The Left Using Homophobic Remarks?

[quote]forlife wrote:
P.S. You’re not a homophobe because you want to help those in the gay community that are living sexually irresponsible lives. I’ve said repeatedly that I share your concerns, and strongly support responsible sex practices, irrespective of a person’s sexuality.

The reasons you’re a homophobe are that:

  1. You are fundamentally opposed to homosexuality, and find it repulsive and morally reprehensible even when people are living sexually responsible lives[/quote]

Most people do, and you are not going to suddenly drum it out of their heads by name calling. In addition to that “homophobe” is misnomer “phobe” meaning phobia, or fear - as I am not afraid of homosexuals. So the next time you reach into your politically correct bag of hate terms try to come up with something more accurate.

Or sweeping conclusions about all alcoholics. Or sweeping conclusions about all males under the age of 26. Yet insurance companies do just that. They look at statistics and draw conclusions. We do that in the real non-politically correct world. If your point is every gay is not unhealthy, I agree, but so what? As a group you’re THE most unhealthy.

Black = genetic

Homosexual unproven to be genetic

No special rights for you - end of story.

No I don’t ignore them I embrace them. It’s your fellow homosexual men who ignores them. They all say to practice the sort of sex that does not kill you. YEt, your brethern practice unsafe sex at an alarming rate. Do you spend this much time on gay sites warning your brothers to be more discreet? Or is it just those of us who want to lower the rate of disease that you are concerned with? You are all hung up on rights when you should be all hung up on health.

[quote]5) You encourage gays to undergo reparative therapy, despite the documented failure rate and high risk of depression, drug abuse, and suicidal thoughts following this therapy (maybe you’ve changed your tune on this one, but I doubt it)
[/quote]

Not true, many have undergone reparative therapy and have stopped having sex with other men. How do you account for those who have successfully left the homosexual lifestyle? I can post dramatic accounts, many of them. Just because you tried and failed doesn’t mean that everyone who tries fails. You really are a bigot aren’t you? It has to be your way or your mind closes and fast! How about some can change and some can’t? How about those who are motivated to change can and those who are not can’t? How about we don’t know why some change and some don’t? No, no we can’t say any of that, the politically correct guru’s would be all upset. And I know why.

You never answered my question. You got all huffy because I mentiond the many times you have said gays should try to change their orientation. Have you changed your tune on that, or not?

Believe it or not, there are a lot of heterosexuals who don’t share your revulsion and moral aversion toward homosexuality. And unlike you, they actually support equal civil rights for gays. They don’t use shit logic like you have in this thread, claiming that gay men really are equal, because they can marry women just like heterosexual men can. What a crock.

Again, the point on the Netherlands is that you have yet to demonstrate that it is bigot free. Unless they’ve eradicated homophobia, you can’t claim that societal rejection has no effect on depression and suicidal thoughts.

[quote]forlife wrote:

Again, the point on the Netherlands is that you have yet to demonstrate that it is bigot free. Unless they’ve eradicated homophobia, you can’t claim that societal rejection has no effect on depression and suicidal thoughts. [/quote]

You know, when the average gay man needs a bigot free world to not get depressed maybe there is something wrong with him.

Hey, I was just listing the reasons you’re a homophobe. You don’t have to justify yourself to me.

The majority opinion on gays is changing, but even if that weren’t the case, since when does majority opinion excuse bigotry? At one point in our history, the majority discriminated against racial minorities, but that doesn’t make their behavior any less bigoted.

The problem with your sweeping conclusions is that you use them to justify your blanket condemnation of all gays, whether we live sexually responsible lives or not. Your aversion to homosexuality is sweeping, and you incorrectly generalize stats to justify that aversion.

Thanks for proving my point on not supporting civil rights for gays. At least you admit that one.

Tell me which of the conclusions by the major health organizations you actually support. They unanimously agree that people don’t choose their orientation, that they can’t change it, and that attempting to do so can be harmful. They advocate social acceptance of gays, noting the damage that discrimination has caused. On every one of these conclusions, you are flat out wrong, yet you continue to claim that you know more than they do because you claim they are all dishonest and corrupt.

Orion, I agree. Not that it excuses bigotry or negates the damage it does, but you can’t let your happiness depend on the approval of others.

[quote]forlife wrote:
Hey, I was just listing the reasons you’re a homophobe. [/quote]

Now it’s my turn to list the reasons you’re “realityophobe.”

1-You ignore statistics which counter most of your blather.

2-When you are forced to comment on the facts you quickly change the subject.

3-I’ve said repeatedly that, while I don’t agree with the homosexual lifestyle I at least don’t want to see people suffer from disease. To this you reply that I’m homophobic.

4-You have yet to comment on at least 4 posts where I’ve laid out a plethora of facts.

5-You are so focused on trying to make sure that everyone embraces homosexuality that you miss the big picture. That is, instead of trying to accomplish the impossible, you should rather try to push safe sex to your brethren.

6-You’ve repeatedly compared homosexuality to racial equality, even when black leaders in this country have said repeatedly that there is no comparison.

There you go again. Whether you know it or not black people have gone through hundreds of years of persecution just because they have different skin color. To actually put homosexuals on this level is insulting to every black person and in my eyes quite disgusting. As I’ve said repeated black = genetic. Homosexuality has not been proven to be such. And in fact there are theories which claim (with good evidence) that it is nurture more than nature.

And you see a homophobe behind every doorway, around every corner and in every sentence stated which opposes the slightest thing that you say. It must be awful to be you at times.

But not special rights - you better think again before you pat yourself on the back to many times.

[quote]forlife wrote:
Orion, I agree. Not that it excuses bigotry or negates the damage it does, but you can’t let your happiness depend on the approval of others.[/quote]

Happiness? You have to be kidding, but of course, like your other nonsense you typed that with a straight face (no pun intended).

How does becoming infected with HIV, STD’s, anal cancer, upping drug usage, increasing your chance of depression, anxiety and suicide increase your happiness?

Here’s what you are afraid to admit; homosexuals have a real problem reigning in their sexual desire. As I’ve shown you most homosexual men have had, or continue to have sex with women as well as men. And statistics also show that even in a “Comitted” relationship most homosexual men have at least an additional 3-5 partners outside of that relationship.

They have a real problem which will not be solved by guys like you enabling them to do whatever it is feels good at the moment.

As I’ve said before people like you are doing more harm to your own brethren than any heterosexual ever could. As if they need an additional dose of pain.

Happiness? The irony of this is that they call themselves “gay”. The single most unhappy and unhealthy group in the US calls themselves “gay”.

(shaking head)

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

Again, the point on the Netherlands is that you have yet to demonstrate that it is bigot free. Unless they’ve eradicated homophobia, you can’t claim that societal rejection has no effect on depression and suicidal thoughts. [/quote]

You know, when the average gay man needs a bigot free world to not get depressed maybe there is something wrong with him.
[/quote]

Exactly, a good psychologist would tell you not to give anyone the power to make you feel inferior. Homosexuals took that to mean the opposite apparently. They seem to look for others to blame for their own unhappiness when it is in their complete control. It is (literally) right under their noses.

You continue to misrepresent my position, placing yourself on a moral pedestal of your own making, in the name of helping gays live healthier lives.

I have never once “ignored” the CDC stats, and in fact have agreed over (and over, and over) again that gays should live sexually responsible lives. The same goes for heterosexuals, by the way.

Your straw man argument that I disagree with the CDC is blatantly false, and people can see right through it.

Let me type it again, in all caps this time:

I 100% SUPPORT AND STRONGLY ADVOCATE ALL PEOPLE, GAY OR STRAIGHT, LIVING SEXUALLY RESPONSIBLE LIVES.

My issue with you is that you have an inherent blanket repulsion toward homosexuality, even for gays that live sexually responsible lives.

More importantly, you recommend that gays try to change their orientation, a course of action which accomplishes the opposite of what you claim to promote. Gays trying to change their orientation DOUBLE their risk of depression, drug/alcohol abuse, and suicidal thoughts. By telling them to change rather than embrace who they are, you are HURTING people.

Get it?

You cite sham research (notably NOT from the CDC) that gays can change their orientation, while stubbornly ignoring the opposite conclusions of every major health organization based on 30 years of scientific research. These organizations, without exception, say you are dead wrong. Your house of cards argument depends on disproving their expertise and professional integrity, yet you have totally failed to do so. At best, you harp on the APA, while ignoring that every other major medical and mental health organization similarly says you are wrong.

Bottom line: you are hurting gays by trying to turn them straight, not helping them. Adocate sexual responsibility, but get over your deep seated repulsion and realize that gays will be HEALTHIER by embracing who they are.

On bullying, one would think the recent media attention might wake people up. There has been a string of teen gay suicides as a direct result of bullying these kids experienced from classmates.

I’m seeing a blame the victim mentality from some of the people in this thread. You can tell the parents of 13 year old Seth Walsh that he shouldn’t have cared about the discrimination and rejection he received from his classmates due to being gay, instead of hanging himself. Somehow, I don’t think they would agree with you. Kids are very vulnerable to peer rejection, and typically don’t develop the capacity to not care what others think until adulthood.

Homophobia does exist in our country. This thread is dripping with it. Things are slowly changing, but in the meantime bigots and bullies need to be called out, and hopefully educated on the consequences of their actions.

[quote]forlife wrote:

Homophobia does exist in our country. This thread is dripping with it. Things are slowly changing, but in the meantime bigots and bullies need to be called out, and hopefully educated on the consequences of their actions. [/quote]

By your definition every male that is not a homosexual is homophobic. As I have never (even one time) met another heterosexual male who actually embraced the homosexual lifestyle. Think about it, if they did they would probably not be heterosexual.

But you’re going to do your part right here on this bodybuilding forum right? Ha ha, you’re the most self-centered person I think I’ve ever debated on this or any topic. All you care about is you forliar. You’ve not done, or said one thing that will help your brethren. But you did at least open orion’s eyes. Of course not the way you had hoped. Just as I told you long ago; you do far more harm than good with your pointless rants. I have the facts to back up my position and am confident that the roughly 65% (plus or minus) who agree with me will grow even larger with time. And people like you who try to spread lies will be further shown as the lying sack of shit that you are. Political correctness has a chance of dying and when it does truth will once again prevail - That would be a bad day for you, but a good one for most gays.

Anyway, this is fun but I don’t have time to argue with homosexuals on the Internet tonight. My wife and I are meeting another couple for dinner and I have to get ready.

Keep posting you are doing irreparable harm to your position.

:slight_smile:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

Homophobia does exist in our country. This thread is dripping with it. Things are slowly changing, but in the meantime bigots and bullies need to be called out, and hopefully educated on the consequences of their actions. [/quote]

By your definition every male that is not a homosexual is homophobic. As I have never (even one time) met another heterosexual male who actually embraced the homosexual lifestyle. Think about it, if they did they would probably not be heterosexual.

[/quote]

Either you define “homosexual lifestyle” as having sex with men, well, duh.

If you define it as doing drugs and fuckingaround like crazy, well, you probably do not travel in those circles, but they most definitely exist.

Go back to the reasons I listed that you are a homophobe. You don’t have to personally find people of the same gender attractive to support equal rights for those that do.

If I’m a “lying sack of shit” for repeating what every major health organization has concluded, you have a strange definition of truth.

If you really cared about the health of gays like you claim, you wouldn’t push them into reparative therapy, which research proves has an abysmal “success rate”’ and which DOUBLES the risk of depression, drug/alcohol abuse, and suicidal thoughts. You are advocating a course of action that hurts people, in the pretense of helping them. Who is the lying sack of shit here?

I would love for you to meet the parents of some of the gay teens that committed suicide due to the rejection, shame, and outright lies that people like you promote. You’re repulsed by homosexuality, your holy book says to kill gays on sight, and you try to turn people straight based on your misguided beliefs, which every major health organization says are WRONG.

[quote]forlife wrote:
If I’m a “lying sack of shit” [/quote]

You’re a lying sack of shit for denying the truth. And for twisting the facts. And, when not lying, you always find a way to avoid what you’re not lying or twisting.

For example what do you have to say about this:

"The Health Risks of Gay Sex

Introduction

Back in the early 1980s, while working at Beth Israel Hospital, I vividly remember seeing healthy young gay men dying of a mysterious disease that researchers only later identified as a sexually transmitted disease â?? AIDS. Over the years, I’ve seen many patients with that diagnosis die.

As a physician, it is my duty to assess behaviors for their impact on health and wellbeing. When something is beneficial, such as exercise, good nutrition, or adequate sleep, it is my duty to recommend it. Likewise, when something is harmful, such as smoking, overeating, alcohol or drug abuse, it is my duty to discourage it.

When sexual activity is practiced outside of marriage, the consequences can be quite serious. Without question, sexual promiscuity frequently spreads diseases, from trivial to serious to deadly. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 65 million Americans have an incurable sexually transmitted disease (STD).1

There are differences between men and women in the consequences of same-sex activity. But most importantly, the consequences of homosexual activity are distinct from the consequences of heterosexual activity. As a physician, it is my duty to inform patients of the health risks of gay sex, and to discourage them from indulging in harmful behavior.

back

I. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL AND HETEROSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS

The current media portrayal of gay and lesbian relationships is that they are as healthy, stable and loving as heterosexual marriages â?? or even more so.2 Medical associations are promoting somewhat similar messages.3 Nevertheless, there are at least five major areas of differences between gay and heterosexual relationships, each with specific medical consequences. Those differences include:

A. Levels of promiscuity
B. Physical health
C. Mental health
D. Life span
E. Definition of “monogamy”

back

A. Promiscuity

Gay author Gabriel Rotello notes the perspective of many gays that "Gay liberation was founded . . . on a ‘sexual brotherhood of promiscuity,’ and any abandonment of that promiscuity would amount to a ‘communal betrayal of gargantuan proportions.’"4 Rotello’s perception of gay promiscuity, which he criticizes, is consistent with survey results. A far-ranging study of homosexual men published in 1978 revealed that 75 percent of self-identified, white, gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250- 499; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners.5By 1984, after the AIDS epidemic had taken hold, homosexual men were reportedly curtailing promiscuity, but not by much. Instead of more than 6 partners per month in 1982, the average non-monogamous respondent in San Francisco reported having about 4 partners per month in 1984.6

In more recent years, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control has reported an upswing in promiscuity, at least among young homosexual men in San Francisco. From 1994 to 1997, the percentage of homosexual men reporting multiple partners and unprotected anal sex rose from 23.6 percent to 33.3 percent, with the largest increase among men under 25.7 Despite its continuing incurability, AIDS no longer seems to deter individuals from engaging in promiscuous gay sex.8

The data relating to gay promiscuity were obtained from self-identified gay men. Some advocates argue that the average would be lower if closeted homosexuals were included in the statistics.9 That is likely true, according to data obtained in a 2000 survey in Australia that tracked whether men who had sex with men were associated with the gay community. Men who were associated with the gay community were nearly four times as likely to have had more than 50 sex partners in the six months preceding the survey as men who were not associated with the gay community.10 This may imply that it is riskier to be “out” than “closeted.” Adopting a gay identity may create more pressure to be promiscuous and to be so with a cohort of other more promiscuous partners.

Excessive sexual promiscuity results in serious medical consequences â?? indeed, it is a recipe for transmitting disease and generating an epidemic.11 The HIV/AIDS epidemic has remained a predominantly gay issue in the U.S. primarily because of the greater degree of promiscuity among gays.12 A study based upon statistics from 1986 through 1990 estimated that 20-year-old gay men had a 50 percent chance of becoming HIV positive by age 55.13 As of June 2001, nearly 64 percent of men with AIDS were men who have had sex with men.14 Syphilis is also more common among gay men. The San Francisco Public Health Department recently reported that syphilis among the city’s gay and bisexual men was at epidemic levels. According to the San Francisco Chronicle:

"Experts believe syphilis is on the rise among gay and bisexual men because they are engaging in unprotected sex with multiple partners, many of whom they met in anonymous situations such as sex clubs, adult bookstores, meetings through the Internet and in bathhouses. The new data will show that in the 93 cases involving gay and bisexual men this year, the group reported having 1,225 sexual partners."15
A study done in Baltimore and reported in the Archives of Internal Medicine found that gay men contracted syphilis at three to four times the rate of heterosexuals.16 Promiscuity is the factor most responsible for the extreme rates of these and other Sexually Transmitted Diseases cited below, many of which result in a shortened life span for men who have sex with men.

Promiscuity among lesbians is less extreme, but it is still higher than among heterosexual women. Overall, women tend to have fewer sex partners than men. But there is a surprising finding about lesbian promiscuity in the literature. Australian investigators reported that lesbian women were 4.5 times more likely to have had more than 50 lifetime male partners than heterosexual women (9 percent of lesbians versus 2 percent of heterosexual women); and 93 percent of women who identified themselves as lesbian reported a history of sex with men.17 Other studies similarly show that 75-90 percent of women who have sex with women have also had sex with men.18

back

B. Physical Health

Unhealthy sexual behaviors occur among both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Yet the medical and social science evidence indicate that homosexual behavior is uniformly unhealthy. Although both male and female homosexual practices lead to increases in Sexually Transmitted Diseases, the practices and diseases are sufficiently different that they merit separate discussion.

  1. Male Homosexual Behavior

Men having sex with other men leads to greater health risks than men having sex with women19 not only because of promiscuity but also because of the nature of sex among men. A British researcher summarizes the danger as follows:

"Male homosexual behaviour is not simply either ‘active’ or ‘passive,’ since penile-anal, mouth-penile, and hand-anal sexual contact is usual for both partners, and mouth-anal contact is not infrequent. . . . Mouth-anal contact is the reason for the relatively high incidence of diseases caused by bowel pathogens in male homosexuals. Trauma may encourage the entry of micro-organisms and thus lead to primary syphilitic lesions occurring in the anogenital area. . . . In addition to sodomy, trauma may be caused by foreign bodies, including stimulators of various kinds, penile adornments, and prostheses."20
Although the specific activities addressed below may be practiced by heterosexuals at times, homosexual men engage in these activities to a far greater extent.21

back

a. Anal-genital

Anal intercourse is the sine qua non of sex for many gay men.22 Yet human physiology makes it clear that the body was not designed to accommodate this activity. The rectum is significantly different from the vagina with regard to suitability for penetration by a penis. The vagina has natural lubricants and is supported by a network of muscles. It is composed of a mucus membrane with a multi-layer stratified squamous epithelium that allows it to endure friction without damage and to resist the immunological actions caused by semen and sperm. In comparison, the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that comprise an “exit-only” passage. With repeated trauma, friction and stretching, the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a tight seal. Consequently, anal intercourse leads to leakage of fecal material that can easily become chronic.

The potential for injury is exacerbated by the fact that the intestine has only a single layer of cells separating it from highly vascular tissue, that is, blood. Therefore, any organisms that are introduced into the rectum have a much easier time establishing a foothold for infection than they would in a vagina. The single layer tissue cannot withstand the friction associated with penile penetration, resulting in traumas that expose both participants to blood, organisms in feces, and a mixing of bodily fluids.

Furthermore, ejaculate has components that are immunosuppressive. In the course of ordinary reproductive physiology, this allows the sperm to evade the immune defenses of the female. Rectal insemination of rabbits has shown that sperm impaired the immune defenses of the recipient.23 Semen may have a similar impact on humans.24

The end result is that the fragility of the anus and rectum, along with the immunosuppressive effect of ejaculate, make anal-genital intercourse a most efficient manner of transmitting HIV and other infections. The list of diseases found with extraordinary frequency among male homosexual practitioners as a result of anal intercourse is alarming:

Anal Cancer
Chlamydia trachomatis
Cryptosporidium
Giardia lamblia
Herpes simplex virus
Human immunodeficiency virus
Human papilloma virus
Isospora belli
Microsporidia
Gonorrhea
Viral hepatitis types B & C
Syphilis25"

And this…

Sex Diseases in Many Gay Men Go Unfound, Experts Say

By LAWRENCE K. ALTMAN

Published: New York Times March 13, 2008

Many cases of sexually transmitted diseases are escaping detection because gay men are not being tested each year as advised, federal health officials said Wednesday. And if the men do show up, the officials added, many doctors and clinics are not following screening recommendations.

But more cases could be detected if the government approved new ways to use a type of DNA test that is already on the market, the officials and researchers said in a news conference at a scientific meeting in Chicago.

They said the test, used in new ways, could detect twice as many cases of gonorrhea and chlamydia as standard tests.

Those diseases, along with syphilis, whose incidence continues to increase, are â??a major threat to gay and bisexual menâ??s health,â?? said Dr. Kevin Fenton, a top official of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Fenton noted that such diseases increased the risk of contracting and spreading H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS.

Screening for sexually transmitted infections is a critical part of medical care for sexually active men. The C.D.C. recommends annual blood tests for H.I.V. and syphilis, and other tests for gonorrhea and chlamydia.

Gonorrhea tests should include specimens from all potential sites of exposure â?? throat, genitals and rectum â?? because identifying and treating all such infections is essential for preventing spread of the disease.

â??There are circumstances where the recommendations are not being followed,â?? said Dr. John M. Douglas Jr., who directs the Division of S.T.D. Prevention at the disease control centers.

Dr. Douglas added that some doctors did not recognize the problem while others seemed to think â??that maybe the guidelines do not apply to my patient population.â??

Supporting evidence came from C.D.C. researchers, who reported three studies at the meeting showing that the screening rates were too low.

Dr. Kristen Mahleâ??s study found that among gay men who showed no symptoms of gonorrhea, more than a third of rectal infections with the disease, and more than a quarter of throat infections, were missed because many were not tested at all anatomical sites of recent exposure.

Dr. Eric Taiâ??s study surveyed non-H.I.V.-positive gay men in 15 cities from 2003 to 2005 and found that only 39 percent reported having been tested for syphilis, and only 36 percent for gonorrhea.

Dr. Karen Hoover found that while doctors tested 82 percent of H.I.V.-positive gay men in eight cities for syphilis in 2005, they tested 22 percent or fewer for gonorrhea and chlamydia.

One problem is that public health departments that run sexual disease clinics do not have adequate staffs and budgets to do comprehensive testing.

â??Letâ??s be honest, resources are a challenge at a federal, state and local level,â?? said Dr. Douglas, of the disease control centers. â??We are trying to be as innovative as we can with public health resources,â?? but â??we need help from others.â??

Another problem is that newer tests are not being used as much as they should be, Dr. Douglas said.

The DNA test that Dr. Douglas and others described as promising is called NAAT, for nucleic acid amplification test. It is generally more accurate and easier to use, and it can detect at least twice as many gonorrhea and chlamydia infections in the throat and rectum, according to studies by Dr. Julius Schachter of the University of California, San Francisco, and others. Moreover, it is faster than the traditional bacterial culture tests.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved three NAATs to screen for gonorrhea and chlamydia in the genitalia, but not the throat or rectum.

Dr. Schachterâ??s team, which included the San Francisco Department of Public Health, sought to determine whether the marketed NAATs were also effective in throat and rectal screening.

The C.D.C. is working with the food and drug agency and with test manufacturers to gather, analyze and coordinate the submission of data for federal approval of NAATs for use in the throat and rectum.

The San Francisco Department of Public Health has conducted a study that met F.D.A. requirements for such use. Now the health department uses NAATs to test for chlamydia and gonorrhea at all three anatomic sites.

And this…

he increase has been particularly accentuated in men who have sex with men (MSM), who account for a disproportionately large burden of gonorrhea in several countries, including Sweden, Denmark, and England.2-5 This increase has been seen both in HIV-negative and HIV-positive MSM, and similar trends have been reported from the United States.

Sexually Transmitted Diseases:
March 2007 - Volume 34 - Issue 3 - pp 174-179
doi: 10.1097/01.olq.0000230442.13532.c7
Article
The Epidemiology of Gonorrhea Among Men Who Have Sex With Men in Stockholm, Sweden, 1990-2004
Berglund, Torsten BSc, PhD��; Asikainen, Tommi MSc, MPhil§; Grützmeier, Sven MD�; Rudén, Ann-Kerstin MD, PhD�; Wretlind, Bengt MD, PhD¶; Sandström, Eric MD, PhD�
Free Access
Article Outline
Author Information
From the *Department of Epidemiology, Swedish Institute for Infectious Disease Control, Solna, Sweden; the �Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; the �Department of Venhälsan, Karolinska University Hospital at Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden; the §Division of Mathematical Statistics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden; the �Department of Dermatology, Karolinska Institutet at Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden; and the ¶Department of Clinical Bacteriology, Division of Laboratory Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden

The authors thank Betina Colucci and colleagues at the Department of Clinical Bacteriology, Karolinska University Hospital, Huddinge, for their cooperation; Bernt Lund at the Department of Venhälsan, Karolinska University Hospital at Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, for his assistance with data collection; Lisbeth Henriksson at the County Medical Officer of Communicable Disease Control in Stockholm for assistance with surveillance data; and Ian Fraser for reviewing the English text.

Correspondence: Torsten Berglund, BSc, PhD, Unit for Communicable Disease Prevention and Control, The National Board of Health and Welfare, SE-106 30 Stockholm, Sweden. E-mail: torsten.berglund@socialstyrelsen.se

Received for publication February 23, 2006, and accepted May 18, 2006.
Abstract
Objectives: The objectives of this study were to analyze the spread of gonorrhea in men who have sex with men (MSM) in Stockholm regarding serovars, HIV status, and site of infection and to compare the distribution of serovars among HIV-positive and HIV-negative MSM.

Study Design: Clinical and epidemiologic data were collected for all MSM diagnosed with gonorrhea in 1990 to 2004 at a clinic primarily serving MSM. Neisseria gonorrhoeae strains were serotyped.

Results: A total of 1,039 isolates from 840 gonorrhea episodes in 721 patients were included. A sharp increase was seen during the 2000s. Ten percent of the cases were HIV-positive. The proportion of pharyngeal infections increased significantly (P <0.001) from 15% to 38% during the last 7 years. A great variation of serovars (n = 66) was observed, but only 5 were present >10 years. There was a significant difference (P = 0.001) in distribution of serovars correlated to HIV status.

Conclusion: Gonorrhea is a marker for HIV infection in MSM, but the increase in gonorrhea may be associated with genital-oral sexual practice rather than with high-risk sexual practice.

MOST COUNTRIES IN WESTERN EUROPE noted a decline in the incidence of gonorrhea during the 1970s. The decline accelerated during the 1980s and remained in most of these countries during the early 1990s.1 However, an increase in the incidence of gonorrhea, as well as in other sexual transmitted infections (STIs), has been reported in many Western European countries during the second half of the 1990s and the beginning of the 2000s.2 The increase has been particularly accentuated in men who have sex with men (MSM), who account for a disproportionately large burden of gonorrhea in several countries, including Sweden, Denmark, and England.2-5 This increase has been seen both in HIV-negative and HIV-positive MSM, and similar trends have been reported from the United States.6
An association between infection with HIV and other STIs has been reported in several epidemiologic studies.7 Also, individuals with gonorrhea have been found to have an increased risk of being infected with HIV.8,9 Furthermore, a rise in gonorrhea cases, especially rectal infections, could be a sign of increased risk of HIV transmission as a result of changes in sexual behavior. Increased sexual risk behavior in MSM has been reported from the late 1990s and onward in several studies in western Europe, the United States, and Australia.10
With better knowledge of the epidemiology of gonorrhea, efforts against spread can be more effective. By characterization of Neisseria gonorrhoeae strains, valuable information about gonococcal strains circulating in the community and in specific core groups can be provided. Classification of N. gonorrhoeae isolates into serovars with coagglutination is a cheap and simple tool that previously has been used to analyze microepidemics of gonorrhea and the dynamics of spread in a given population.11
The aim of the study was to perform a long-term study to analyze the distribution of gonococci in MSM in Stockholm regarding serovars, HIV status, and site of infection to better understand the gonorrhea epidemiology in this endemic core group. A second aim was to compare the distribution of serovars among HIV-positive to HIV-negative MSM.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Materials and Methods
Patients
The patients in this long-term study were all diagnosed with gonorrhea at the Department of Venhälsan of the Södersjukhuset in Stockholm, Sweden. Venhälsan has existed since 1982 and is the only clinic in Stockholm that serves primarily MSM. The clinic offers free counseling, testing, and treatment for STIs, including HIV. The number of patient visits for a new consultation in the counseling and testing service is approximately 3,000 per year (2004).
Tests for HIV, syphilis, hepatitis A and B are routinely offered. In case of symptoms, known exposure, risk for exposure, or at patient request, tests for gonorrhea, chlamydia, and enteric amoebae are also performed. If diagnosed with an STI, partner notification is mandatory for patients with one of the STIs included in the Swedish Communicable Diseases Act, i.e., gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, and HIV. The diagnosed cases are also anonymously reported to the County Medical Officer of Communicable Disease Control (CMO) and to the Swedish Institute for Infectious Disease Control (SMI). All patients treated for gonorrhea were routinely followed up with a test of cure 7 days after the treatment was completed. Patients who have been diagnosed with HIV are followed up and treated in the same clinic. Approximately 550 HIV-positive patients (2004) are registered and followed clinically with visits at least every fourth month. Gonococcal cultures are obtained routinely from these patients when first diagnosed with HIV and later if there has been a risk of exposure or if symptoms are suggestive of gonococcal disease.
The cases included in this study were all MSM. They represented 76% (840 of 1,103) of all MSM reported with gonorrhea to the CMO in Stockholm County during the study period 1990 to 2004. The majority of gonorrhea cases in Sweden are reported from Stockholm County, which accounted for 51% of all gonorrhea cases in Sweden 2004 and 65% of all reported cases in MSM the same year.

Back to Top | Article Outline
HIV Serology
HIV was diagnosed by at least 2 different enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay tests and confirmed by an immunoblot. Repeat specimens were obtained and subjected to the same procedure.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Isolation of Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Serovar Determination
Swabs were obtained routinely from the urethra, rectum, and pharynx for gonococcal culture and sent to the Department of Clinical Microbiology, Karolinska University Hospital in Huddinge and arrived at the laboratory within 12 hours. Before April 1995, charcoaled swabs and Stuart’s modified transport medium were used, and after this date, regular cotton swabs were transported in a charcoaled transport medium (Copan Diagnostics Inc., Corona, CA).
Gonococci were cultured on chocolate agar with and without antibiotics (1990-1995: vancomycin, colistin, nystatin, and trimethoprim; 1996-2004: polymyxin B and vancomycin) and diagnosed by colony morphology, positive oxidase test, Gram-negative diplococci in the microscope, typical sugar oxidation test, and confirmed by coagglutination (Phadebact Monoclonal GC-kit; Boule, Stockholm, Sweden). Serovar determination of gonococcal strains was carried out as previously described with a standard set of coagglutination reagents (Phadebact GC serovar test; Boule).12

Back to Top | Article Outline
Statistical Methods
The Ï?2 test or Fisher exact test was used to calculate the P values. Confidence intervals for the proportions of HIV-positive cases were calculated by assuming a binomial distribution. To compare the mean number of cases in different periods, a 2-sample Wilcoxon sign test was applied. The analyses were made with R version 2.2.1.13

Back to Top | Article Outline
Results
A total of 1,058 N. gonorrhoeae-positive isolates were obtained during the study period. Nineteen isolates from 16 patients were excluded because of possible treatment failure (patients still positive with the same serovars and antibiograms in test of cure and denying any sexual contacts after diagnosis). These 16 cases were diagnosed in 9 different years and represented 9 different serovars. There was no indication that these few episodes of possible treatment failures may have contributed to further spread or persistence. After exclusion of those 19 isolates, 1,039 isolates from 840 gonorrhea episodes in 721 patients remained and were included in the study. As stated subsequently, each diagnosed gonorrhea episode is called a case.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Reinfections
Thirteen percent (93 patients) of all patients were reinfected in the same year (36 patients) or another year during the study period, i.e., they were again positive for N. gonorrhoeae the same year or another year after completing treatment and a negative test of cure or they were positive for N. gonorrhoeae with another serovar or antibiogram in test of cure. The majority of the 93 reinfected patients were only infected twice during the study period, but 14 patients were infected 3 times, 4 patients 4 times, and one patient 6 times. These reinfected patients were counted as new cases in the study. In total, 840 cases were included, representing 721 patients.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Site of Infection
The distribution of N. gonorrhoeae-positive isolates (n = 1,039) from different sites in all 840 cases was: 48% urethra, 42% rectum, and 34% pharynx. In 181 cases (22%), strains were isolated from more than one anatomic site at the same time; 164 cases (20%) in 2 sites and 17 cases (2%) in 3 sites. Of all 840 cases, 34% were only positive in isolates from the urethra, 27% in isolates from the rectum, and 17% in isolates from the pharynx.
There was a change over time in the distribution of site of infection. The proportion of cases with positive isolates from the pharynx increased significantly (P <0.001) from 15% in the first period (1990-1997) to 38% of the cases during the second period (1998-2004). During the same time periods, the proportion of cases with positive isolates from the urethra decreased from 54% to 47%, and the proportion of cases with positive isolates from the rectum from 46% to 41%, but neither of these decreases was statistically significant.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Annual Variations
The number of gonorrhea cases increased more than 10 times during the study period. The number of cases during the first half (1990-1997) varied from 13 to 26 cases per year (mean 15). During the second half of the study period (1998-2004), the cases varied from 36 to 158 (mean, 102 per year). This was a significant increase (P = 0.0018) of the mean number of cases during the second part of the study.

Back to Top | Article Outline
HIV Serostatus
The number of HIV-positive men diagnosed with gonorrhea increased during the 15-year period, from 3 cases in 1990 to 16 cases in 2004. However, the proportion of HIV-positive men among all the gonorrhea cases decreased from as much as 50% (95% confidence interval [CI], 21-79) in 1991 to 11% (95% CI, 6-17) in 2004 (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1
Image ToolsA total of 88 (10%) of all gonorrhea cases in the study were in HIV-positive patients. Many of them, 22 of 88 (25%), were diagnosed with HIV and gonorrhea at the same time. This proportion increased significantly (P = 0.038; Fisher exact test) from 11% during the first half of the period (1990-1997) to 32% during the second half of the period (1998-2004).
Sixteen of 22 cases (73%) diagnosed with HIV and gonorrhea at the same time were positive for gonorrhea in the rectum, which was a significantly higher proportion (P = 0.029; Fisher exact test) than among the other cases that were HIV-negative or previously diagnosed with HIV infection. Among the 66 cases with a previously diagnosed HIV infection, there was a significantly higher proportion (61%; P = 0.015; Fisher exact test) that were positive for gonorrhea in the urethra than among the other cases.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Distribution of Serovars
When analyzing the distribution of serovars, 2 isolates from 2 patients were excluded because the serovars were not determined. Also, 178 isolates from patients diagnosed at one time with multiple identical serovars from different sites were excluded. In 17 cases, the patients were diagnosed at one time with 2 different serovars in isolates from different sites, and in 2 cases, the patients were diagnosed with 3 different serovars from different sites. In total, 859 isolates from 838 cases were included in this part of the analysis.
A total of 66 serovars was observed during the 15-year period. Serogroup WII/III (i.e., B serovars) was the most frequent with 61 different serovars, whereas serogroup WI (i.e., A serovars) was only represented with 4 different serovars representing 9 cases. There was also one patient diagnosed with a recombinant serovar Av/Bx.
No serovar was present throughout all 15 years, but 5 serovars were present during a period of 11 to 13 years. These 5 serovars represented 62% of all 859 isolates. Almost half (32 of 66) of the serovars were only present during 1 single year and most of these (27 of 32) were only diagnosed in one case each. The number of different serovars per year varied from 4 to 23 per year (mean, 13 per year). The number of new serovars that were introduced (not seen before in this study) varied from zero to 7 serovars per year (mean, 4 serovars per year). For the annual distribution and number of serovars, see Table 1.
Table 1
Image Tools
Back to Top | Article Outline
Distribution of Serovars Among HIV-Positive and -Negative Patients
Each year, one to 10 different serovars were isolated from HIV-positive patients. A total of 27 serovars were found in HIV-positive patients during the study. Fifteen (56%) of these 27 serovars were present among HIV-positive patients 1 year only and 8 of the 27 serovars (30%) were found in HIV-positive patients only (Table 2).
Table 2
Image ToolsThere was a significant difference (P = 0.001) between HIV-positive patients and HIV-negative patients when comparing the serovars. During the 15-year period, the HIV-positive patients were more likely than -negative patients to be infected with a unique or rare serovar than with a serovar that occurred in 5 or more cases. However, this significant difference was only present during the first period (1990-1997) (P = 0.045) and not during the later part of the study (1998-2004) (P = 0.127).

Back to Top | Article Outline
Discussion
The decline in gonorrhea during the AIDS era in 1980s and early 1990s has been assumed to indicate changed sexual behavior with a reduced risk of HIV transmission. An increase in gonorrhea may therefore indicate that guidelines for safer sex have become more difficult to adhere to as the public awareness of the risk for HIV has waned during a post-AIDS era after introduction of highly active antiretroviral therapy in the Western industrialized countries. The significant increase of gonorrhea in MSM in Stockholm during the later years of this 15-year study is in concordance with the trends in many other Western countries.2,6 Incidence data from the SMI) shows an increase of gonorrhea in the Swedish population between 1996 and 2004 from 2.4 to 6.3 cases per 100,000 inhabitants. The reported cases in MSM in Sweden have increased more than 7 times during the same period, and this group accounted for 44% of all cases in 2004 compared with only 15% in 1996.
The use of gonococcal serovars in studying the epidemiology of gonorrhea is a well-established, cost-effective, fast, and easily performed method, but it has also been remarked that the discrimination is suboptimal, interpretation of the results may occasionally be subjective, and there are problems concerning reproducibility.14 The serovar determination system seemed reliable in our study in that only 19 of 181 patients diagnosed with isolates from more than one location at the same time were infected with isolates of different serovars. This is also in concordance with earlier studies.15 Fifteen of the 19 patients had serovars that differed in more than one reaction with the monoclonal reagents. Thus, it is likely that most of these 19 patients actually were infected by multiple strains, which sometimes occurs and has been shown with more discriminating methods in other studies.16
Compared with a previous series of isolates, 6 of the 10 most common serovars in our study belonged to the 10 most common serovars in the general population in Stockholm in 1988 to 1989.17 Two (Brpyut and Brpyust) of the 4 serovars found to be associated with homosexual transmission in men in Edinburgh in Scotland in 1986 to 1990 were also among the 4 most common in our study.18
Surveillance data from the CMO in Stockholm show that the majority of the gonorrhea cases in MSM were infected in Sweden and not abroad and that the proportion of endemic cases in MSM had increased from 64% in 1997 to 77% in 2004. The variation of serovars in this study and the continuing introduction of new serovars during the whole 15-year period indicates an ongoing importation of N. gonorrhoeae strains and, in most cases, rapid elimination in line with previously published experiences in Sweden.3,19 Thus, almost half of the serovars in the study were only present 1 year and only caused one or a few cases each. However, by extending the study period to 15 years, we could demonstrate that several serovars really became endemic in the MSM group. Four predominant serovars (Bpyust, Brpyust, Brpyut, and Bropyst) contributed to more than 100 cases each over more than a decade. The reasons for this variation in serovars over time and greater success for some serovars in becoming endemic are not clear. The existence of serovar-specific immunity has previously been suggested but not found evident by others.20 The 4 most common persistent serovars were present almost all years of the study, but only during the last 5 years did they occur in clusters of 20 to 40 cases per year, indicating possible outbreaks of microepidemics caused by these serovars.
However, it has been shown by more discriminating molecular typing methods that one serovar can represent several different genetic clones.16,21 In a previous study, including the one most common serovar in MSM in Sweden in 1998 to 1999, it was shown that 79% of the domestic cases of this serovar belonged to one genetic clone when analyzed with pulsed-field gel electrophoresis.16 Although serotyping is important as a primary epidemiologic marker to detect possible endemic spread in specific core groups or geographic areas, it is a limitation in our study that neither a complementary typing method nor the antimicrobial susceptibility patterns were used to examine the hetero-/homogeneity within the serovars. Genetic typing methods with high discrimination are needed to confirm transmission chains in sexual networks, especially in core groups in which partner notification can be difficult to perform as a result of anonymous partners, multiple concurrent sexual contacts, or other complicating factors.
In our study, 10% of all cases were seen in HIV-positive men of whom one of 4 was not previously diagnosed with HIV. A high proportion of HIV infection in patients with gonorrhea has been reported in several previous studies.4,9 This suggests that gonorrhea diagnosis in MSM is an important risk marker for HIV, i.e., HIV test should always be offered to these patients if not already known to be HIV-positive. We also found that the proportion of gonorrhea cases that were diagnosed with previously not known HIV infection increased significantly during the second half of the study, whereas the significant difference seen when comparing the distribution of serovars among HIV-positive and HIV-negative cases was not present during the second half of the study. Furthermore, there was a significantly higher proportion of rectal gonorrhea in cases diagnosed with a previously unknown HIV infection compared with the other cases. It has also been shown by others that rectal gonorrhea is independently associated with risk of HIV seroconversion.22 These findings could indicate an increased risk of HIV spread in MSM in Stockholm during the later years of the study with consideration of gonorrhea as a cofactor of HIV transmission.
In contrast to the increasing incidence of gonorrhea, the rates of reported HIV diagnosis in MSM have not increased in Stockholm or in Sweden during the 15-year period according to surveillance data from the Swedish Institute for Infectious Disease Control and the CMO in Stockholm. The finding that the proportion of pharyngeal infections increased significantly during the second part of the study period whereas the proportion of anorectal infections decreased indicates that the increase of gonorrhea in our study rather was associated with unprotected oral sex-with a lesser risk of HIV transmission-than with an increase of high-risk sexual behavior. Similar findings in MSM cohorts have recently been reported from The Netherlands and Germany.23,24 A rise in the incidence of gonorrhea in MSM may not necessarily indicate an increase in high-risk sexual behavior for HIV transmission. It could also reflect changes in sexual networks and an increase in the number of sexual partners that may also affect the incidence of gonorrhea in specific core groups.
In our study, 34% of all the cases positive for N. gonorrhoeae were infected in the pharynx and as many as 17% of all cases were only positive in isolates from this site. This is similar to other studies and it is an important finding in consideration of screening, treatment, and test of cure, because pharyngeal as well as anorectal infections are more difficult to treat and the choice of antibiotics is crucial.25 Furthermore, pharyngeal gonorrhea is most often asymptomatic or subclinical. In a screening study at Venhälsan of 440 MSM seeking consecutive HIV and STI testing, only 13% of the patients infected with gonorrhea in the pharynx and 25% of the patients with rectal infection had symptoms, whereas 86% with urethral infection had symptoms (unpublished data). This underlines that it is not acceptable to only use urine or urethral specimens and DNA amplification methods as diagnostic method in screening MSM. Almost half of the cases (44%) in our study would have been missed in that case.

Go back and read what I’ve said over and over again, genius.

I agree that gays should live sexually responsible lives.

Now how about addressing my points on pushing people into reparative therapy, which doubles their risk of depression, drug abuse, and suicidal thoughts?

Still think you know better than every major Health organization what will actually make gays healthy?

And this…

Gay and Bisexual Men

Gay and bisexual men â?? referred to in CDC surveillance systems as men who have sex with men (MSM)1 â?? of all races continue to be the risk group most severely affected by HIV. Additionally, this is the only risk group in the U.S. in which the annual number of new HIV infections is increasing. There is an urgent need to expand access to proven HIV prevention interventions for gay and bisexual men, as well as to develop new approaches to fight HIV in this population.
A Snapshot
t MSM account for nearly half of the more than one million people living with HIV in the U.S. (48%, or an estimated 532,000 total persons).
t MSM account for more than half of all new HIV infections in the U.S. each year (53%, or an estimated 28,700 infections).
t While CDC estimates that MSM account for just 4 percent of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the U.S. is more than 44 times that of other men (range: 522â??989 per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men).
t MSM are the only risk group in the U.S. in which new HIV infections are increasing. While new infections have declined among both heterosexuals and injection drug users, the annual number of new HIV infections among MSM has been steadily increasing since the early 1990s.

I have much, much more from many other credible sources but first I want you to lie, twist and avoid your way out of this material before I post anymore.