I really dont care if my comments are incendiary as long as theyre true. Sometimes the truth hurts.
[quote]makkun wrote:
homophobia as an explicit risk factor for the spread of HIV, as it keeps people from addressing the topic seriously, but also that they never make causal relation, or recommendation not to engage in homosexual behaviour.
Makkun[/quote]
So if everyone went out and gave gays a big hug then HIV would disappear. Bullshit.
Read this article http://www.fumento.com/disease/aids2005.html and heres a quote from it:
So if vaginal intercourse can’t explain the awful African epidemic, what can? Surely it’s not homosexuality, since we’ve been told there is none in Africa. In fact, the practice has long been widespread.
For example, German anthropologist Kurt Falk reported in the 1920s that bisexuality was almost universal among the male populations of African tribes he studied. Medical records also show that African men who insist they’re straighter than the proverbial arrow often suffer transmissible anorectal diseases.
[quote]clip11 wrote:
Makkun, if a man is diagnosed with HIV and the CDC interviews them, that man couldve had sex with 1000 men, if he says he got it from a woman, theyll lump him in with the heterosexual category with out any investigation. The question is, why wont they investigate? Its because they know that theyll get an answer thats not politically correct. They dont want to know. Its really out of sight out of mind.
Thats why time and time again, heterosexual AIDS scares have proven to be frauds. In one of the articles I posted, if you read them, it mentioned one man that was an HIV patient that had to be interviewed four times before he admitted to having gay sex. And as we know, some men would rather swallow poison than admit to something like that, so it makes sense a lot of them would lie about how they got it.[/quote]
So would you have unprotected sex with an HIV positive woman?
[quote]clip11 wrote:
I really dont care if my comments are incendiary as long as theyre true. Sometimes the truth hurts.[/quote]
If they were rational, then people might care less, but so far you haven’t hit that one.
Someone already broke out the big purple crayons for you here, so I guess now it’s time to write this out with super duper clip sized even-a-fucking-retard-would-understand-what-I’m-saying crayons.
HIV is easier to transmit via anal sex than vaginal sex.
Gay people engage in more anal sex than straight people.
Therefor, gay people who engage in more anal sex tend to be more likely to get HIV.
BUT, straight people also have anal sex with other straight people.
AND, gay people can have anal sex without contracting HIV.
There is no inherent gay tendency to HIV as you seem to be trying to imply. The virus does not get in someone’s body and go “oh, they’re straight, not interested”.
Now, your whole point in starting this thread is to rile up anti-gay sentiment and get people to go “Oh, what a conspiracy. We need to do something about those awful gays!”
Since you are in the business of legislating morality under the guise of promoting public health, are you willing to accept the fact that behaviors that you engage in yourself would also be considered “high risk” and should be legislated against also?
16 year olds having sex tend to get pregnant more often than 16 year olds not having sex. It’s SCIENTIFIC FACT. Since teen pregnancies are unfortunate, we will go ahead and consider you an accomplice to the crime. Since it was premeditated, we’ve got you on conspiracy too.
Now, before you start slinging the typical idiotic Clippy ad hominems, I’ll have you know that I am straight, conservative, college educated, and happily involved in a heterosexual relationship. That should cover all of the bases, right?
Like I said, you need to take Occam’s Razor and cut your wrists.
Teen pregnancy vs hiv? Give me a baby anyday!
Clip, I’m interested in your answer to my question.
I’m a gay man in a committed, long term monogamous relationship. What about me being gay places me at any risk whatsoever of contracting HIV?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Clip, I’m interested in your answer to my question.
I’m a gay man in a committed, long term monogamous relationship. What about me being gay places me at any risk whatsoever of contracting HIV?[/quote]
Clip doesn’t answer questions that would highlight the irrationality of his posting.
[quote]clip11 wrote:
Ad Makkun i think youre one of the liberals who attacks anyone who doesnt share your point of view. So you attack me because you dont have any evidence of AIDS not being a gay disease, when theres mountains of evidence that it is. Did you bother to read any of the links i posted?
A homophobe is someone winning a battle with a liberal.[/quote]
So anyone that see’s how ignorant and ridiculous you are has to be a liberal?..interesting. Well not really…this makes sense coming from you.
I think he has a point,sideways as it might be. worldwide AIDS is a different story in this country. I was at Boston for Gay Pride day in 1991. This was for my sister’s graduation BTW. at the Boston Common there was a big rally of whiners demanding more money from the government for AIDS. I saw or heard no we better get our crap together speakers and control OUR behavior.
There was no call to responsibility, just blame on everyone but themselves. AIDS is predominantly a gay disease in this country, meaning a gay male is more likely to have it. and don’t forget those IV drug users. Both are bad habits, and AIDS is a bad habit disease. But back then it was George Bush’s fault, before that it’s Reagan’s fault.
Example, in 1992 i read an article about promiscuity that quoted a study. If you were promiscuous you had 5+ partners btw. The average male claimed 18, the average female claimed 9, and the average gay male claimed 120+. these numbers can explain why the gay population has a big responsibility spreading the disease. And I hav never seen any responsibility for this coming from the gay organizations.
Tom, I think you have a good point about taking responsibility for your actions. How would you answer my question? Do you agree that a gay man can live a perfectly healthy, happy life in a committed monogamous relationship?
[quote]clip11 wrote:
forlife wrote:
But that doesnt address the concern of HIV being a primarily gay disease, which is like the pink elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about. Did you know that it was once called the gay plague?[/quote]
I’m reading a book right now that talks about gays and aids during the initial outbreak years. It’s called “My Country”.
Gay people contracted aids easily back then because at the time no one saw a need for safe sex. It’s not like they were afraid of getting one another pregnant, so why bother with a condom? When the gay community started to be educated about the dangers of this, contraction rates went way down.
Aids is no longer viewed as the “gay plague”.
the vast majority of the gay community today has taken responsibility for preventing the spread of AIDS.
One only need look at the CDC’s own statistics to realize that homosexuals are responsible for the wide majority of HIV positive cases in the US. The mainstream media does not report this because their agenda to be politically correct out weighs their desire to report facts.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/resources/factsheets/msm.htm
[quote]forlife wrote:
Tom, I think you have a good point about taking responsibility for your actions. How would you answer my question? Do you agree that a gay man can live a perfectly healthy, happy life in a committed monogamous relationship?[/quote]
well, as happy as a straight man in a monogamous relationship 
[quote]forlife wrote:
Tom, I think you have a good point about taking responsibility for your actions. How would you answer my question? Do you agree that a gay man can live a perfectly healthy, happy life in a committed monogamous relationship?[/quote]
It’s certainly possible, but is it statistically ever done? NO.
I thought it was already proved that only gay people get AIDS. Didn’t any of you see that movie “And The Band Played On”? It explains everything in the first half-hour of the movie
I don’t know OPs history but I don’t really see a problem with his post and I think many of you are letting personal biases about the subject and perhaps about the OP himself cloud the discussion. Fact is, he came here not so much with his own opinion, but posted a reference and he apparently supports the conclusions of the source material. Why not debate the relative merits of the source material?
The subject of transmission certainly has its roots in cold hard science. For instance, yes the vagina is somewhat not a hospitable host for the virus and therefore, female to male vaginal transmission is rare. Conversely, due to micro-tearing and such during even vaginal sex, male to female transmission is more likely. Anal sex we all know is risky, no explanation required. Accordingly, it only makes sense that the fastest growing segment of so called heterosexual transmission cases are among women. Not exactly mind bending stuff.
What does bear closer examination is how does lifestyle affect potential transmission. I know it was once thought that the immune system of many gays was already under attack due to some lifestyle choices, like drugs, frequently drinking, etc. And, that semen in the rectum and thus transmitted into the blood may have had deleterious affect upon the immune system, thus compromising it. So, does one’s relative health play a role in the virus taking hold? Are there racial / genetic considerations that make one so called race more susceptible to the virus than others? The issues are multi-faceted in my opinion and far more complex than saying merely it’s a gay disease or it’s a matter of covering up your jimmy. That said, HIV remains, at least in this country, by and large, a disease of gays and minorities. We already know about gay transmission. But what about the higher rates of transmission among minorities - particularly black women? What are the social or scientific factors driving that group? Is there less a liklihood for that group to use protection v. another group? Is bisexuality among black men higher? Is there a genetic weakness allowing higher transmission rates? Is there a greater rate of permiscuity?
Anyway, interesting topic and in the OPs defense, I don’t think you will see a frank discussion of the many issues confronting this problem from mainstream sources like the CDS, et als. But damn, you guys are making this about OP and getting away from the topic. Quite frankly, I could care less if he wants to rough ride some 16 year old girl - as long as she’s not my relative. Arguing about it here, or about the OP in general, does not advance the topic.
I just skimmed thru the source materials posted by the OP. I can’t find much fault with it. Why doesn’t someone debate the relative merits of the source material?
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
I just skimmed thru the source materials posted by the OP. I can’t find much fault with it. Why doesn’t someone debate the relative merits of the source material?[/quote]
because it is impossible too. No one has done an in-depth study to prove it one way or the other. You have to go all the way back to 1988, to find a single study. And the people doing the study admit that there numbers were largely just guesses. what is the point of arguing something that has not been studied or been studied and released?
furthermore, the source material is trash. Just read it, its full of rumors and rubbish.
and no, the epidemiological studies from WHO are not in-depth studies. they dont account for local customs and practices as an example. You cant extrapolate data out of Africa and apply it to america, asia, europe or extrapolate from America and apply it to africa, europe, etc without accounting for the culture in the case of socially transmitted diseases. People seem to be doing a lot of that lately . . .