What part of this do you not understand? I’ll keep repeating it until you acknowledge it:
I AGREE THAT PEOPLE SHOULD LIVE SEXUALLY RESPONSIBLE LIVES, IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR ORIENTATION.
You’re barking up the wrong tree, idiot. We agree that people should be sexually responsible.
What we don’t agree on is that people need to change their orientation in order to be sexually responsible.
Get it yet?
[quote]forlife wrote:
What part of this do you not understand?[/quote]
I read on one of the threads when you were trying to pass off your pc speech as solid reasoning that you had your masters degree. I thought then, either this guy is intentionally playing dumb (thus twisting the truth etc), or he’s not playing and is dumb.
Which is it? I’m not sure if you’re a liar, (as you were dubbed forliar several years ago), or an idiot (hmm that would make you fordumb). So on the chance that you’re just dumb and not a liar I will spell this out to you:
WHAT DO YOU SUGGEST BE DONE ABOUT THE HORRENDOUS AMOUNT OF PHYSICAL AND EMOTIONAL PAIN THAT HOMOSEXUALS CAUSE THEMSELVES AND OTHERS?
That is the debate, nothing more. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?
I can’t make it any clearer.
I’ve answered that question over and over again. Apparently you’re not listening, so I’ll try again.
I believe the answer is twofold:
People should be educated on the negative consequences of irresponsible sexual behavior, and encouraged to live healthy lives
Instead of trying to change their orientation, which the major health organizations agree is not only highly improbable, but can cause significant damage, people should embrace who they are
You agree with me on point 1.
You disagree with me (and with the major health organizations) on point 2.
Clear enough for you?
[quote]forlife wrote:
I’ve answered that question over and over again. Apparently you’re not listening, so I’ll try again.
I believe the answer is twofold:
That’s the PC answer and doesn’t work. Want to see some statistics on the money that San Fransico spent a few years back? They were going to lower the incidence of HIV and STD’s, they were determined and spent millions. The rates of both actually went up!
You’re kidding right? How does embracing who you are lower the rate of disease? Many are embracing who they are in every back alley, bus stop, hotel room and every other place that will hold at least two people. How is that preventing the spread of such serious diseases?
Come on stop the pc answers. You have to be smarter than this.
I don’t agree with you on either because neither will lower the rates of physical and emotional pain that homosexuals put themselves and others through.
You don’t really have any answers do you? You’re just a mouth piece for the politically correct. I guess I knew this all along. You don’t really care enough to think out of the box.
[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.
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.
[/quote]
I’m curious as to why this sites moderators would allow such tripe like this post to exist for more than 30 seconds.
ZEB…
I find it very hard to believe that you have a wife or a meaningful relationship with a female. After all, 65% of homophobia that comes from conservative christians–and I calculate you have a 85% chance of being one–stems from insecurities with the male/female relationship. Could this mean you are gay ZEB? Look at Ted Haggard, or 99.9% of the evangelicals in congress. It’s science ZEB, don’t argue with it, I can post figures all day… Look, here’s one o-[–<
Anyway, the essential flaw of your argument is this: You’ve claimed to have proven that A: Homosexuals tend to be more promiscuous. B: That promiscuity and forms of homosexual sex contribute to the spread of diseases. C: That these facts make homosexuality inherently unhealthy.
Your problem is with C. Even if you could conclusively prove all tenets of the first two (and you won’t because homosexuals act differently across time and cultures), those ideas would NEVER prove C. You completely throw out the window the possibility of a responsible Homosexual just as a racist would throw out the possibility of a good black person. You are as prejudicial as they come.
I thought the constant stat spamming that you’ve done in this thread was intended to educate people on the importance of making sexually responsible choices.
Apparently, I gave you too much credit.
So what is it, Zeb? If your purpose isn’t education, what is your recommended solution for the pain that a portion of the gay population inflicts on itself? What solution are you actually suggesting?
I’ve told you repeatedly why embracing who you are improves health outcomes for gays. Remember those stats showing that trying to change your orientation DOUBLES your risk of depression, drug/alcohol abuse, and suicidal thoughts? Don’t you think it might be good to cut those negative outcomes by half simply by embracing who you are?
You know, there’s a reason every major health organization tells gays not to try changing their orientation…they understand that doing so is DAMAGING.
Then again, I don’t think you much care what the professional organizations think. Your religious beliefs trump everything else. Why don’t you just stone gays to death and be done with it? It’s required by your holy book, after all.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I’ve told you repeatedly why embracing who you are improves health outcomes for gays.[/quote]
That’s more politically correct nonsense. Embracing who you are does not stop you from hooking up in a reckless fashion with 28 different partners per year.
And your politically correct atheism is steering your entire life. YOU are the one who has no compassion for your own brethren. Are all atheists like that? I’m hoping it’s just you. You are also the one who ignores the latest statistics from the largest health organizations in the world. I’m still waiting for you to come up with a reason why STD’s and HIV (among many other diseases) are as high as they ever were in the Netherlands where homosexuals are allowed to “be who they are.” Come on forliar tell us, why are the health statistics so bleak in a region where gays are accepted? Could it be (gasp) that acceptance has nothing to do with homosexual men being promiscuous? Can your politically correct pro homosexual mind grasp such a thought?
You’re a politically correct tool forlife, a chump. All you’re good for is to stand-up and tout the pc first line of defense. You’re good for a chuckle now and then. You certainly have nothing serious or new to add to this debate. And you have never, and will never help the gay population with your backwards attitude.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
I’ve told you repeatedly why embracing who you are improves health outcomes for gays.[/quote]
That’s more politically correct nonsense. Embracing who you are does not stop you from hooking up in a reckless fashion with 28 different partners per year.
And your politically correct atheism is steering your entire life. YOU are the one who has no compassion for your own brethren. Are all atheists like that? I’m hoping it’s just you. You are also the one who ignores the latest statistics from the largest health organizations in the world. I’m still waiting for you to come up with a reason why STD’s and HIV (among many other diseases) are as high as they ever were in the Netherlands where homosexuals are allowed to “be who they are.” Come on forliar tell us, why are the health statistics so bleak in a region where gays are accepted? Could it be (gasp) that acceptance has nothing to do with homosexual men being promiscuous? Can your politically correct pro homosexual mind grasp such a thought?
You’re a politically correct tool forlife, a chump. All you’re good for is to stand-up and tout the pc first line of defense. You’re good for a chuckle now and then. You certainly have nothing serious or new to add to this debate. And you have never, and will never help the gay population with your backwards attitude.
[/quote]
Zeb, the Big Book is quite clear on how gay men should be “dealt with”.
You know what to do.
I swear, you’re like a wind-up monkey that continually clashes its cymbals to drown out everything outside its own little world.
You keep accusing me of not answering your questions when in fact I have directly addressed them, over and over again. Just because you don’t like the answers doesn’t justify lying about my addressing them.
Let’s try again. As I pointed out several times, passing a gay marriage law in the Netherlands doesn’t magically eradicate homophobia and the damage it does to people. Do you think if gay marriage were allowed in your state that you would suddenly stop demonizing gays and trying to turn them straight? Answer the question this time. I’ve asked it several times and you keep ignoring it.
The burden of proof is on you to show that every single one of the major health organizations is wrong. Sorry, but spamming crap about the APA over and over again says nothing about the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and every other major mental health and medical organization.
Until you have proof beyond your religious beliefs, you’re a total fail.
Dustin: I’ve asked the same question. His holy book says gays should be stoned to death, so why is he posing as a compassionate champion of the poor gays?
I guess he’s one of those smorgasbord Christians who cherry pick what they want to believe, instead of taking their holy book literally. It’s ok to ignore the commandment to kill gays. The holy book gets that one wrong, but the holy book is right on homosexuality being a sin…because Zeb chooses to believe that part of it.
All those scientists and medical professionals couldn’t possibly know what they’re talking about, right?!?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Dustin: I’ve asked the same question. His holy book says gays should be stoned to death, so why is he posing as a compassionate champion of the poor gays?
I guess he’s one of those smorgasbord Christians who cherry pick what they want to believe, instead of taking their holy book literally. It’s ok to ignore the commandment to kill gays. The holy book gets that one wrong, but the holy book is right on homosexuality being a sin…because Zeb chooses to believe that part of it.
All those scientists and medical professionals couldn’t possibly know what they’re talking about, right?!?[/quote]
Why are you even bothering to argue with this douche whose sources, statistics, and attitude are so out of whack. Every article he’s posted is clearly biased, I like this segment the best,
“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.”
In the context of the article, clearly this “physician” is linking homosexual sex to be as unhealthy as smoking or drug abuse! This reads like something from the 50’s.
“When sexual activity is practiced outside of marriage, the consequences can be quite serious. Without question, sexual promiscuity frequently spreads diseases”
Really doc? Sex outside of marriage is a serious problem and is automatically assumed to be promiscuous sex? Why does this remind me of the sort of thing people talked about 60 years ago? Hello ZEB, there is such a thing as a condom now you jackass…
In short ZEB is a nut. His opinions are not in line with ANY prominent leaders or organizations in the medical or psychological fields. My guess is this article in question is very very old.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Dustin: I’ve asked the same question. His holy book says gays should be stoned to death, so why is he posing as a compassionate champion of the poor gays?
I guess he’s one of those smorgasbord Christians who cherry pick what they want to believe, instead of taking their holy book literally. It’s ok to ignore the commandment to kill gays. The holy book gets that one wrong, but the holy book is right on homosexuality being a sin…because Zeb chooses to believe that part of it.
All those scientists and medical professionals couldn’t possibly know what they’re talking about, right?!?[/quote]
I think you are a “Chistaphobe.” LOL
You can’t even carry on an intelligent conversation regarding the facts and figures of why your brethren are dying and suffering at a higher rate than any other group in the US (and maybe the world) without mentioning religion every other post.
It’s amazing how all of your politically correct crap arguments crumble when faced with the facts.
You literally have no logical comeback. It’s fun watching you trying to grasp at the same old comebacks which are totally unrelated to the facts of the argument.
So you have a masters degree huh? I hope mom can get her money back.
I don’t need a “logical comeback” to your stats about the negative effects of irresponsible sexual behavior, because I agree with you. People should live sexually responsible lives, irrespective of their sexual orientation.
Of course, people are free to do what they want, as long as they don’t hurt anyone else. However, I think people cross the line when they spread sexual diseases, especially HIV, without proactively informing their partners. In my opinion, knowingly doing so should be a prosecutable crime.
I wish you were similarly open minded to the stats I’ve shared regarding the horrible consequences of trying to change one’s orientation. Research has shown that doing so DOUBLES the risk of depression, drug/alcohol abuse, and suicidal thoughts. That, too, is a FACT that people should consider when making responsible choices for their lives.
Every major medical and mental health organization agrees with me on this point. I hope people will seriously consider their conclusions:
[quote]In 2001, Dr. Ariel Shidlo and Dr. Michael Schroeder found that 88% of participants in reparative therapy failed to achieve a sustained change in their sexual behavior and 3% reported changing their orientation to heterosexual. The remainder reported either losing all sexual drive or struggling to remain celibate. Schroeder said many of the participants who failed felt a sense of shame. Many had gone through reparative therapy programs over the course of many years. Of the 8 respondents (out of a sample of 202) who reported a change in sexual orientation, 7 were employed in paid or unpaid roles as ‘ex-gay’ counsellors or group leaders, something which has led many to question whether even this small ‘success’ rate is in fact reliable.
Schroeder and Shidlo found that the large majority of respondents reported being left in a poor mental and emotional state after the therapy, and that rates of depression, anxiety, alcohol and drug abuse and suicidal feelings were roughly doubled in those who underwent reparative therapy.[/quote]
According to the National Association of Social Workers:
American Psychiatric Association President, Rodrigo Munoz:
The Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Promote Sexual Health and Responsible Sexual Behavior (2001) asserts that homosexuality is not “a reversible lifestyle choice.”
The American Academy of Pediatrics in its policy statement on Homosexuality and Adolescence states:
According to the American Medical Association:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Of course, people are free to do what they want, as long as they don’t hurt anyone else.[/quote]
That is exactly what they are doing, hurting everyone else. It’s like saying I think it’s fine for people to point loaded guns at people and pull the trigger as long as no one is harmed. You were right when you said you had no logical comeback to my arguments.
And how many times do I have to point out to you in study after study being accepted has nothing to do with long-term mental health. We see that from our Netherlands example.
(Yawn) Here you go:
"Summary: Recent studies show homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from a psychiatric problems than do heterosexuals. We see higher rates of suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse. This paper highlights some new and significant considerations that reflect on the question of those mental illnesses and on their possible sources.
The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its diagnostic list of mental disorders in 1973, despite substantial protest (see Socarides, 1995). The A.P.A. was strongly motivated by the desire to reduce the effects of social oppression. However, one effect of the A.P.A.‘s action was to add psychiatric authority to gay activists’ insistence that homosexuals as a group are as healthy as heterosexuals. This has discouraged publication of research that suggests there may, in fact, be psychiatric problems associated with homosexuality.
In a review of the literature, Gonsiorek (1982) argued there was no data showing mental differences between gays and straights–or if there was any, it could be attributed to social stigma. Similarly, Ross (1988) in a cross-cultural study, found most gays were in the normal psychological range. However some papers did give hints of psychiatric differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals. One study (Riess, 1980) used the MMPI, that venerable and well-validated psychological scale, and found that homosexuals showed definite “personal and emotional oversensitivity.”
In 1991 the absolute equality of homosexuality and heterosexuality was strongly defended in a paper called “The Empirical Basis for the Demise of the Mental Illness Model” (Gonsiorek, 1991). But not until 1992 was homosexuality dropped from the psychiatric manual used by other nations–the International Classification of Diseases (King and Bartlett, 1999)–so it appears the rest of the world doubted the APA 1973 decision for nearly two decades.
Is homosexuality as healthy as heterosexuality? To answer that question, what is needed are representative samples of homosexual people which study their mental health, unlike the volunteer samples which have, in the past, selected out any disturbed or gender-atypical subjects (such as in the well-known study by Evelyn Hooker). And fortunately, such representative surveys have lately become available.
New Studies Suggest Higher Level of Pathology
One important and carefully conducted study found suicide attempts among homosexuals were six times greater than the average (Remafedi et al. 1998).
Then, more recently, in the Archives of General Psychiatry-- an established and well-respected journal–three papers appeared with extensive accompanying commentary (Fergusson et al. 1999, Herrell et al. 1999, Sandfort et al. 2001, and e.g. Bailey 1999). J. Michael Bailey included a commentary on the above research; Bailey, it should be noted, conducted many of the muchpublicized “gay twin studies” which were used by gay advocates as support for the “born that way” theory. Neil Whitehead, Ph.D.
Bailey said, “These studies contain arguably the best published data on the association between homosexuality and psychopathology, and both converge on the same unhappy conclusion: homosexual people are at substantially higher risk for some forms of emotional problems, including suicidality, major depression, and anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, and nicotine dependence…The strength of the new studies is their degree of control.”
The first study was on male twins who had served in Vietnam (Herrell et al. 1999). It concluded that on average, male homosexuals were 5.1 times more likely to exhibit suicide- related behavior or thoughts than their heterosexual counterparts. Some of this factor of 5.1 was associated with depression and substance abuse, which might or might not be related to the homosexuality. (When these two problems were factored out, the factor of 5 decreased to 2.5; still somewhat significant.) The authors believed there was an independent factor related to suicidality which was probably closely associated with some features of homosexuality itself.
The second study (Fergusson et al. 1999) followed a large New Zealand group from birth to their early twenties. The “birth cohort” method of subject selection is especially reliable and free from most of the biases which bedevil surveys. This study showed a significantly higher occurrence of depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance abuse and thoughts about suicide, amongst those who were homosexually active.
The third paper was a Netherlands study (Sandfort et al. 2001) which again showed a higher level of mental-health problems among homosexuals, but remarkably, subjects with HIV infection was not any more likely than those without HIV infection to suffer from mental health problems. People who are HIV-positive should at least be expected to be anxious or depressed!
The paper thus concluded that HIV infection is not a cause of mental health problems–but that stigmatization from society was likely the cause–even in the Netherlands, where alternative lifestyles are more widely accepted than in most other countries. That interpretation of the data is quite unconvincing.
The commentaries on those studies brought up three interesting issues.
First, there is now clear evidence that mental health problems are indeed associated with homosexuality. This supports those who opposed the APA actions in 1973. However, the present papers do not answer the question; is homosexuality itself pathological?
The papers do show that since only a minority of a nonclinical sample of homosexuals has any diagnosable mental problems (at least by present diagnostic criteria), then most homosexuals are not mentally ill.
In New Zealand, for example, lesbians are about twice as likely to have sought help for mental problems as heterosexual women, but only about 35% of them over their lifespan did so, and never more than 50% (Anon 1995, Saphira and Glover, 2000, Welch et al. 2000) This corresponds with similar findings from the U.S.
Relationship Breakups Motivate Most
Suicide Attempts
Next, we ask–do the papers show that it is gay lifestyle factors, or society’s stigmatization, that are the motivators that lead a person to attempt suicide? Neither conclusion is inevitable. Still, Saghir and Robins (1978) examined reasons for suicide attempts among homosexuals and found that if the reasons for the attempt were connected with homosexuality, about 2/3 were due to breakups of relationships --not outside pressures from society.
Similarly, Bell and Weinberg (1981) also found the major reason for suicide attempts was the breakup of relationships. In second place, they said, was the inability to accept oneself. Since homosexuals have greater numbers of partners and breakups, compared with heterosexuals, and since longterm gay male relationships are rarely monagamous, it is hardly surprising if suicide attempts are proportionally greater. The median number of partners for homosexuals is four times higher than for heterosexuals (Whitehead and Whitehead 1999, calculated from Laumann et al 1994).
A good general rule of thumb is that suicide attempts are about three times higher for homosexuals. Could there be a connection between those two percentages?
Another factor in suicide attempts would be the compulsive or addictive elements in homosexuality (Pincu, 1989 ) which could lead to feelings of depression when the lifestyle is out of control (Seligman 1975). There are some, (estimates vary, but perhaps as many as 50% of young men today), who do not take consistent precautions against HIV (Valleroy et al., 2001) and who have considerable problems with sexual addiction and substance abuse addiction, and this of course would feed into suicide attempts.
The Effect of Social Stigma
Third, does pressure from society lead to mental health problems? Less, I believe, than one might imagine. The authors of the study done in The Netherlands were surprised to find so much mental illness in homosexual people in a country where tolerance of homosexuality is greater than in almost all other countries.
Another good comparison country is New Zealand, which is much more tolerant of homosexuality than is the United States. Legislation giving the movement special legal rights is powerful, consistently enforced throughout the country, and virtually never challenged. Despite this broad level of social tolerance, suicide attempts were common in a New Zealand study and occurred at about the same rate as in the U.S.
In his cross-cultural comparison of mental health in the Netherlands, Denmark and the U.S., Ross (1988) could find no significant differences between countries - i.e. the greater social hostility in the United States did not result in a higher level of psychiatric problems.
There are three other issues not covered in the Archives journal articles which are worthy of consideration. The first two involve DSM category diagnoses.
Promiscuity and Antisocial Personality
The promiscuous person–either heterosexual or homosexual --may in fact be more likely to be antisocial. It is worth noting here the comment of Rotello (1997), who is himself openly gay: “…the outlaw aspect of gay sexual culture, its transgressiveness, is seen by many men as one of its greatest attributes.”
Ellis et al. (1995) examined patients at an clinic which focused on genital and urological problems such as STD’s; he found 38% of the homosexual men seeking such services had antisocial personality disorder, as well as 28% of heterosexual men. Both levels were enormously higher than the 2% rate of antisocial personality disorder for the general population (which in turn, compares to the 50% rate for prison inmates) (Matthews 1997).
Perhaps the finding of a higher level of conduct disorder in the New Zealand study foreshadowed this finding of antisocial personality . Therapists, of course, are not very likely to see a large number of individuals who are antisocial because they are probably less likely to seek help.
Secondly, it was previously noted that 43% of a bulimic sample of men were homosexual or bisexual (Carlat et al. 1997), a rate about 15 times higher than the rate in the population in general–meaning homosexual men are probably disproportionately liable to this mental condition. This may be due to the very strong preoccupation with appearance and physique frequently found among male homosexuals.
Ideology of Sexual Liberation
A strong case can be made that the male homosexual lifestyle itself, in its most extreme form, is mentally disturbed. Remember that Rotello, a gay advocate, notes that “the outlaw aspect of gay sexual culture, its transgressiveness, is seen by many men as one of its greatest attributes.” Same-sex eroticism becomes for many, therefore, the central value of existence, and nothing else–not even life and health itself–is allowed to interfere with pursuit of this lifestyle. Homosexual promiscuity fuels the AIDS crisis in the West, but even that tragedy it is not allowed to interfere with sexual freedom.
And, according to Rotello, the idea of taking responsibility to avoid infecting others with the HIV virus is completely foreign to many groups trying to counter AIDS. The idea of protecting oneself is promoted, but protecting others is not mentioned in most official condom promotions (France in the '80s was an interesting exception). Bluntly, then, core gay behavior is both potentially fatal to others, and often suicidal.
Surely it should be considered “mentally disturbed” to risk losing one’s life for sexual liberation. This is surely among the most extreme risks practiced by any significant fraction of society. I have not found a higher risk of death accepted by any similar-sized population.
In conclusion, then, if we ask the question “Is mental illness inherent in the homosexual condition?” the answer would have to be “Further research–uncompromised by politics --should be carried out to honestly evaluate this issue.”
(PS thanks for giving me one more chance to get the truth out)
The burden of proof is on you to show that your “sources” are more credible, reputable, and qualified than the major medical and mental health organizations.
Your entire premise depends on proving that every single one of these health organizations (American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, etc.) is dishonest, unqualified, and corrupt.
Good luck with that.
[quote]forlife wrote:
The burden of proof is on you to show that your “sources” are more credible, reputable, and qualified than the major medical and mental health organizations.[/quote]
Here’s one more that is quite credible, and that you have not been able to refute for multiple pages:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf
"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).
MSM account for more than half of all new HIV infections in the U.S. each year (53%, or an estimated 28,700 infections).
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).
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."
Here is one more for you:
“The finding enables the calculation of HIV and syphilis rates for this risk group and suggests that rates of these sexually transmitted infections among men who have sex with men (MSM) are at least 40 times higher than among other men or women.”
There are many others, both in the US and other countries as well.
[quote]Your entire premise depends on proving that every single one of these health organizations (American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, etc.) is dishonest, unqualified, and corrupt.
Good luck with that.[/quote]
Actually everyone of those major medical groups agrees with the CDC and the many other medical organizations that I’ve quoted. Gay men are very sexually reckless. I don’t think there is anything more to say on that topic - I’m right my friend and you know it.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[/quote]
Actually everyone of those major medical groups agrees with the CDC and the many other medical organizations that I’ve quoted. Gay men are very sexually reckless. I don’t think there is anything more to say on that topic - I’m right my friend and you know it.
[/quote]
Statistically speaking, black people are poorer, less educated, and less healthy than whites (I shouldn’t have to site this for sources). Does that make it legitimate to assume that they are an inherently lazy, incompetent, and unhealthy people? Of course not: it’s simplistic thinking, it’s prejudicial, and highly flawed.
As you’ve said, statistically speaking homosexuals contract STD’s more frequently and will live less healthy lives because of it. Does that make it okay to label the entire population as sexually reckless?.. Fill in the blank please, __________________________________.
Or perhaps you’re a racist too?..
As a matter of fact forlife, I think it was you who said that gay men need to act more responsibly. The problem is that you have no idea on how to cause that to take place. We know education does not work, San Francisco tried it, gay men are aware of the risks and choose to go forward anyway.
Tell me, tell us all, what would you do to solve this problem? Name calling won’t do it.
Zeb, how does your CDC statistic have anything to do with the CONCLUSIONS I provided by the major health organizations?
Again, you haven’t provided an ounce of evidence that the major health organizations are wrong and the burden of proof is on you to do so.
It didn’t work in San Francisco, so education will never work under any conditions? Right.
But let’s say you’re right and it’s fruitless to educate gays on the negative consequences of irresponsible sexual behavior. If so, why the hell are you wasting your time trying to do just that?