see you out in public, on my street, putting something in your mouth off in the bushes or worse, you’re both going in the stream - perhaps unconscious.

Pretty random right? No. Because although I have a concern about gays hooking up down there in the woods, I do not share the same concern about heteros hooking up down there. Will a hetero go looking for a trysting spot on the fly? Sure, I’ve done my fair share when in need. But will a CERTAIN spot become known among heteros for RANDOM hook ups? NO!

Like I said, you gays spread disease like rats spread the plague.

238

[quote]counterfeitsoda wrote:
You tell me that gay people aren’t WAY more promiscuous than straight people, and you’re telling nothing more than a lie. Obviously not EVERY gay person is that way, but if you honestly deny that it’s not a huge part of the gay community, then you’re walking around with your eyes closed.[/quote]

Men have a higher sex drive than women, so it’s not surprising that gay men tend to be more promiscuous on average than heterosexual men. I’m not disagreeing with that.

My point is that gays can be equally responsible, committed, and healthy compared to heterosexuals. There is nothing endemic to the sexual orientation itself that requires people to live sexually irresponsible lives. Millions of gay men and lesbians are living proof of this fact.

So stop drawing incorrect generalizations by blaming the sexual orientation itself. There is nothing about being gay that is inherently harmful.

239

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
You sir, and your friends, are a “study of a dozen” and not representative of what occurs in the gay community as a whole. [/quote]

Then save your criticism for promiscuous gays, and apply the same criticism to promiscuous heterosexuals. I’m glad that you agree with me that sexual responsibility is important, and I’m sure that you are practicing this in your own life.

Keep your advice to yourself, I love being a dad and am a damn good one. Research, and my own experience, show that children with gay parents are equally healthy on all psychological measures compared with children raised by straight parents. Save your breath, I know you’re going to tell me how this is IMPOSSIBLE, but the medical and mental health organizations say you’re wrong.

240

[quote]forlife wrote:
counterfeitsoda wrote:
You tell me that gay people aren’t WAY more promiscuous than straight people, and you’re telling nothing more than a lie. Obviously not EVERY gay person is that way, but if you honestly deny that it’s not a huge part of the gay community, then you’re walking around with your eyes closed.

Men have a higher sex drive than women, so it’s not surprising that gay men tend to be more promiscuous on average than heterosexual men. I’m not disagreeing with that.

My point is that gays can be equally responsible, committed, and healthy compared to heterosexuals. There is nothing endemic to the sexual orientation itself that requires people to live sexually irresponsible lives. Millions of gay men and lesbians are living proof of this fact.

So stop drawing incorrect generalizations by blaming the sexual orientation itself. There is nothing about being gay that is inherently harmful.[/quote]

YOU ARE WRONG. The homosexual men living responsible lives is the exception, NOT the rule. If it were the rule, HIV/AIDS would not be ravaging your “community”. The orientation IS to blame. For crying out loud, you come to a site where they saturate you with education about testosterone, and yet you deny its existence in risk taking behavior and sexuality. T + T equals disaster. T = E has a natural balance. PERIOD.