Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (CDC) , released a fact sheet, dtd. Sept. 2010, which, While it does little to support the idea of greater promiscuity among LGB's, it does, however, shed some light on what group is most severely affected by HIV. Gay and Bisexual men are referred to in the report, as MSM (Men who have Sex with Men). It may be of some interest.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (CDC) , released a fact sheet, dtd. Sept. 2010, which, While it does little to support the idea of greater promiscuity among LGB's, it does, however, shed some light on what group is most severely affected by HIV. Gay and Bisexual men are referred to in the report, as MSM (Men who have Sex with Men). It may be of some interest.
Penetrative intercourse, specifically, being a receptive partner in penetrative intercourse, is the most frequent means of transmission of HIV.
That's why lesbians (who are also homosexual), have such a low incidence of HIV, and why straight men, have such a low incidence that neither group made the chart.
It is important to remember, however, that we do not deny blacks the ability to marry, have sex or adopt children based on their higher per capita incidence of HIV infection.
AGAIN, we also send a prety mixed message to gay people if you criticize them for being promiscuous, and then tell them they don't deserve to enter into marriage and ostensible monogamy.
Penetrative intercourse, specifically, being a receptive partner in penetrative intercourse, is the most frequent means of transmission of HIV.
Dont you mean anal/intercourse? By penetrative, you would have to include heterosexual women into that group, however, at least according to the CDC chart estimating the number of new infections in 2006, the total number of newly infected men engaging in homosexual sex was around 28,700, while the total number of newly infected heterosexual women, (white,black,hispanic), combined, barely reaches 18,400. And, of those, we don't know how many were drug users, or prostitutes, which would make the totals pertaining to heterosexual women less representative of women in the U.S.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
It is important to remember, however, that we do not deny blacks the ability to marry, have sex or adopt children based on their higher per capita incidence of HIV infection.
True, but I don't believe anyone has actually attempted to argue against same-sex unions on that basis alone. The primary reasons many U.S. citizens are against same-sex unions, are related to religious adherence, or the general belief that homosexual sex itself, is unnatural. It doesn't help that homosexuality is still only explained theoretically by researchers, as a variation of human sexual orientation, or that while nearly half the nation opposes it, for the aforestated reasons, it is still forcefully hurled upon society.
These arguments combined, comprise the nation's resistance to homosexuality, and same-sex unions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
AGAIN, we also send a pretty mixed message to gay people if you criticize them for being promiscuous, and then tell them they don't deserve to enter into marriage and ostensible monogamy.
Again, promiscuity was an argument used in support of theories which might explain the high HIV incidence among homosexual men, it is not, however, a point of criticism when rejecting the idea of same-sex unions. It's really apples and oranges. Realistically, both conservatives and religious conservatives opposing homosexuality, believe it to be something other than what the homosexual community and researchers are claiming. Religious groups of course present alternate theories which are usually rejected as having been produced with biased intent. However, the attitudes of conservatives, who simply doubt popular claims regarding the origins of same-sex attraction, are not without justification. We must remember that facts have not been established beyond all doubt, and both Christians, and non-religious conservatives are well within their rights to question theoretical studies, as well as the actions of officials.
Regardless, it absolutely boggles the mind that some people cannot understand that it is not "homosexuality" that dictates promiscuity, but being MALE that is the key factor.
If women were open to or wanted sex as much as men, there would be no difference in average number of sex partners between the two groups.
WOMEN are the keepers of straight male chastity, and it's often NOT at their (men's) choosing!
Also, it's a bit odd that those who purport to be against gay promiscuity would simultaneousely be AGAINST gay marriage!! (marriage being a societally imposed institution that encourages monogamy against the nature of human beings!)
"Gays are promiscuous, and I also do not support gays settling down and committing to one another." Does that make any sense whatsoever?!
Nope, it makes no sense. They are criticizing gays for being promiscuous, and yet it's the anti-gays that push the gay population to destructive behavior and prevent them from trying to live a monogamous life.
Which leads further credence to my belief that a lot of anti-gays simply want gay people to cease existing, since you're in a lose lose situation if you're gay.
Its a bit of a poorly worded question. Of course there is a "political Agenda". They are a group of people who have opinions, like any other group of people, on political change and reform. Who does NOT have a political agenda these days?
The problem is not with them having a political agenda, but with how people paint that fact when they point out that they have a political agenda.
"Agenda" has become a kind of dirty word recently. It is a word that when people use it and then say NOTHING else, it is almost meant as an insult to the target.
So what people do is they come on to forums such as this, declare that homosexuals have an "agenda", say nothing else and then leave. Their hope is that saying they have an agenda somehow imparts an image of darkness, sordidness, underhand dealings and worse to the group in question.
Get it straight in your head. People form groups based on common interests and/or themes and often those groups want to see some kind of political reform. This is common. I have an agenda, you have an agenda, we all have agendas especially in the political sphere. Stop acting like having an "agenda" is some dirty perversion people should be ashamed about.
The question you have to ask yourself is not whether group X has an "agenda". Of course they do. The question is to ask WHAT those agendas are... and if implemented would they cause an overall change for good or for bad. If good then support them. If bad then resist them and explain exactly why you disagree with their aims.
But stop this canard of going around calling about the "gay political agenda" without spelling out what that means, simply because you hope that saying those three words suddenly makes gay people "wrong" somehow. It does not, it just makes the person who says them look under educated on the issues, and more than a little biased and phobic.
Agenda is not the dirty word people want it to be.
I'm happy to agree with you on this one, Nozz. Use of innuendo is out of control in the media. People want to be able to say things without actually having to say them. Everybody in the media does this.
Nope, it makes no sense. They are criticizing gays for being promiscuous, and yet it's the anti-gays that push the gay population to destructive behavior and prevent them from trying to live a monogamous life.
Which leads further credence to my belief that a lot of anti-gays simply want gay people to cease existing, since you're in a lose lose situation if you're gay.
But how is it in the best interest of gay people to be promiscuous? Especially with HIV/AIDS going around? I'm pleased to see GLBT couples getting married and settling down not just because of the public health thing, but because it's emotionally and spiritually healthier than promiscuity. It's what I would want for myself if I was gay.
Can we stick to the U.S., where knowledge and protection is widely available. HIV/AIDS is still overwhelmingly a gay disease, especially considering they're a small % of the population.
It's not a gay disease. The CDC skews the results in the US due to gays being the most consistently tracked group, meaning there is more data available for them.
Although awareness of HIV/AIDS in anemic throughout communities of the African diaspora, it is gay, bisexual and MSM who are more easily identified with having the virus because they have been and are continually tracked in CDC studies; thus, there is more data on these groups.
But the truth is this: while nearly 600,000 African Americans are living with HIV, and as many 30,000 newly infected each year, there is still within the black community one in five living with HIV and unaware of their infection; and, they are disproportionately heterosexuals.
It's not a gay disease. The CDC skews the results in the US due to gays being the most consistently tracked group, meaning there is more data available for them.
Although awareness of HIV/AIDS in anemic throughout communities of the African diaspora, it is gay, bisexual and MSM who are more easily identified with having the virus because they have been and are continually tracked in CDC studies; thus, there is more data on these groups.
But the truth is this: while nearly 600,000 African Americans are living with HIV, and as many 30,000 newly infected each year, there is still within the black community one in five living with HIV and unaware of their infection; and, they are disproportionately heterosexuals.
In the United States, HIV/AIDS is, as I stated, Overwhelmingly a gay disease. The estimated number of diagnoses of HIV infection in 2009 was 23,846 for male to male sex; 4,399 for male sex with women. And the male heterosexual cases are basically from sex with at-risk or infected women.
These CDC stats are based on reports from 40 states with confidential HIV infection reporting. I'm not convinced by the article claiming CDC numbers are skewed to overreport gay cases.
"While CDC estimates that MSM account for just 4% of the US male population aged 13 and older, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the US is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Use of innuendo is out of control in the media. People want to be able to say things without actually having to say them. Everybody in the media does this.
